Yeah, look, I agree with all of that in general. None of this stuff is what I’d consider professional behavior, or appropriate sexual/social/romantic behavior in the workplace. But I also don’t think that it’s all uniformly egregious, and I don’t even think much of it, as described, amounts to sexual harassment.
Harvey Weinstein’s pattern of behavior was egregious. Exposing yourself to a colleague is egregious. Sending a dildo? Harassment in most situations? Sure. Egregious? Not really. FMK? Maybe harassment, maybe not, but not egregious. Making a pass at a subordinate? Probably not sexual harassment on it’s own.
Your leg touching scenario cannot be answered, not enough information.
Agreed, not enough information, but that wasn’t my scenario- it amounted to the bulk of the accusations against Charlie Rose. I think he was accused by eight women, two of whom said he walked naked in front of them at his house after he got out of the shower. He called another one repeatedly to talk about his sexual fantasies about her. The other five, I think, basically had a similar story about him touching their leg as he was driving them to his house. No claims that he coerced them in any way, or that he continued his advances after his leg touch was shut down, or that they suffered any retaliation for rejecting his advance. One of them said something to the effect that she didn’t realize she was a victim until ten years later, but now sees that he was a sexual predator.
I’m sorry, but that’s not egregious sexual harassment. It’s probably not sexual harassment at all. It might have been tone-deaf, it might have made some women uncomfortable, it might have been unwise, inconsiderate, unprofessional, etc and so on. But sexual harassment, and on a par with all the other sexual harassment that’s been making the news? Nuh-uh.
Not replying just to Vitus specifically, but making a general statement.
There are two main hallmarks for conduct to be considered “sexual harassment.” One is that the conduct, whether verbal or physical in nature, must be “unwelcome.” Sexual banter, flirting, and other sex-based conduct (even full-on sexual intercourse) between co-workers is not sexual harassment unless the conduct is unwelcome. Determining whether or not conduct is unwelcome is not always an easy thing to do. Two co-workers may enter a consensual sexual relationship, but if one felt pressured to do so, even if there was no overt threat, then the conduct may not have actually been “welcomed.” This is, in part, why HR departments and labor lawyers encourage their companies/clients to enact policies that discourage romantic, sexual, or dating relationships between co-workers. The line between welcome and unwelcome is often a very blurry line and it can change over time, too. Just because sexual banter was welcomed on one occasion doesn’t make it welcomed on another occasion. It would be much easier to police this stuff if people felt comfortable confronting each other about what is and is not welcomed and if those confronted were able to always adjust their conduct accordingly. In the real world, that just doesn’t really ever happen. The safest play is to reserve your sexual jokes, innuendos, comments, etc. for places other than work. The long and short of it is, though, that context matters, the state of mind of the participants in each incident matter, and the one cannot always look at a specific incident and call it “sexual harassment.”
The second big hallmark for sexual harassment is the pervasiveness and/or severity of the conduct. One really severe incident (like a sexual assault, for instance) may be actionable as sexual harassment. Other conduct that is much more benign, such as dirty jokes, sex talk, nudie pics, or persistent date requests, may not, in isolation amount to actionable sexual harassment, but if enough of those events occur over time, they DO rise to the level of a hostile work environment. Where that line is drawn differs with every fact-finder. One judge or jury might think it takes a constant barrage of such actions to add up to sexual harassment, while others may say two or three such instances are enough.
You cannot pigeonhole all of these allegations into nice, discreet, separate categories labeled “This is harassment;” and “This is not harassment.” Take Charlie Rose, for instance. Even if one instance of leg-touching is not harassment, the fact that he seemed to make it a regular practice to “give it a try” with any female co-worker he found attractive speaks volumes, and even if these women wouldn’t have much of a case individually (and I’m not saying they would or wouldn’t), the volume of allegations might well add up to a good case if they all (or even just a few) joined a lawsuit together because they paint Rose as a sexual opportunist, a lecherous dude, and a little pervy, and women shouldn’t have to put up with that crap as a matter of course from their bosses and co-workers. I don’t think it’s helpful to rank each individual act as egregious or not egregious, particularly when most of these guys accused have such a volume of allegations that tend to show this was common behavior for them as a matter of course.
