| Sumario: | A consideration of the question of whether sexual harassment is understood differently by men and women and, if so, whose understanding should be used to set the standard for court decisions. The key challenge of sexual harassment litigation has been to define when harassment becomes so pervasive as to create a “hostile” environment. Judges must find an independent ground on which to stand in evaluating allegations of sexual harassment. The first method offered by the courts was to evaluate the claims from the perspective of the “reasonable person.” This approach had the advantages of a validating pedigree in the form of a long history in the law, protection for employers from idiosyncratic claims, and the potential to reduce the growing confusion over the “pervasiveness” standard. However, the “reasonable person” standard only complicated the controversy, as it belied observed gender differences and relied upon an objectivist account of knowledge.
|
|---|