Cindy Sinche

Professor Probst-Martin.
English 1102
May 9, 2016
Legal rights in a harassment lawsuit
Sexual harassment is frequently misunderstood and minimized making it a constant, and
continuous problem. The amount of individuals who have been affected by unwanted harassment
over the past decade has sky rocketed, thus putting into action more laws. Some of the most
recent cases of harassment such as the Erin Andrews case, a sportscaster whose privacy was
invaded by a harasser who leaked videos, and images of her while she was changed received
major headlines. From the workplace, to casual encounters with others, sexual harassment is still
a concern in this current day and age. Everyone should know their basic legal rights, and to be
able to file a sexual harassment case if necessary, because knowing this information can help
distinguish the type of harassing behavior, the relationships between the perpetrator and the
victim and, providing evidence for a case.
Primarily, knowing what is a type of harassing behavior is what makes or breaks a
harassment lawsuit case. There are two types of harassment known as quid pro quo, and hostile
environment. According to Paul, Pedersen, quid pro quo consists of the following behavior,
employment action constitutes a significant change in employment status such as hiring, firing,

failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision

causing a significant change in benefits. As for the other type of harassment titled hostile
environment Paul Pedersen defines it saying, In this situation, the workplace has been

permeated with talk or actions of a sexual nature that is severe and pervasive enough to impact
employment conditions and create an abusive working environment. Harassment is not just
made up of these behaviors there are other factors that can increase or promote this unlawful act
such as online harassment and eventually even the act of stalking.
For example the article stalking: Terrorism at our doors---how social workers can help
victims fight back states, Stalking is defined as "non-consensual communication, and/or
harassment of another person, an additional 13 percent of victims are former employers of their
stalkers. Basically what the article stalking: Terrorism at our doors---how social workers can
help victims fight back, is stating that harassment can lead to stalking which is another level of
unusual behavior. Along with the term online harassment, it is a part of the more modern forms
of harassment. As for the behavior expressed with online harassment it was associated with the
very recent Erin Andrews case, which resulted in Michael Barrett the harasser getting a sentence
of 30 months in prison, for having filmed hours of nude video of the ESPN sportscaster. These
are just a few of the examples of harassment not to mention things that wouldnt normally be
thought about more than once such as staring, commenting about ones personal life such as
rumors, and the ever so frequent catcalling.
However where there is support there is also criticism over the use of emotional distress
in sexual harassment cases. Many people argue that gender stereotypes of women overacting to
some harmless attention from men is crossing the line. As well as defining what it means to be
harassed, such as Avlana Eisenberg states in her article criminal infliction of emotional distress
suggests, the perception that women are so fragile that they would reasonably be emotionally
distressed by the sight of a car driving down their block a few times over the course of the day.
This examines whole different aspect to considering filing a harassment case. In support of

Eisenbergs article the author from An Examination of the Perceptions of Sexual Harassment by
Sport Print Media Professionals insists that Title VII does not require that men behave as
gentlemen just because a woman is present in the workplace. Basically both articles are
challenging the claims for sexual harassment as having to be more of a serious matter.
Furthermore, it is necessary to understand the particular relationship between the
perpetrator and the victim. When this relationship is understood its easier to know the motives
and reasons for the harassment. If the harassment is a threat and whether or not the perpetrator is
a stranger or someone who is already known to the victim. For instance the article stranger
danger: The role of perpetrator and in context in moderating reactions to sexual harassment, a
known harasser may be granted more leeway than a stranger harasser who engages in the same
behavior, as targets of sexual harassment may infer less hostile or malevolent attributions for the
same behavior when enacted by a known harasser than a stranger. In making this comment the
article stranger danger argues that knowing a perpetrator vs. a stranger can change the outcomes
of the kind of case one would make, or the way an individual may feel about an event regarding
harassment.
The relationship one has with the perpetrator can also lead to the motives of the
harassment, because it determines if there was a past such as an ex-lover or partner. Perhaps it
could have been a friend that was rejected by the individual, and refused to keep their distance in
high hopes to rekindle feelings of love. For example Bran Nicol author of Stalking states the
two main categories of stalking where ordinary people are victims former intimacy and desired
intimacy- are both about romantic relationships which have gone sour, are desired or
mistakenly imagined. Basically, the author of Stalking Bran Nicol is saying that harassment
when associated with love is motivated by the dangerous inability to distinguish what is real, and

what is not. Or a harassment case can come from solely thinking an individual is attractive and
expressing ones interest through catcalls and intimating stares by a stranger in public places or in
private.
The article context effects on womens perceptions of stranger harassment, states that
harassment of women in public places by men who are strangers, can include both verbal and
nonverbal behavior; such as wolf-whistles, leers, Winks, grabs, pinches, catcalls, and street
remarks. In other words, the article context effects on womens perceptions of stranger
harassment believes that this stranger harassment can have a bigger impact on the individual
who is receiving these catcalls. Stranger harassment is more straightforward and easier to prove
in court than when a familiar harasser does this sort of thing it is more discreet, making it harder
to provide proof of. This is an example why it is essential and beneficial to the victim in a
harassment case to know who the harasser is, and information regarding the harassment.
Although some may argue that knowing the perpetrator makes a difference others
disagree with this statement. According to the article, context effects on womens perceptions of
stranger harassment states harassment is in the eye of the beholder; in other words, it is up to
the victim to label the behavior of harassment. Sexual harassment, and by extension stranger
harassment, is a matter of individual perception. Basically the article context effects on womens
perceptions of stranger harassment, is saying that regardless of the knowledge or lack of
knowledge harassment still has the same effect the only difference is whether or not a person
perceives the harassment as negative. Another article that supports this idea is titled stalking:
Terrorism at our doors---how social workers can help victims fight back, is stating that, No
matter what the motivation for stalking, the behaviors are the same. Behaviors include, but are
not limited to, repeated following; repeated telephone calls and hang-ups; letters; unwanted gifts

and packages; going through and stealing mail; spreading harmful gossip about the victims.
This also helps to support the main idea that the previous article supports, meaning it makes no
difference if the harasser is a stranger or is known to the victim.
Lastly, providing evidence for a potential case is a sure fire way to protect ones rights and
make a case favorable for the victim. An example of evidence would come from criminal
infliction of emotional distress, stating about ways that the criminal law can consider emotional
harm it highlights the role of the victims rights movement in making victim emotion an explicit
consideration in criminal sentencing, most notably through the introduction of victim impact
statements. The articles point is that a truthful statement can have a great impact on the court
and provide in detail the event(s) that led to the harassment in much greater depth. Other pieces
of evidence that are crucial for a harassment case whether it is related to stalking or online
harassment comes from the article protecting victims of cyberstalking, cyber harassment, and
online impersonation through prosecutions and effective laws which states, the Interstate
Communications Act, the Federal Interstate Stalking Punishment and Prevention Act does not
require a direct threat to the victim. Instead, it prohibits someone who has the "intent to kill,
injure, harass, intimidate, or place under surveillance with the intent to kill, injure, harass, and
intimidate another from using the "mail, any interactive computer service or electronic
communication service.
This includes any electronic communication system of interstate commerce, or any other
facility of interstate or foreign commerce. In order to place a person in reasonable fear of death
or serious bodily injury or to "cause, attempt to cause, or engage in conduct that would
reasonably expect to cause substantial emotional distress. Basically what the article protecting
victims of cyberstalking, cyber harassment, and online impersonation through prosecutions and

effective laws is saying that if a harasser gets into contact with the individual who filed the
harassment lawsuit they will more than likely be prosecuted if the victim has proof of any online
altercations. An example of online evidence can range from saved emails, voicemails, letters,
calls, and texts.
However some may think that claims under emotional distress and the whole concept of
sexual harassment is a nuisance and should not be fully accounted for. The article "Protecting
Victims of Cyberstalking, Cyber harassment, and Online Impersonation through Prosecutions
and Effective Laws, states In United States v. Tobin, the court held that the defendant must act
with "specific purpose to cause emotional upset" in the victim. It is not enough that the defendant
foresees and causes emotional upset, but he must actually intend to cause it. What the article is
implying is that just because someone declares emotional distress due to harassment it does not
prove harm. Another article that supports this claim is titled, Criminal Infliction of Emotional
Distress, the article states First, emotional distress is difficult to defineand predictin a way
that would provide adequate notice to criminal defendants. Second, criminalizing the infliction of
emotional distress conflicts with free-expression values and a strongly maintained distinction
between speech and conduct.
This second quote expresses the same idea from the same article Criminal Infliction of
Emotional Distress, states Indeed, central to the First Amendmentprotected marketplace of
ideas is the notion that one need not worry about hurting the feelings of others. Third, lack of
social consensus may undermine CIED laws because of sharp cultural disagreement about the
types of conduct that emotionally distress a reasonable person. These articles all express the
same ideas that deal with laws protecting victims of harassment as hard to prove and even more
so in having to prove emotional distress.

In conclusion, harassment cases are growing and becoming even more of a worldwide
issue now. The reason that the Erin Andrews case became so popular was because she knew what
she could do to get herself some justice, and she also knew what she was able to achieve just by
knowing her basic legal rights. Knowing this information can help distinguish the type of
harassing behavior, the relationships between the perpetrator and the victim and, providing
evidence for a case. It may be a hard topic to discuss or even experience, but it is necessary for
anyone who is experiencing sexual harassment to allow themselves to be aware that sexual
harassment is not a minimal issue and reports are growing out of proportions. Erin Andrews may
have had her privacy taken away with the nude videos of her, but she was able to find the
criminal who harassed her online and in person and prosecuted him. In the end she was awarded
$55 million for her emotional distress due to the harassment.