The term
sexual harassment was popularized following a consciousness-raising session led by
Lin Farley as part of a Cornell University program on women in the workplace, and the term entered popular use in 1975. A number of the original sexual harassment cases were pursued on behalf of black women and girls. United States law recognizes two forms of sexual harassment: •
Quid pro quo sexual harassment: an employee is required to tolerate sexual harassment in exchange for employment, a raise or job benefit, or promotion. •
Hostile work environment: sexual harassment in the workplace results in an offensive work environment or unreasonably interferes an employee's work performance.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 In the United States, the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
employment discrimination based on
race, sex, color,
national origin or religion. Initially only intended to combat sex discrimination against people based on sex alone, (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2) the prohibition of
sex discrimination now extends to discrimination based on sexuality and transgender identity. This discrimination occurs when the sex of the worker, the worker's sexual preference, or the worker's sex at birth, is made a condition of employment (e.g., all female waitpersons or male carpenters) or where this is a job requirement that does not mention sex but ends up preventing many more persons of one sex than the other from the job (such as height and weight limits). This act only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations (1980) In 1980, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued regulations defining sexual harassment and stating it was a form of sex discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Civil Rights Act of 1991 The
Civil Rights Act of 1991 added provisions to Title VII protections including expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive
damages for sexual discrimination or harassment.
Case Law Barnes v Train (1974) Barnes v. Train (1974) is commonly viewed as the first sexual harassment case in America, even though the term "sexual harassment" was not used. The case was dismissed, but was appealed in
Barnes v Costle (1977). A male supervisor was found to have retaliated against
Diane R. Williams, an African American woman, by firing her after she refused to have sex with him. The court also found that companies are liable for not stopping sexual harassment if they know it is being conducted by supervisors.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) In the 1986 case of
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court first recognized "sexual harassment" as a violation of Title VII, established the standards for analyzing whether the conduct was welcome and levels of employer
liability, and that speech or conduct in itself can create a "
hostile environment". This case filed by Mechelle Vinson ruled that the sexual conduct between the subordinate and supervisor could not be deemed voluntary due to the hierarchical relationship between the two positions in the workplace. Following the ruling of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, reported sexual harassment cases grew from 10 cases being registered by the EEOC per year before 1986 to 624 case being reported in the subsequent following year.
Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. (1991) Also in 1991,
Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. became the first sexual harassment case to be given
class action status paving the way for others. Seven years later, in 1998, through that same case, new precedents were established that increased the limits on the "
discovery" process in sexual harassment cases, that then allowed psychological injuries from the
litigation process to be included in assessing damages awards.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, and Burlington v. Ellerth (1998) In the same year, the courts concluded in
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, and
Burlington v. Ellerth, that employers are liable for harassment by their employees. These cases solidified what would later be known as the
Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense, available to employers when the harassed employee suffered no tangible employment action. To avail itself of this defense, the employer must show 1. that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and 2. the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. In 2018 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the
Faragher-Ellerth defense by holding that harassed employees who neither report the conduct nor suffer an adverse employment action may still potentially prevail in sexual harassment lawsuits.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998) Moreover,
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services set the precedent for same-sex harassment, and sexual harassment without motivation of "sexual desire", stating that any discrimination based on sex is actionable so long as it places the victim in an objectively disadvantageous working condition, regardless of the gender of either the victim, or the harasser.
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006) In the 2006 case of
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
Astra USA v. Bildman (2009) In
Astra USA v. Bildman, 914 N.E.2d 36 (Mass. 2009), applying New York's
faithless servant doctrine, the court held that a company's employee who had engaged in financial misdeeds and sexual harassment must "forfeit all of his salary and bonuses for the period of disloyalty." The court held that this was the case even if the employee "otherwise performed valuable services," and that the employee was not entitled to recover restitution for the value of those other services.
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (2010) The 2010 case,
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. ruled that a hostile work environment can be created in a workplace where sexually explicit language and pornography are present. A
hostile workplace may exist based upon the treatment of employees as a group, even if it is not targeted at any particular employee.
Forced arbitration In the 2002
EEOC v. Waffle House Inc. United States Supreme Court ruling, it was held that arbitration agreements could not prevent the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) from pursuing victim-specific relief in litigation on behalf of an employee who files a timely charge of discrimination. In 2022, the U.S. Congress passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which excludes these types of complaints from contracts with forced
arbitration clauses, including retroactively. The law was championed by
Gretchen Carlson, who also opposes the use of
non-disclosure agreements to shield perpetrators. It would be officially signed into law by U.S. President
Joe Biden on March 3, 2022.
EEOC Enforcement Guidance, 2024-2026 In April 2024, the EEOC issued its first update to workplace harassment guidance since 1999, consolidating prior guidance documents and addressing emerging issues including online and virtual harassment, LGBTQ+ protections under Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), and pregnancy-related conditions, with over 70 examples for employers. On January 22, 2026, the EEOC voted 2-1 to rescind the guidance following a May 2025 federal court ruling that portions exceeded the agency's statutory authority, and in alignment with Executive Order 14168. EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas affirmed that the rescission does not alter underlying federal harassment law, which remains fully in force. == Prevalence ==