David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Judges, academics, and lawyers alike base their legal analyses of workplace racial harassment on the sexual harassment model. Legal principles derived from sexual harassment jurisprudence are presumed to be equally appropriate for racial harassment cases. The implicit assumption is that the social harms and public policy goals of racial harassment and sexual harassment are sufficiently similar to justify analogous scrutiny and remedies. Parties to racial harassment cases cite the reasoning and elements of sexual harassment cases without hesitation, as if racial harassment and sexual harassment are behaviorally and legally indistinguishable. This Article, however, questions the assumption that there should be a monolithic model for discriminatory workplace harassment. In particular, it questions whether the currently dominant sexual harassment model should be used automatically as the paradigm in racial harassment disputes. Part I begins by acknowledging and explaining why the legal community analogizes racial harassment claims and jurisprudence to sexual harassment claims and jurisprudence. Part II posits that this analogy is problematic given the fundamental differences between racial harassment and sexual harassment. While empirical evidence of these differences is currently limited, Part II identifies and discusses two pioneering examples. The first documents important dissimilarities between racial harassment litigation and sexual harassment litigation; the second chronicles the differences between the dynamics and theoretical explanations for racial harassment and sexual harassment in the law firm context. Given the dominance of the sexual harassment model and the presumption of its applicability to other harassment disputes, including racial harassment, it is not surprising that comparatively little research and study of racial harassment and other forms of harassment have been done. The discussion and analysis here contributes to the research on the topic. Finally, Part III explores the implications of freeing racial harassment from the sexual harassment model.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Andrew R. Smith & Jacqueline M. Martinez (1995). Signifying Harassment: Communication, Ambiguity and Power. [REVIEW] Human Studies 18 (1):63 - 87.
Christine L. Williams (2002). Sexual Harassment and Sadomasochism. Hypatia 17 (2):99-117.
Myrtle P. Bell, Mary E. Mclaughlin & Jennifer M. Sequeira (2002). Discrimination, Harassment, and the Glass Ceiling: Women Executives as Change Agents. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 37 (1):65 - 76.
Vaughana Macy Feary (1994). Sexual Harassment: Why the Corporate World Still Doesn't “Get It”. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 13 (8):649 - 662.
Karen A. Crain & Kenneth A. Heischmidt (1995). Implementing Business Ethics: Sexual Harassment. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 14 (4):299 - 308.
S. Gayle Baugh (1997). On the Persistence of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Journal of Business Ethics 16 (9):899-908.
Margaret Crouch (2009). Sexual Harassment in Public Places. Social Philosophy Today 25:137-148.
M. J. Booker (1998). Can Sexual Harassment Be Salvaged? Journal of Business Ethics 17 (11):1171-1177.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads9 ( #364,117 of 1,907,659 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #463,516 of 1,907,659 )
How can I increase my downloads?