Workplace Sexual Harassment

This document discusses workplace sexual harassment, its definition, and liability of employers. It also provides insights from the Australian Human Rights Commission report in 2014.

Running Head: WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 1
Workplace Sexual Harassment
Name:
Institution Affiliation:

WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 2
Workplace sexual harassment according to report by Australian Human Rights
Commission in 2014
In accordance to Human Right Commission report in Australian in 2014, sexual
harassment within place of work is well described in Act of Sex Discrimination. It stands out to
be the act of undesirable sexual advance, unwanted request for sexual favoritism, or any form of
undesirable conduct of sexual character (Ending workplace sexual harassment.net, 2019). From
the perspective of Human Rights Commission in Australia, workplace sexual harassment
comprises of three different key elements. These three elements comprise of the unwelcome,
sexual nature, and the reasonable individual that might anticipate the other subject to the
conduct and feel humiliated or offended (Wynen, 2016). Therefore, the report Australian Human
Right Commission recorded in 2014 has clearly indicated that sexual harassment comprises of
the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favours.
Morality of sexual harassment from utilitarian and Kantian moral theories
Utilitarian moral theories
Utilitarianism perspective on sexual harassment has been of the opinion that it is a
consequential branch. It is the doctrine that the moral right course of action that results in
bringing about the greatest advantage for the greatest number. Such advantages are brought
despite the distribution of the burdens as well as benefits that should be selected over alternative
paths (Chavis, 2018). Moreover, utilitarianism refers to the hypothesis that defines morality by
net maximization of projected utility of every party influenced by decision or acts initiated by the
agent. However, utilitarianism as described by Biss (2015), it refers to the philosophy that has
the policy that the decision or action conducted by the agent is the appropriate decision if

WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 3
generate as much or more of the increase in happiness to all individuals affected more than it
would have by the alternative action.
Kantian moral theories
The philosophy of Kantian on sexual harassment was that every individual thinks of
themselves as the rational creature that is entitled to respect as well as dignity. According Biss
(2015) stated that sex discrimination or Employment Equality Regulations described sexual
harassment to be the unwanted conduct that as the effect or cause of violating the dignity of a
person. Moreover, Kantian denoted that sexual desire refers to the appetite than an individual has
for another person. Such desires were reported by Kantian to be caused by sexual desires making
individuals to be ashamed making all strict moralists and other individuals who had pretensions
to be regarded as saints, sought to suppresses and extirpate the situation (Schultz 2018).
Therefore, according to Kantian, sexual irritation is any kind sexual act that reduces another
person to the object of another individual’s enjoyment while violating the rule of morality.
Four ways in which employers may be liable for workplace sexual harassment
Employers protected by sexual harassment stipulations of the Act of Sex Discrimination
are individually accountable for their individual actions of sexual harassment. They are always
liable for any act of victimization (Schultz, 2018). Hence, four different ways that employers
might be accountable for sexual intimidation in place of work consist of individual liability,
accessory accountability, victimization, along with vicarious responsibility.
Personal liability

WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 4
Here, every worker is individually liable for their illegal actions under policy of sex
intimidation policy. In these situations, an employer can be apprehended accountable for various
actions through inner course of complaint (Gelpi, 2018). The complaint can be made when the
employer is the subject of a complaint to state or agency that deals with anti-terrorism.
Accessory liability
Employers can be accountable under segment 105 within Act of sexual prejudice if they
instruct, cause, induce, aid, or permit the individual to commit the unlawful act. For instance, an
employer that is aware that the worker is being harassed sexually and does nothing concerning
the situation might be held liable (Chavis, 2018). They are held accountable as accessory to
irritation that is taking place in their presence. Besides, there is no defense available for such
kind of liability.
Victimization
The act that deals with sexual harassment among workers and employers prohibit the
victimization of individuals with the complaint. Victimization liability might comprise of the
employer moving workers to a less responsive position while their complaints are being
considered (Schultz, 2018).
Vicarious liability
This liability refers to a legal standard that every employer is generally accountable for
their unlawful ascots. However, in the segment of employment that includes harassment and
discrimination, employer are responsible for mistakes devoted by their workers in process of

WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 5
operations (Gelpi, 2018). This liability makes workers be viciously accountable for illegal
behavior of their works in every time of their operations.

WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT 6
References
Biss, M. (2015). Kantian Moral Striving. Kantian Review, 20(1), 1-23. doi:
10.1017/s1369415414000260
Chavis, E. (2018). A Dual Perspective on Sexual Harassment Claims in the Workplace. SSRN
Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3217288
Ending workplace sexual harassment: A resource for small, medium and large employers |
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/ending-
workplace-sexual-harassment-resource-small-medium
Gelpi, A. (2018). Was university liable for coach's alleged sexual harassment?. Student Affairs
Today, 21(4), 8-8. doi: 10.1002/say.30492
Schultz, V. (2018). Open Statement on Sexual Harassment From Employment Discrimination
Law Scholars. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3198727
Wynen, J. (2016). Sexual Harassment: The Nexus Between Gender and Workplace Authority:
Evidence from the Australian Public Service. Australian Journal Of Public
Administration, 75(3), 345-358. doi: 10.1111/1467-8500.12206