These principles, based on Title VII (1964 Civil Rights Act) which prohibits sex-based discrimination in employment, imply that a violation of Title IX could be established if:

The initiator was an employee or agent of the institution;

The initiator was in a position to condition the academic position,
success, or climate of the victim;

The sexual harassment involved a victim or victims of only one sex;
and,

The institution did not provide prompt remedial and or corrective
action once it had actual or constructive knowledge that an act
or acts of sexual harassment had taken place. (Title IX requires
institutions to maintain grievance procedures to allow for prompt
resolution of complaints relating to sex discrimination. The lack
of such procedures to provide speedy and just resolution of sexual
harassment complaints could be considered a violation of Title IX.)

Sexual harassment of a student by other students may also trigger institutional liability if:

0

The act or acts interfere with the learning environment;

0

They are directed at students of only one sex; and

The institution takes no remedial action or corrective action despite having actual or constructive knowledge of sexual harassment.

What Can Institutions Do?

As a result of the increased visibility of sexual harassment, a few schools have established procedures to deal with it. The most effective systems appear to be those which:

0

Include widely publicized prohibitions of sexual harassment;

0 Increase awareness among faculty, other professionals, and students;

Have well defined and widely publicized avenues of complaint;

Are capable of tailoring sanctions to the nature of the incidents;

Recognize the inherently suspect nature of any sexual relationship
between students and education professionals; and

Utilize systems for the collection of evidence and the speedy
evaluation of complaints that do not pit students directly against
faculty in tests of credibility.

The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, is pleased to have the opportunity to enter for the record our statement on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace on which Senator Hatch convened hearings April 21, 1981. AFGE is the largest union representing public employees in the Federal and District of Columbia governments and we represent some 700,000 workers in units of exclusive recognition.

We point with pride to the role that we and the AFL-CIO have played in the passage of federal civil rights legislation. We are pleased that in the past few years there has been growing recognition in the Congress and among the public that discrimination involves matters pertaining to gender, as well as the issues of race or religion. But we also believe that until employers in the private and public sector take effective and immediate steps to remove the last vestiges of such discrimination, the potential and promise of the civil rights movement will remain no more than an unfulfilled dream.

HELP SAVE OUR BENEFITS

With this in mind, we would like to present our thoughts today on one of the most pervasive, yet in some sense 12visible, occupational hazards in the workplace--the issue of sexal harassment.

The Office of Personnel Management OPM., the EEOC, and other Federal agencies have issued guidelines and policy statements relating to sexual harassment in their work forces. These policies range from strictly prohibiting sexual harassment to simply frowning on it. The Merit System Protection Board recently conducted in impressive and in-depth survey which showed that 25% of the respondents had experienced sexual harassment in some form. Provisions of the recent Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 have expanded the avenues which employees may use to pursue their rights to restitution in cases involving sex discrimination. Countless organizations have educated the public on the subject, not to mention the wide range and variety of news and magazine articles which have been written on sexual harassment in the last year or so.

Surely it would seem that most people would be aware of the problem and its ramifications. Yet despite these efforts we find that sexual harassment continues in the government work place as probably one of the most common forms of discrimination in employment.

The presence of sexual harassment in the workforce gives rise to concern for the credibility of so-called responsible

management personnel who are presumed to operate in a fair and objective manner.

That a victim (usually a woman) would have need to struggle for her basic rights to perform work and advance in the work force under normal circumstances, would seem absurd in the mind of the average thinker. However, there seems to be no end to the strife borne by the victim or the harm done to the mission of the agency. The results are predictable:

the creation of stressful and needlessly counter-
productive work situations, and a hostility-ridden
environment that adversely affects job performance;
the loss of talented and dedicated personnel who
quit or relocate;

the decline in employee morale, which leads to in-
creased labor management conflict that consumes the
resources of both the union and management.

The latter is illustrated by the case of a female employed at the Headquarters level of a government agency who refused the advances of a superior three levels above her and was improperly suspended because of "sudden failings" in job performance alleged by that superior. In this case the harasser wrote notes to the victim. Although the victim has produced strong evidence with witnesses supporting her claim and the agency has a clear policy statement barring sexual harassment, the effect of unreasonable management attitudes have resulted so far in six (6) major events stemming from one (1) dispute.

the way to the top, and they're not going to do anything to help you". By the grace of God I was able to get away from him before he was able to do me any physical harm, but I was completely shaken. That was the initial incident.

When I finally got myself together I felt there was no alternative but to leave the company. The following day I called in sick and saw the N. J. Unemployment Director, seeking advice about the incident. I was told I could resign, due to the circumstances, but first to try and see if I could transfer. I complied, and returned to the company, under the verbal agreement that I would receive a comparable position.

Following my return came the denial of a comparable position, threats of cutting my salary, changing my title to a lesser degree, charges that I was not capable of holding this position, pressure to take a cut in salary, elimination of duties, and many other such tactics to make staying unbearable. I retaliated with the only source I had the Unemployment Director stating that unless I received a transfer I would file the original charge involving Mr. Reppin and, also, managements' failure to reinstate me into a comparable position.

Almost immediately I was transferred, but during the months following my personnel records were falsified with documents stating I was not capable of my duties and was transferred, going back to the beginning of my employment, and other such material to degrade me and reinforce their position.

Finally after all the pressure directed at me, and while trying to continue working at the same time, I continually became physically ill up to the point where the thought of going to work made me ill. At this time I had to seck professional help. That was the beginning of July 1974. Returning after 3 days of sick leave I received a letter stating I was being laid-off one week (5 work days), as . disciplinary action for my absenteeism, after verbal counseling did no good (at no time was I approached about my absenteeism, nor was mention made that any action would take place). During the course of my theraphy it was realized that my physical and emotional state had been brought about due to lir. Reppin and managements' mistreatment of me. It was at this time (August 1974) I was encouraged to bring charges against the company.

Harassment continued in many forms, causing me continued absence from work and disciplinary lay-offs. I also, upon return from one illness, was told I had to report for a "Physical Examination". I reported for my "physical examination" and received only a verbal 10-15 minute conference with the company medical director regarding I remy family's medical history and why I felt I became ill. quested a copy of the report, but did not receive it until after quite a battle. The report outright defames me, and all my words have either been misquoted or rearranged in their favor. The conditions remained until my final termination on January 27, 1975.