Skip to main content
Article
The Perversity of Sexual-harassment Law: Effects of Recent Court Rulings
Articles and Chapters
  • David Sherwyn, Cornell University
  • Michael C. Sturman, Cornell University
  • Zev J. Eigen, Northwestern University
  • Michael Heise, Cornell University
  • Jenn Walwyn, University of California
Publication Date
6-1-2001
Abstract
The outcome of 109 motions for summary judgment filed since June 1998, in which employers argued that a hostile-environment case should be dismissed because the employer satisfied, as a matter of law, the affirmative defense are analyzed. The examination of these cases provides the opportunity to test past conjecture and describe how courts have implemented the Ellerh and Faragher rulings. It is found that employers are still able to prevail in summary-judgment motions. With evidence showing that employers can satisfy the affirmative defense, each of the three areas that commentators have suggested should have prevented such success is examined. What courts required to constitute reasonable care, how courts have ruled when employees failed to report harassment, and how courts have ruled when employees did report harassment.
Comments

Required Publisher Statement
© Cornell University. Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved.

Citation Information

Sherwyn, D., Sturman, M. C., Eigen, Z. J., Heise, M., & Walwyn, J. (2001). The perversity of sexual-harassment law: Effects of recent court rulings [Electronic version]. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(3), 46-56. Retrieved [insert date], from Cornell University, School of Hospitality Administration site: http://scholarship.sha.cornell.edu/articles/69/