Compelled mental health examinations, liability decisions, and damage awards in sexual harassment cases issues for jury research

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 96-114

  Kovera, Margaret Bull ^a   Cass, Stacie A ^a  

^a FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044533448     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/1076-8971.8.1.96     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Abrams, K. (1989). Gender discrimination and the transformation of workplace norms. Vanderbilt Law Review, 42, 1183-1248.
2. Arnold v. City of Seminole, 614 F. Supp. 853 (E.D. Okla. 1985).
3. 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.
4. Brekke, N., & Borgida, E. (1988). Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 372-386
5. Bresticker, B. (2000, August). Concerns with the use of expert opinion to establish or refute liability in sexual harassment cases. In J. Goodman-Delahunty (Chair), Law, psychology, and gender in the workplace: Compelled mental health evaluations. Roundtable discussion held at the 108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
6. Bridges v. Eastman Kodak Co., 850 F. Supp. 216 (S.D. N.Y. 1994).
7. Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1983). The ability of prospective jurors to estimate the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Law and Human Behavior, 7, 19-30.
8. Brown, B. B., & Sonnenberg, S. P. (2000, August). The psychological expert in employment litigation: A defense perspective. In J. Goodman-Delahunty (Chair), Law, psychology, and gender in the workplace: Compelled mental health evaluations. Roundtable discussion held at the 108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
9. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998).
10. Civil Rights Act of 1991. Pub. L. No. 102-106, U.S.C. § 1981 nt.
11. Cody v. Marriott Corp., 103 F.R.D. 421 (1984).
12. Cutler, B. L., Dexter, H. R., & Penrod, S. D. (1989). Expert testimony and jury decision making: An empirical analysis. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 215-225.
13. Cutler, B. L., & Penrod, S. D. (1995). Mistaken identification: The eyewitness, psychology, and the law. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Dexter, H. R. (1989). The eyewitness, the expert psychologist, and the jury. Law and Human Behavior, 13, 311-332.
15. Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Stuve, T. E. (1988). Juror decision making in eyewitness identification cases. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 41-55.
16. Dahdal v. Thorn Americas, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 832 (1998).
17. Deffenbacher, K. A., & Loftus, E. F. (1982). Do jurors share a common understanding concerning eyewitness behavior? Law and Human Behavior, 6, 15-30.
18. Dodge, M., & Greene, E. (1991). Juror and expert conceptions of battered women. Violence and Victims, 6, 271-282.
19. Ehrenreich, N. (1990). Pluralist myths and powerless men: The ideology of reasonableness in sexual harassment law. Yale Law Journal, 99, 1177-1234.
20. Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991).
21. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998).
22. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
23. Feigenson, N., Park, J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Effect of blameworthiness and outcome severity on attributions of responsibility and damage awards in comparative negligence cases. Law and Human Behavior, 6, 597-617.
24. Feldman-Schorrig, S. (1995). Need for expansion of forensic psychiatrists' role in sexual harassment cases. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 23, 513-522.
25. Fitzgerald, L. F., Buchanan, N. T., Collinsworth, L. L., Magley, V. J., & Ramos, A. M. (1999). Junk logic: The abuse defense in sexual harassment litigation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 730-759.
26. Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., & Buchanan, N. (1996, March). Borderline or traumatized? The psychological antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment (and) litigation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Women in Psychology, Portland, OR.
27. Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: The SEQ-DoD. Military Psychology, 11, 243-263.
28. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn't she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women's responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117-138.
29. Foote, W. E. (2000, August). Law, psychology, and gender in the workplace. In J. Goodman-Delahunty (Chair), Law, psychology, and gender in the workplace: Compelled mental health evaluations. Roundtable discussion held at the 108th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
30. Fox, S. G., & Walters, H. A. (1986). The impact of general versus specific expert testimony and eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment. Law and Human Behavior, 10, 215-228.
31. Fox v. The Gates Corp., 179 F.R.D. 303 (D.Colo. 1998)
32. Frazier, P., & Borgida, E. (1988). Juror common understanding and the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence in court. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 101-122.
33. Frazier, P. A., Cochran, C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21-38.
34. 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.
35. Gowan, M. A., & Zimmermann, R. A. (1996). Impact of ethnicity, gender, and previous experience on juror judgments in sexual harassment cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 596-617.
36. Greene, E., Downey, C., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1999). Juror decisions about damages in employment discrimination cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 107-121.
37. Greene, E., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1995). Diagnosis of psychological impairment in employment discrimination claims. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 13, 459-476.
38. Greene, E., & Loftus, E. F. (1998). Psycholegal research on jury damage awards. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7, 50-54.
39. Gutek, B. A., & O'Connor, M. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard in sexual harassment law. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 151-166.
40. Gutek, B. A., O'Connor, M. A., Melançon, R., Stockdale, M. S., Geer, T. M., & Done, R. S. (1999). The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases. A multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 596-629.
41. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17; 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993).
42. Hosch, H. M., Beck, E. L., & McIntyre, P. (1980). Influence of expert testimony regarding eyewitness accuracy on jury decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 4, 287-296.
43. Iacono, W. G., & Lykken, D. R. (1997). The validity of the lie detector: Two surveys of scientific opinion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 426-433.
44. Jackson v. Entergy Operations, Inc., 1998 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 752 (1998).
45. Jensen, I. W., & Gutek, B. A. (1982). Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 121-136.
46. Kovera, M. B., & Borgida, E. (1997). Expert testimony in child sexual abuse trials: The admissibility of psychological science. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 11, S105-S129.
47. Kovera, M. B., Gresham, A. W., Borgida, E., Gray, E., & Regan, P. C. (1997). Does expert psychological testimony inform or influence juror decision making? A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 178-191.
48. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
49. Kromsky, D. F., & Cutler, B. L. (1989). The battered woman syndrome: A matter of common sense? Forensic Reports, 2, 173-186.
50. Kromsky, D. F., & Cutler, B. L. (1991). The admissibility of expert testimony on battered-woman syndrome. In D. D. Knudsen, J. L. Miller, et al. (Eds.), Abused and battered: Social and legal responses of family violence. Social institutions and social change (pp. 101-109). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
51. Lahr v. Fulbright & Jaworski, L. L. P., 164 F.R.D. 204 (N.D. Tex. 1996)
52. MacKinnon, C. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex discrimination. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
53. Morrison, S., & Greene, E. (1992). Juror and expert knowledge of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16, 595-613.
54. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986).
55. Ritz, A., Greene, E., Goodman, J., & Loftus, E. F. (1990). Determining damages: The influence of expert testimony on jurors' decision making. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 385-395.
56. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 525, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 340 (1988).
57. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914-922.
58. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 Sect. 234 (1964).
59. Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 401-415.
60. Schuler, R. A. (1992). The impact of battered woman syndrome evidence on jury decision processes. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 597-620
61. Schuler, R. A., & Crimps, J. (1998). Expert evidence pertaining to battered women: The impact of gender of expert and timing of testimony. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 17-31.
62. Sherwin, D., Heike, M., & Eagan, Z. J. (2001). Don't train your employees and cancel your "1-800" harassment hotline: An empirical examination and correction of the flaws in the affirmative defense to sexual harassment charges. Fordham Law Review, 69, 1265-1304.
63. Stevenson v. Stanley Bostitch, Inc., 201 F.R.D 551, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16961 (2001).
64. Thurman, D. A., & Wiener, R. L. (1987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles, 17, 573-591.
65. Turic v. Holland Hospitality, Inc., 85 F.3d 1211 (6th Cir. 1996).
66. Turner v. Imperial Stores, 161 F.R.D. 89, 1995 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 4818 (1995).
67. Wiener, R. L., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Advances in sexual harassment research, theory, and policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 507-518.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. Wiener, R. L., Watts, B. A., Goldkamp, K. H., & Gasper, C. (1995). Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments: A test of the reasonable woman standard. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 263-281.
71. Wisner, R. L., Evans, D. L., Hart, A. J., Morry, M. M., & Saks, M. J. (1997). Explaining "pain and suffering" awards: The role of injury characteristics and fault attributions. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 181-207.