INDIRECT Sexual Harassment?!

The following excerpt was taken from an article published in The New York Times on July 24, 2005. The article was written by Mireya Navarro and can be found by clicking on the title of the article found below.

---------------------

Love the Job? What About Your Boss?

The pretty financial analyst just out of business school seems to catch the boss's eye. She is spending a lot of time in his office. Soon the speculation begins: Were they eating dinner together? Did he have his hand on her elbow? And suddenly the analyst is getting prize assignments and eventually a promotion.

Around them everyone else just watches and whispers. What else is there to do? Isn't that just how the world works?

Well, not in California, at least since last Monday.

In a ruling that significantly expands the law on sexual harassment in the workplace, California's Supreme Court ruled that workers can sue when a colleague who is sleeping with the boss is shown repeated preferential treatment.

----------------------

Does anyone have any opinions or thoughts on this ruling? It's one thing to claim sexual harassment when you are the one being harassed sexually, but is it fair to claim sexual harassment because a co-worker is receiving preferential treatment? Legally speaking, can one be indirectly sexually harassed?

Does such a mandate place too much responsibility upon the employer? If this catches on in all other states, employers will be forced to manage the company as well as monitor the relationships between co-workers, supervisors and their subordinates, etc. so as to avoid any legal troubles. They will also have to keep tabs upon existing relationships as well as make note of who might feel wronged by the outcomes of certain relationship. Isn't this asking too much of an employer (especially since it is estimated some 58% of people have dated a co-worker)?! How involved is an employer supposed to be in the lives of his/her employees?!

Or is the California ruling a step in the right direction? Does such a ruling truly help level the playing field in the workplace or is it just an outlet by which people can manipulate the law to air their workplace grievances and win some money?

-Anch