Inappropriate and Illegal Relationships
Teachers must never come to work with the intention of flirting with, making sexually suggestive remarks to, or engaging in sexually suggestive actions with students or coworkers.
This doesn't mean that teachers who are single won't become attracted to professional colleagues whose interests mirror their own or that adult romantic relationships never blossom in the workplace. But you must be exceedingly careful. Just because you may desire a romantic relationship with a colleague does not mean that the colleague will reciprocate or will appreciate your attentions in the slightest. In fact, under certain circumstances you may be guilty of sexual harassment.
Courts have found that sexual harassment is sexual discrimination, and is prohibited under the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. As the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, explained in the 2002 case of Jin v. Metropolitan Life,“Title VII forbids an employer ‘to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's … sex.’” Because sexual harassment is sex discrimination, the law does not permit anyone to sexually harass a coworker.
But what is sexual harassment? In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson,the United States Supreme Court defined sexual harassment by citing the “Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex,” a set of regulations written by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency created under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to end workplace discrimination. The Meritor Court said sexual harassment included “[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.”
Moreover, there are two types of sexual harassment, as defined by the courts. One type is called quid pro quo sexual harassmentand the other is hostile environment sexual harassment.
Regarding the first type, quid pro quo translates from Latin as “something for something.” It was defined indirectly by the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, in Young v. Bayer. The Court said that for the plaintiff (the harassed party) to successfully argue “the ‘quid pro quo’ theory of liability for a supervisor's harassment … the plaintiff [necessarily] alleges that the foreman threatened her with the loss of her job if she did not submit to his advances.”
If an employee gives a coworker a birthday card, is that sexual harassment?
Sometimes. In Bales v. Wal-Mart, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, affirmed a lower-court verdict that the case's male defendant had harassed the female plaintiff — partly because he sent her a birthday card that could reasonably be interpreted as sexually suggestive.
The second type — hostile environment sexual harassment — was defined in the Meritorcase as follows: “Title VII affords employees the right to work in an environment free from discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.” And, where sexual harassment “has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance,” such prohibited conduct creates “an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”
But many times, an employee won't be the only one to suffer liability for his sexual harassment of a coworker. Often, the employee will also have the power to drag his employer down into the muck of liability. In the 2005 case of Pollard v. DuPont, the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, ruled that if a plaintiff can show hostile environment sexual harassment perpetrated by a coworker, and if she can also show that the coworker's employer knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment, then the employer will be liable, too.
In the Pollardcase, the plaintiff repeatedly told her supervisors about a coworker's harassment, yet her bosses merely conducted a quickie investigation and imposed no punishments on the offender. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The lessons from all this information seem to be quite clear:
Always keep your working relationships with your coworkers professional and respectful.
Do not engage in any behavior that might be interpreted as harassing or sexually suggestive.
When told to back off, have the graciousness and simple decency to back off.
Consult a lawyer if you have questions about the legality of your contemplated approaches.
Also, while you're considering the subject of inappropriate relationships, remind any colleagues who need reminding that the “dating game” never extends to students. You might think, “But everyone knows that. That's just ordinary common sense.” And it should be; but consider the subject of flirting for a moment.
If one of your colleagues is sliding down this path, pull him up. One of the definitions of flirting is an exchange of cutesy, sexually suggestive, risqué banter between two individuals who seem to be attracted to each other. Flirting also involves the deliberate use of gestures that can be interpreted sexually, such as licking one's fingers, running one's tongue across one's lips, conspicuously playing with one's hair, etc.
Additionally, flirting may involve fleeting but purposeful touches, such as momentary leg or foot contact, touching another's arm or shoulder, etc.
If a colleague is absent mindedly or deliberately engaging in any such conduct with students, he needs to put an immediate end to it. And if he truly can't differentiate between potential dates and innocent, underage kids, then he needs to find another profession — today.
