Sexual Harassment can Affect Health for Decades

 Source: Picpedia

Source: Picpedia

Illnesses can include high blood pressure, poor quality sleep, anxiety, even depression

Many say that time heals all wounds. But that’s not true. The impact of workplace sexual harassment or sexual assault can result in lingering health problems years after the experience, a new study published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal says.

The study, “Association of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault With Midlife Women’s Mental and Physical Health”, set out to answer the following question: Do women with a history of sexual harassment or sexual assault have higher blood pressure, greater depression and anxiety, and poorer sleep than women without this history.

It found that women with a history of workplace sexual harassment had “significantly higher odds of hypertension and clinically poor sleep than women without this history, after adjusting for covariates”. Women with a history of sexual assault had significantly higher odds of clinically significant depressive symptoms, anxiety, and poor sleep than women without this history, after adjusting for covariates, it says.

Read the Entire Article at Entrepreneur.com

Women Need to Know They Don't Have to Accept Bullying or Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The recent national turmoil over the Supreme Court candidacy of Judge Kavanaugh and the completely broken way that we have dealt with allegations of sexual assault in this country has had one hopefully positive side effect — the number of women around the country who have felt confident enough to come forward with their own stories.

In the workplace, this issue most often takes the form of workplace harassment or bullying. Recently, writer Jessica Press was caught by surprise while working on an article about workplace bullying. When she posted to social media that she was looking for stories from women about their experiences of being bullied at work, she expected a sprinkling of replies. Instead, as she recounts in her feature article appearing in Redbook magazine’s October issue, she got a deluge:

“My inbox was flooded — overflowing with incoming mail. I’d put out the call to a handful of experts and Facebook groups for women’s stories of workplace bullying. I thought perhaps I’d hear from a dozen women.

Instead, within a week, nearly a hundred stories from around the country and around the world poured in, with a steady stream continuing in the days and weeks that followed. They worked in hospitals, academia, sales, food service — anywhere and everywhere. There were women still living in fear of retaliation. There were those who shared their journeys of deteriorating marriages, depression, anxiety, and PTSD-like symptoms. There were a surprising number who had involved lawyers and were limited in what they could even reveal due to nondisclosure agreements.”

The article contains a number of tips for dealing with workplace bullying and I commend it to your reading. I hope the national turmoil we are currently suffering will lead to real conversation and, ultimately, real change. Hopefully it will serve, if nothing else, to let people know that bullying, sexual harassment and assault occurs much more frequently than many believe.

I also hope that we can make progress in dispelling some of the false beliefs that many still hold about bullying and harassment in the workplace. Here are a few of the worst:

  1. That if bullying/sexual harassment/assault happened then the woman must have done something to put herself in peril.

  2. That it must always take more evidence than a woman’s word that something happened to be equal to a man’s word that it didn’t.

  3. That if sexual harassment/assault really happened the woman would have reported it immediately.

  4. That sexual harassment/assault is, any any time or context, normal male behavior (“boys will be boys”).

These are all 100% FALSE. And yet many people, including well-meaning women I meet in focus groups, will often state some version of one of these falsisms.

The #MeToo movement has helped to expose just how badly this country has been dealing with the treatment of women who suffer bullying/harassment/assault. But if the raging anger of a bunch of old, male senators last week showed us anything it is that this problem will not go away easily or quietly. We still have a long way to go.

EEOC Sues Dollar General For Sexual Harassment

EEOC Sues Dollar General For Sexual Harassment

Dollar General violated federal law when it subjected a store manager to a sexually hostile work environment, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced yesterday.

According to the EEOC's suit, the store manager repeatedly subjected the assistant manager to unwelcome touching, including once grabbing her head and forcing it to his crotch while making a sexual innuendo; rubbing her shoulders; and grabbing her and ripping her blouse.

Read More

IHOPe You Brought Your Checkbook!

1200px-IHOP_logo.svg.png

Two IHOP Restaurants to Pay Nearly $1 Million to Settle Sexual Harassment Suit

Teens Among Victims of Misconduct Including Simulated Sex Acts, Sexual Contact, Unwanted Sexual Comments and Physical Threats, Federal Agency Charged

Two southern Illinois International House of Pancakes (IHOP) franchises will pay $975,000 and furnish other relief to settle a systemic sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

The EEOC had charged that numerous employees at the locally owned Glen Carbon and Alton, Ill., restaurants were routinely sexually harassed by coworkers and managers, including offensive sexual comments, groping, physical threats, and, in one instance, attempted forced oral sex with a management employee.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in September 2017 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commis­sion et al. v. 2098 Restaurant Group, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-1002-DRH) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, seeking relief for more than 11 female employ­ees at the Glen Carbon IHOP and one male employee at the Alton IHOP. Some of the female employees were teenagers at the time of the alleged harassment.

The consent decree settling the suit, entered today by Judge David R. Herndon, requires the defendants to pay compensatory damages to 16 harassment victims. The decree also requires the com­panies to implement, distribute and enforce tougher policies prohibiting sexual harassment and establish procedures for promptly investigating and addressing sexual harassment complaints. The decree also requires the owner to be directly involved in preventing and correcting sexual harassment. The four-year decree further requires the defendants to provide sexual harassment training to employees, create and maintain documents regarding sexual harassment complaints, and post notices at their facilities. It also enables the EEOC to monitor the restaurants to determine whether harassment recurs, and, if so, that it is dealt with effectively. All the measures are intended to prevent further incidents of harassment.

The EEOC's Youth@Work website (at https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/ ) presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination, including curriculum guides for students and teachers and videos to help young workers learn about their rights and responsibilities.

$1.1 Million Verdict to Woman in Gender Identity Case

The Case

Rachel Tudor, a transgender professor whose tenure and promotion was denied at Southeastern Oklahoma State University, was awarded $1.1 million by a federal jury on Monday in a landmark Title VII case.

SEfullcolorLogo.jpg

Tudor was hired by the university in 2004 as a tenure-track assistant professor in the English department and presented as male at the time. She began transitioning in 2007, becoming the university's first openly transgender professor.

According to the lawsuit, after notifying the university that she would be presenting as a woman at work for the 2007-2008 academic year, Tudor received a phone call from an unnamed human resources staffer who told her the school's vice president for academic affairs, Douglas McMillan, had inquired about firing her because her identity as a transgender woman offended his religious beliefs.

The lawsuit also states the director of the university's counseling center, Jane McMillan, Douglas McMillan's sister, told Tudor to take safety precautions, because some people were openly hostile to transgender people. She also reiterated to Tudor that her brother considered transgender people to be a "grave offense to his [religious] sensibilities."

In October 2009, Tudor applied for tenure and a promotion to an associate professor position. Her application was denied, while the application of a similarly qualified male coworker was approved, the lawsuit claims. After Tudor asked for an explanation as to why her application was rejected, according to the suit, Douglas McMillan and another dean refused to provide her with one. Tudor then filed a federal discrimination complaint in 2010.

In March 2015, the Justice Department, then under the Obama administration, sued the university, with former Attorney General Eric Holder declaring that federal prohibitions against sex discrimination include protections based on gender identity.

On Monday, an eight-person jury voted in favor of Tudor on three counts: that she was "denied tenure in 2009-10 because of her gender," that she was denied "the opportunity to apply for tenure in the 2010-11 cycle ... because of her gender" and that the university retaliated against her after she complained about workplace discrimination. The jury then awarded her $1.165 million in damages.

Why Is This Case Important

This case is important because it is one of the first times that a federal court has explicitly found that a plaintiff whose gender identity is transgender is a protected class under federal anti-discrimination laws. In the past, many courts have held that gender identities are not protected in and of themselves. Plaintiffs could only seek protection of federal anti-discrimination laws by arguing they were covered under traditional sexual discrimination statutes because they were mistreated due to application of a sexual stereotype. This argument has worked with varying degrees of success across the country but it is more convoluted and difficult to apply than it should be. 

The issue will certainly have to be decided by the US Supreme Court eventually but this court decision is a good start.

Person of the Year 2017: #MeToo

person-of-year-2017-time-magazine-cover1.jpg

Time Person of the Year 2017: The Silence Breakers
Discussions of sexual harassment in polite company tend to rely on euphemisms: harassment becomes "inappropriate behavior," assault becomes "misconduct," rape becomes "abuse." We're accustomed to hearing those softened words, which downplay the pain of the experience. 

It wasn't so long ago that the boss chasing his secretary around the desk was a comic trope, a staple from vaudeville to prime-time sitcoms. There wasn't even a name for sexual harassment until just over 40 years ago; the term was coined in 1975 by a group of women at Cornell University after an employee there, Carmita Wood, filed for unemployment benefits after she had resigned because a supervisor touched her. The university denied her claim, arguing that she left the job for "personal reasons."

In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency tasked with enforcing civil rights laws in the workplace, issued guidelines declaring sexual harassment a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It was a victory, but with caveats: even after sexual harassment became explicitly illegal, it remained difficult to lodge a complaint that stuck—in part because acts of harassment are often difficult to define. What separates an illegal act of sexual harassment from a merely annoying interaction between a boss and his subordinate? When does a boss stop just being a jerk and become a criminal? Because the Civil Rights Act offered no solid legal definition, interpretation has evolved slowly, shaped by judges and the EEOC over the past 37 years.

And then...2017 and #MeToo happened. Read Time Magazine's Cover Article Here