The Reasonable Woman Standard: Effects on Sexual Harassment Court Decisions

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 9-27

  Perry, Elissa L ^a   Kulik, Carol T ^b   Bourhis, Anne C ^c  

^a Och Spine at New York Presbyterian Hospitals   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^c HEC MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Court decisions; Reasonable woman standard; Sexual harassment

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; CLINICAL RESEARCH; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FEMALE WORKER; HUMAN; LAW; ORGANIZATION; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; STANDARD; WORK ENVIRONMENT;

DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; PREJUDICE; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; UNITED STATES; WOMEN;

EID: 1642318475     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:LAHU.0000015001.07732.8e     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Abrams, K. (1995). The reasonable woman: Sense and sensibility in sexual harassment law. Dissent, 42, 48-54.
2. Abrams, K. (1998). The new jurisprudence of sexual harassment. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1169-1230.
3. Achampong, F. (1999). Workplace sexual harassment law: Principles, landmark developments, and framework for effective risk management. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
4. Adler, R. S., & Peirce, E. R. (1993). The legal, ethical, and social implications of the "reasonable woman" standard in sexual harassment cases. Fordham Law Review, 61, 773-827.
5. Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1482 (3d Cir. 1990).
6. Ashraf, S. (1992). The reasonableness of the "reasonable woman" standard: An evaluation of its use in hostile environment sexual harassment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Hofstra Law Review, 21, 483-504.
7. Bernardin, L. L. (1994). Does the reasonable woman exist and does she have any place in hostile environment sexual harassment claims under Title VII after Harris. Florida Law Review, 46, 291-322.
8. Bernstein, A. (1997). Treating sexual harassment with respect. Harvard Law Review, 111, 445-527.
9. Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33-57.
10. Bresler, S. J., & Thacker, R. (1993). Four-point plan helps solve harassment problems. HR Magazine, 38, 117-124.
11. Childers, J. (1993). Is there a place for a reasonable woman in the law? A discussion of recent developments in hostile environment sexual harassment. Duke Law Journal, 42, 854-904.
12. Currie v. Kowalewski, 67 FEP Cases 21 (N.D. N.Y. 1994).
13. DeMaris, A. (1995). A tutorial in logistic regression. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 956-968.
14. Ehrenreich, N. S. (1990). Pluralist myths and powerless men: The ideology of reasonableness in sexual harassment law. The Yale Law Journal, 99, 1177-1234.
15. Ellison v. Brady, 54 FEP 1346 (9th Cir. 1991).
16. Forrell, C. A., & Matthews, D. M. (2000). A law of her own: The reasonable woman as a measure of man. New York: New York University Press.
17. Glidden, E. A. (1992). The emergence of the reasonable woman in combating hostile environment sexual harassment. Iowa Law Review, 77, 1825-1853.
18. Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1998). Approaches to gender and the law: Research and applications. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 129-143.
19. Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1999). Pragmatic support for the reasonable victim standard in hostile workplace sexual harassment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 519-555.
20. Grider, K., Wesely, N., Bailey, T., & Gee, K. (1992). The reasonable woman standard in hostile environment litigation. Texas Bar Journal, 55, 52-55.
21. Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A.G. (1983). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.
22. Gutek, B. A., & O'Connor, M. A. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 151-166.
23. Gutek, B. A., O'Connor, M. A., Melancon, R., Stockdale, M., Greer, T. M., & Done, R. S. (1999). The utility of the reasonable woman standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 569-629.
24. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 63 FEP 228 (1993).
25. Hogler, R. L., Frame, J. H., & Thornton, G. (2002). Workplace sexual harassment law: An empirical analysis of organizational justice and legal policy. Journal of Managerial Issues, 14(2), 234-250.
26. Johnson, P. B. (1993). The reasonable woman in sexual harassment law: Progress or illusion? Wake Forest Law Review, 28, 619-669.
27. Jones, T. S., & Remland, M. S. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 121-142.
28. Juliano, A., & Schwab, S. J. (2001). The sweep of sexual harassment cases. Cornell Law Review, 86, 548-602.
29. Kelso, J. C. (1999). Studying law: An introduction to legal research (3rd ed.). New York: Matthew Bender.
30. Kirn, K. L. (1993). The "reasonable woman" standard in sexual harassment cases. Illinois Bar Journal, 81, 404-408.
31. Knapp, D. E., & Heshizer, B. P. (2001). Outcomes of requests for summary judgments in federal sexual harassment cases: Policy-capturing revisited. Sex Roles, 44 (3/4), 109-128.
32. Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 574-586.
33. Kulik, C. T., Perry, E. L., & Schmidtke, J. M. (1997). Responses to sexual harassment: The effect of perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9, 37-53.
34. Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1995). Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique. Personnel Psychology, 48, 841-864.
35. Levy, A., & Paludi, M. (1997). Workplace sexual harassment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prenctice-Hall.
36. Marvell, T. B. (1978). Appellate courts and lawyers: Information gathering in the adversary system. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
37. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
38. Moore, H. L., & Bradley, D. B., III. (1997). Sexual harassment in manufacturing: Seven strategies successful companies use to curb it. Industrial Management, 39 (6), 14-18.
39. Paetzold, R. L., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. M. (1996). The implications of U.S. Supreme Court and circuit court decisions for hostile environment sexual harassment cases. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 85-104). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Peirce, E. R., Rosen, B., & Hiller, T. B. (1997). Breaking the silence: Creating user-friendly sexual harassment policies. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10, 225-242.
41. Perreault, W. D., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, XXVI, 135-148.
42. Pryor, J. B., & Day, J. D. (1988). Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis. Sex Roles, 18, 405-417.
43. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986).
44. Riger, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. American Psychologist, 46, 497-505.
45. Risser, R. (1999). Sexual harassment training: Truth and consequences. Training and Development, 53 (8), 21-25.
46. Roehling, M. V. (1993). "Extracting" policy from judicial opinions: The dangers of policy capturing in a field setting. Personnel Psychology, 46, 477-502.
47. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914-922.
48. Saltzman, A. (1996). Life after the lawsuit. U.S. News and World Report, 121 (7), 57-61.
49. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1988). Outcomes of sexual harassment charges. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 185-194.
50. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1992). Outcomes of federal court decisions on sexual harassment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 181-190.
51. Thacker, R. A. (1992). Preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. Training and Development, 46 (2), 50-53.
52. Thomann, D. A., & Wiener, R. L. (1987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles, 17, 573-591.
53. Treger, T. L. (1993). The reasonable woman? Unreasonable!!! Ellison v. Brady. Whittier Law Review, 14, 675-694.
54. Westman, B. B. (1992). The reasonable woman standard: Preventing sexual harassment in the workplace. William Mitchell Law Review, 18, 795-828.
55. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (1999). An interdisciplinary approach to understanding social sexual conduct at work. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 556-595.
56. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75-85.
57. Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L., Russell, B., Mannen, K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 71-93.
58. Wiener, R. L., Watts, B. A., Goldkamp, K. H., & Gasper, C. (1995). Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 263-281.
59. Yates v. Avco Corp., 43 FEP 1595 (1987).
60. York, K. M. (1989). Defining sexual harassment in workplaces: A policy-capturing approach. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 830-850.