Sexual Harassment in City Workplace: a Clarification

More precise definitions of sexual harassment that include “leering” and “display of sexually suggestive objects or pictures, cartoons or posters” were adopted Monday by the city’s Commission on the Status of Women and forwarded to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley.

The advisory panel’s unanimous vote comes only days after it reported that more than a third of the women working for the city who responded to a survey have been victims of sexual harassment and that more than two-thirds of them feel it would be pointless to complain.

The commission also adopted a proposed directive to all city department heads that stresses that sexual harassment will not be tolerated under federal and state law or under the city’s affirmative action policies.

“It’s a gender-neutral proposal,” said Commissioner Diane Goodman, an attorney who helped draft the new policies. “We’re not specifically prohibiting sexual harassment against women. We are prohibiting sexual harassment across the board, by men or women against men or women.

“It’s not to be tolerated from anyone.”

Bradley had asked for a revision of his 1981 directive against sexual harassment after the city employee survey showed that a number of employees were unclear about their rights or did not know what constitutes such acts. A Bradley spokeswoman said the mayor is expected to review the proposed policy guidelines this week. Approval by the mayor is required to implement them.

In the survey conducted by the commission, 36% of the women employees who responded said they had been victims of sexual harassment; most of these worked in jobs that traditionally had been held by men. A total of 70% of the respondents felt that reporting such incidents would do little good, while 61% feared they would become victims of reprisal if they complained.

“There is already a tough policy in existence,” Goodman said. “What we’re doing is clarifying and spelling it out.”

Under the proposed policy, sexual harassment would be defined as “unwelcomed written, verbal, physical or visual contact with sexual overtones.” Examples might be “suggestive or obscene letters”; “slurs, jokes or epithets”; “assault, touching or blocking someone’s path”; or “leering, gestures and display of suggestive objects or pictures, cartoons or posters.”

Harassment would also involve reprisals, threats of reprisal or implied threats following a negative response from an overture, the proposed policy states. And sexual harassment also could include coercing a subordinate to perform sexual acts in exchange for a promotion or favorable job evaluations.

In coming months, the commission also will review a proposed brochure outlining the policy as well as the training that department heads receive to deal with sexual harassment complaints.

Goodman said the panel also will consider proposing a revamping of an 11-year-old discipline policy regarding sexual harassment. She said that among possible revisions would be adding harassment complaints made against employees to their personnel files. Many harassment complaints are handled with a verbal warning, she added.