HR Pulse - Winter 2008 - (Page 34)

>> BULLYING AS GENDER HARASSMENT 34 HR Pulse Winter 2008 political and/or ﬁnancial power within the organization. One female nurse cited an incident in which a surgeon verbally attacked her, grabbed her by the shoulder, and pushed her around in front of the director. “She [director] was a direct witness to this assault and did nothing about it!!” Nurses indicated that management knew of the abusive behavior of many physicians but would not stand up to them because they brought business to the hospital. Nurses disclosed that management told them that nothing of consequence would happen to the surgeons because they are the “money makers.” This is potentially illegal behavior. The hospital is liable for physician harassment of an employee even if the physician is not a hospital employee. An employer is strictly liable for harassing behavior by a supervisor or by an individual reasonably perceived as a supervisor. Physicians, as the perpetrator, may be viewed as a supervisor by nurses who reasonably believe that physicians have the power to impact their job up to and including termination. As a result, this increases the liability to the hospital. Nurses wrote that physician abuse has been a problem in the OR for decades. One woman stated, “This is a very hush-hush environment that exists, I’m sure, in every operating room across the country on some scale.” Many nurses expressed hope that the results of the research would positively impact the abusive OR environment. Other nurses addressed the study from a different perspective, “It saddens me that this kind of research even needs to be done.” While another stated, “It really made me think about my work environment. I could feel my BP [blood pressure] rise and tightness in my stomach.” Other nurses contacted the researcher indicating their unwillingness to complete the questionnaire because it was too painful. The EEOC and various courts have stated that unwelcomed behavior must be severe and/or pervasive enough that a reasonable person, in the same or similar environment or circumstances, would ﬁnd it created a hostile or abusive environment. The context in which the harassment occurred should be considered, recognizing that the behavior does not occur in a vacuum. The reasonable person standard recognizes that even if offensive conduct is the norm, it may still constitute a hostile work environment, even if employees say that the conduct is to be expected, is part of the job, or is harmless, as nurses have indicated in other research. Some of the female nurses viewed the everyday sexisms and bullying as just rudeness and failed to see the injustice in the behavior. According to the Ellison v. Brady (1991) opinion, the reasonable person standard fails to recognize the divergent views between most women and men. This standard reﬂects the perspective of appropriateness through a hidden male biased lens and fails to recognize the fact that most victims of sexual harassment are women. As a result, a reasonable woman standard has been applied in many courts. A 2005 9th Circuit Court opinion in EEOC v. NEA Alaska, held that it wasn’t necessary for harassing conduct to be sexual in nature in order to violate Title VII, if the harasser treats men and women differently or if the behavior impacts women differently than it does men. The court adapted the reasonable woman standard in this opinion when the conduct of a male administrator to his female and male workers was not sex or gender speciﬁc, but impacted the women more severely than it did the men. Like physicians, the administrator was verbally abusive to both men and women by frequently yelling, using profanity, shaking his ﬁsts at them, and using intimidating body language. His behavior to the men was less severe, and he and the men also enjoyed a collegiality and male camaraderie the administrator did not share with the women with whom he worked, as was also evident with the male nurses and male physicians. Even though the administrator had been a bully to the men he worked with, this case demonstrates that there is no such thing, in many courts, of the “equal opportunity harasser.” This case serves as a warning light to hospital human resources professionals. As early as 1985, gender harassment was heard in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which decided in McKinney v. Dole that physical violence that is not sexual could be sex-based harassment if it demonstrates unequal treatment that would not have taken place if it was not for that employee’s gender. This opinion was the ﬁrst to introduce the concept of gender-based sexual harassment, meaning that if a hostile environment exists for one gender, even if the hostility is not sexual in nature, it may constitute sexual harassment. Andrews v. City of Philadelphia (1990), and Hall v. Gus Construction Co. (1988) further deﬁned hostile environment when they stated that intimidation and hostility toward women, because they are women, could violate Title VII. This was followed by the EEOC (1990) claiming that harassment doesn’t have to involve sexual activity or language but needs to demonstrate a persistent pattern directed to employees because of their gender. Yoder and Aniakudo (1996) claimed that, “the gender-typing of an occupation, the gender composition of the work groups, and the organizational climate regarding gender, all may impact on what is perceived as harassing behavior.” The authors stated that these issues are broader than the workplace and reﬂect societal factors. Judge Goodwin’s

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of HR Pulse - Winter 2008

HR Pulse - Winter 2008 Contents Pulse Points Executive Director’s Letter President’s Message HR Leader Profile: Karmen Reid Advocacy is for Everyone A Case Study in Raising Voices Diversity Management Measuring What Matters Bullying as Gender Harassment Combat Workforce Changes Hardwiring Accountability Immigration Frustration HR and Education Making Exit Interviews Count Management Styles that Enhance Intrinsic Motivation Backup Care Fact or Fiction 10 Ways to Lose Your Best People Advertisers’ Index

HR Pulse - Winter 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.