Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Version 1.0 Netnews CMS/BITNET 5/19/85; site PSUVM.BITNET
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!t3b
From: T3B@PSUVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: net.women,net.legal
Subject: Re: Harassment case
Message-ID: <4036T3B@PSUVM>
Date: Thu, 12-Dec-85 19:52:13 EST
Article-I.D.: PSUVM.4036T3B
Posted: Thu Dec 12 19:52:13 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 00:43:58 EST
References: <704@petrus.UUCP> <119@ISM780C.UUCP> <782@rtech.UUCP> 34503@lanl.ARPA
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.women:8252 net.legal:2624

The reason one would want a rule holding a company liable for
sexual harassment is to motivate companies to train their
employees to avoid sexual harassment.  When you make the
company responsible for the job-related actions of its
employees, the company will develop methods to control
those actions.  And sexual harassment is both a personal
affront *and* a job-related matter, as it usually occurs
in the context of a hierarchical relationship, and occurs
in such a way as to place the victim in both sexual and
professional jeopardy.  That's why companies should be held
responsible, in my view.
     
   Tom Benson
   Department of Speech Communication
   The Pennsylvania State University
   227 Sparks Building
   University Park, PA 16802
   814-238-5277
     
     
     :akgua,allegra,ihnp4,cbosgd:!psuvax1!psuvm.bitnet!t3b   (UUCP)
     t3b%psuvm.bitnet@wiscvm.arpa (ARPA)
     T3B@PSUVM    (BITNET)