Workplace Articles By BCC
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6
Homophobia as an Obstacle
As with any other complaint regarding workplace behavior, each situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis accounting for various factors, including the nature, frequency and impact of the conduct, to make a determination of whether or not a violation has occurred. Despite the increased attention that has been paid to sexual harassment in general, there is a particular reality that has remained constant throughout the years the issue has been studied: the vast majority of recipients of sexual harassment hesitate to either confront the behavior directly or complain about it to those in positions of authority to take action.
The list of reasons accounting for the failure to speak up includes many, fear of retaliation being the most common. In addition, there is often a concern that the complaint will not be treated seriously or that insufficient action, if any, will be taken.
In same-gender sexual harassment situations there is the additional concern that issues of sexual orientation will become the focus of the inquiry. Heterosexual recipients of same-gender sexual harassment often express the fear that their sexual orientation will be questioned simply because the perpetrator is of their same gender and, consequently, they are often reluctant to come forward with a complaint.
On the other hand, the same apprehension exists with many gay individuals who become the target of this behavior. For those who are closeted, the fear of disclosure can create an insurmountable obstacle to surfacing the harassment issue and, as a result, these individuals become doubly victimized in the process. Unfortunately, these fears are often grounded in the reality that many employers confuse the issues and mishandle the situation. These phenomena are the direct manifestations of the homophobia so pervasive in our culture.
In same-gender quid pro quo harassment situations, it is often assumed the individual making the sexual demand must be homosexual because his or her intended recipient is of the same gender. However, in evaluating alleged same-gender sexual harassment, what must ultimately be determined is the occurrence and nature of the behavior as opposed to the sexual orientation of either the perpetrator or the recipient. Therefore, same-gender quid pro quo can be engaged in by a man of any sexual orientation toward a man of any sexual orientation and, likewise, for women.
The perception that same-gender sexual harassment always involves a gay predator making unwanted sexual advances toward another person who is gay or perceived to be, or toward an unsuspecting heterosexual, is a myth. This can and does happen, but represents only one scenario.
As with other forms of sexual harassment, there is an increasing frequency of claims of same-gender harassment which falls into the hostile work environment category. And as with quid pro quo same-gender harassment, there is a pervasive misperception that sexual orientation is a critical, if not the determining factor. While a sexually hostile work environment can be created by homosexual men or women toward heterosexual members of their same gender, the reverse is also true.
There has been a growing number of complaints received by employers in which the offensive conduct, ranging from repeated sexual comments to the extreme of sexually assaultive behavior, is perpetrated by straight employees toward a gay coworker of the same gender. It is not uncommon in such situations for the recipient to simultaneously be the victim of harassment based on sexual orientation, equally inappropriate for a work environment, though seldom prohibited explicitly by company policies and even more rarely by law.