Key Findings of the Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment 
in the Workplace

Report of the Co-Chairs of the EEOC Select Task Force on the Study of harassment in the Workplace

© 2017 National Sexual Violence Resource Center. All rights reserved.
This document was supported by Cooperative Agreement #5UF2CE002359-05 
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Its contents are solely 
the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC.

The content of this publication may be reprinted with the following acknowledgment: This material 
was reprinted, with permission, from the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s publication 
entitled Key findings of the select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace.
This guide is available by visiting www.nsvrc.org. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency charged
with enforcing federal labor laws that prohibit workplace discrimination, released
findings from a year-long look into harassment in the workplace. The Select Task
Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace was created in January 2015 and invited
16 people to participate as members who represent a wide range of interests including
employers, organized labor, employee advocacy groups, academics, and attorneys. A
complete list of the Task Force members and their organizational affiliations is available on
pages 1-2 of the report.

To learn more about the EEOC, visit https://www.eeoc.gov/ or to learn more
about the Select Task force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace,
visit https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/.

[Image: People working in a hospital]

From April 2015 through June 2016, the Task Force held a series of meetings at different
locations throughout the country. Testimony was presented by more than 30 witnesses over
the course of the year. The Task Force received numerous public comments that reflected, in
the words of the report, “a broad diversity of experience, expertise, and opinion” (p.1).

In addition to testimony providing first-person experiences of harassment and expert testimony,
staff from the Task Force conducted a wideranging literature review on different aspects of
harassment that would contribute to providing the most comprehensive picture of workplace
harassment as was currently possible.

The EEOC defines harassment as a form of employment discrimination that violates
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). It is further defined as
“unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national
origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.” Conduct is illegal when:
• it becomes a condition of continued employment
• the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that would
be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people
• it is in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in an
investigation, or opposing discriminating employment practices (EEOC, n.d.a)

There are also limits to who is covered under these laws and time limits to when someone may
file a charge.

The stated focus of the Task Force, however, was ultimately toward prevention. To that
end, the report offers a wide-ranging set of recommendations that go beyond issues such as
enforcement or liability, and instead approach workplace harassment with a comprehensive
prevention lens.

Key Finding: Workplace harassment remains a persistent problem.

Almost one third of the approximately 90,000 charges received by EEOC in fiscal year 2015
included an allegation of workplace harassment. This includes, among other things, charges
of unlawful harassment on the basis of sex (including sexual orientation, gender identity,
and pregnancy), race, disability, age, ethnicity/national origin, color, and religion. The data
below reflects the breakdown of charge by each protected class from employees working for
private employers or state and local government:
• 45% alleged harassment on the basis of sex;
• 34% alleged harassment on the basis of race;
• 19% alleged harassment on the basis of disability;
• 15% alleged harassment on the basis of age;
• 13% alleged harassment on the basis of national origin; and
• 5% alleged harassment on the basis of religion (p.7).

Below is the same breakdown of charges by federal employees alleging harassment in fiscal
year 2015:
• 36% alleged harassment on the basis of race;
• 34% alleged harassment on the basis of disability;
• 26% alleged harassment on the basis of age;
• 12% alleged harassment on the basis of national origin;
• 7% alleged harassment on the basis of sex; and
• 5% alleged harassment on the basis of religion (p.7).

Since filed charges received by the EEOC reflect only a portion of the harassment behaviors that
could actually be happening, the Task Force looked to other empirical data on workplace
harassment to learn more.

Starting with prevalence data that exists for any of the protected classes, the Task Force found
sex-based harassment to be most studied by researchers to date — not only for prevalence data
but in all of the other dimensions of workplace harassment that are discussed in the report.

According to the EEOC, it is unlawful to either discriminate against or harass a person because of
their sex. Sexual harassment can include behavior such as unwelcome sexual advances, requests
for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature (EEOC, n.d.b). Sexual
harassment is not limited to behaviors only of a sexual nature. It also includes offensive remarks
about a person’s sex. Anyone of any sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity can be a victim or a
harasser. The victim and the harasser can also be of the same sex, sexual orientation, and/or gender
identity (EEOC, n.d.b; EEOC, n.d.c).

Protected class: Those groups protected from employment discrimination by
law. These include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a
common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with
physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected
class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were
passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority
group members (EEOC, n.d.a). To learn more about each type of harassment visit:
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/

In the literature review of published studies on sex-based harassment, the report found wide
variations between prevalence rates, ranging from 25% to 85% of women who report experiencing
workplace sexual harassment. The Task Force accounted for these variations reflective of
different study methodology that included:
1) who was being asked the questions, and
2) how the questions about workplace harassment were being asked.

First, they noted the differences between prevalence rates based on the sample of people
who were surveyed. One in four women (25%) reported experiencing “sexual harassment”
in the workplace — a percentage consistent across randomly representative samples. The
percentage rises to 50% where researchers used convenience samples, defined as surveys
measuring respondents that are “convenient to the researcher, e.g., student volunteers or respondents
from one organization” (p. 8).

How questions were asked of the respondents mattered. When respondents were asked about
“sexual harassment” without having the term defined by researchers, prevalence rates were
lower than when respondents were asked about specific sexually based behaviors they may have
experienced. In their review of prior studies, the EEOC found that prevalence rates of sexual
harassment when respondents were asked behavioral-based questions ranged from 40% to
75%. The Task Force noted researchers (Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999) have concluded
that people view behaviors as problematic or offensive even if they don’t label them as “sexual
harassment” (p. 9).

(Ed. Note: This is not unlike other forms of sexual violence where researchers have found
that using a particular label such as ‘rape’ to describe a behavior may cause people to
not endorse the word, but if asked about the specific behavioral actions that define the term,
participants may provide a different response. For further discussion of this phenomenon, see Fisher,
Cullen, & Turner, 2000; Holmes, 2007; Senn, Carey, & Courey-Doniger, 2011; Vaillancourt-Morel
et al., 2016; Wilson & Miller, 2016).

Regardless of whether people endorse a particular term or label for this behavior, research
cited by the Task Force (Magley et al, 1999; Munson, Miner, & Hulin, 2011) suggests people victimized still
experience the negative consequences: “whether or not a woman considers her experience to
constitute sexual harassment, she experiences similar negative psychological, work, and health
consequences” (p. 10).

The report noted significantly less research available on other protected bases of workplace
harassment. For example, finding research studies on behaviors for race- and ethnicitybased
harassment alone proved difficult as most studies failed to distinguish between harassment
and other forms of discrimination (p. 8). Results that were found for other prevalence data can be
viewed on pages 11-14.

In light of the scarcity of additional empirical data, the Task Force made the following observation:
“The bottom line is that there is a great deal we do not know about the prevalence
of harassment that occurs because of an employee’s race, ethnicity, religion, age,
disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. This is so, despite the fact that there is no
shortage of private sector charges and federal sector complaints that are filed claiming
harassment on such grounds. We hope that an outcome of this report will be a particular focus
by funders and researchers on collecting better prevalence data on harassment based on these
additional characteristics” (p. 14).

Key Finding: Workplace harassment too often goes unreported.

“…based on the empirical data, the extent of non-reporting is striking” (p.15).

Challenging the notion that many individuals seek legal relief after workplace harassment, the
Task Force found evidence suggesting quite the opposite, noting “…based on the empirical data,
the extent of non-reporting is striking” (p. 15). 

Looking again at sex-based harassment, the report cited findings by researchers (Cortina & 
Berdahl, 2008)  comparing multiple studies on sexual harassment, and found the most common
responses of those victimized were:
• avoid the harasser (33% to 75%);
• deny or downplay the gravity of the situation (54% to 73%); and/or
• attempt to ignore, forget, or endure the behavior (44% to 70%) (p.15).

Based on this same data, the most common response of women who experience harassment
is to turn to family members, friends, and colleagues. The least common response of men
or women is to take formal action by reporting the harassment internally at their workplace
or filing a formal legal complaint (p. 16). In fact, the report noted that this research found
“approximately 70% of individuals or three out of four individuals who experienced harassment
never even talked with a supervisor, manager, or union representative about the harassing
conduct” (p. 16).

Expert testimony (Cortina, 2015) suggested that an employee’s decision to not file a
complaint or report harassing behavior is because victims anticipate a range of negative
reactions including:
• disbelief of their claim;
• inaction on their claim;
• fear of blame for causing the offending actions;
• social retaliation (including humiliation and ostracism); and
• professional retaliation, such as damage to their career and reputation.

The Task Force went on to suggest those fears may be well-founded, citing research (Cortina
& Magley, 2003) that found 75% of employees who spoke out against workplace mistreatment
faced some form of retaliation (p. 16). Other research (Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortiha, &
Fitzgerald, 2002) found “reporting is often followed by organizational indifference or trivialization of
the harassment complaint as well as hostility and reprisals against the victim” (p. 17).

Key Finding: There is a compelling business case for stopping and preventing harassment.

The Task Force noted that in 2015, EEOC alone recovered $164.5 million for workers alleging
harassment and that was just direct, quantifiable costs. There is a clear business case to be made
for preventing sexual harassment that recognizes not just the direct financial costs associated with
legal action, but the demoralizing atmosphere that is created and the burdens borne by those who
experience, and witness, workplace harassment.

Direct costs:

From 2010 – 2015, employers have paid out $698.7 million to employees alleging harassment
through the Commission’s pre-litigation process alone (p. 18). The Task Force found one estimate
of settlement payments and court judgments in 2012 alone was over $356 million and the largest
sexual harassment jury award in 2012 was $168 million (eBossWatch, 2012).

The financial liabilities that can be incurred as well as damaging publicity that can result from
legal actions are obvious risks to an employer’s reputation and bottom line. A hostile workplace
can also lead to an inability to attract employees and/or retain its current employees or customers
(p. 24).

Power and privilege can play a primary role in workplace harassment. For example, the Task
Force highlights what they call the “Superstar Harasser.” This is someone who by some
measure within their workplace, e.g., incomegenerating ability, reputation, public sentiment,
or other measure, assumes an elevated sense of privilege that can become a breeding ground
for harassment (p. 24). Different expectations may lead this person to believe the rules do not
apply to them. Employers may feel conflicted in addressing problematic behavior with this
individual fearing potential risk in alienating or losing someone they believe contributes
significant value to their organization. The Task Force, however, cautioned employers against
the “binary thinking that weighs the productivity of a harasser solely against the costs of his
or her being reported” (p. 24). Employers should consider the negative impact of toxic
employees as well as productivity or value to the organization. “No matter who the harasser
is,” the report argues, “the negative effects of harassment can cause serious damage to a
business,” noting reputational costs alone can have serious consequences (p. 24).

Indirect costs:

Regardless of whether legal action is pursued, the indirect costs that can incur are just as real and
damaging. The report outlines multiple personal harms experienced by those who are victimized
(pp. 20-22) as well as by those who witness harassment. These harms can cost employers
through decreased productivity, increased turnover, and reputational damage (p. 20).

Psychological effects, for example, are often experienced by victims and can include anger,
depression, disgust, emotional exhaustion, and drug or alcohol abuse. Physical health
effects were found to include headaches, sleep problems, and others (p. 21).

Bystanders to workplace harassment are also impacted. Employees — both female and male
— who observed hostility directed to female employees were more likely to experience
lower psychological wellbeing, according to researchers (p. 21). Employees who are not
targets themselves of workplace harassment may voice concern for the victim, workplace
unfairness, as well as fear of becoming the next target (p. 21).

Finally, the report notes the most costly outcome to organizations is employee turnover.
“Some have hypothesized that turnover costs are the largest single component of the overall
cost of sexual harassment” (p. 22).

An additional area that employers may be interested in learning more about is workplace
risk factors for harassment. Noting that research studies often focus on individual characteristics
either of those who act out offending behaviors or those who become victims of harassment,
the Task Force instead looked to available empirical data as well as expert testimony to
help identify environmental or organizational conditions that could increase the likelihood of
workplace harassment occurring. Some of the organizational conditions they listed include:
• lack of diversity in the workplace; yet also cultural and language difference in the
workplace (under different conditions);
• workforces with young workers;
• those with significant power disparities;
• “high value” employees; and
• “coarsened” social discourse outside the workplace.

Many workplaces have one or more of the above risk factors present, and these
characteristics don’t in and of themselves cause harassment (p. 30). But the Task Force
recommends that employers should maintain “situational awareness” and consider proactive
action to address any particular risk factor(s) that makes their workplace more susceptible
to harassment behaviors. Readers can find this discussion and additional considerations
on pages 25-30. The report also includes a chart of risk factors and possible responses for
employers as an appendix.

PREVENTING WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

Key Finding: It starts at the top — leadership and accountability are critical.

“The importance of leadership cannot be overstated — effective harassment
prevention efforts, and workplace culture in which harassment is not tolerated, must
start with and involve the highest level of management of the company” (p. v).

The report states in plain terms: “Organizational cultures that tolerate harassment have more of it
and workplaces that are not tolerant of harassment have less of it” (p. 32).

Several points of discussion are worth noting in addition to the following recommendations. The
report stresses that a commitment to an inclusive and respectful workplace is not in and of itself
enough. Leadership must ensure accountability mechanisms are in place throughout the
organization to hold employees responsible for their actions. This includes mid-level and front-line
managers responsible for their part in monitoring and stopping harassment.

An organization’s commitment to a harassment-free workplace, the report notes, is not “driven
by a compliance mindset but is part of an overall diversity and inclusion strategy” (p. 31). The culture
is driven by values that start with believing all employees deserve respect regardless of race,
class, religion, sex, or any of the protected bases where people may differ. That commitment must
be seen as authentic in both the formal and informal culture of a workplace. Management must
demonstrate this commitment through time and money dedicated to both appropriate response
and prevention efforts. This includes rewarding and incentivizing behaviors such as acknowledging
well-handled complaints by managers as well as holding accountable those who may not respond
appropriately (p. 35).

Recommendations on leadership and accountability

• Employers should foster an organizational culture in which harassment is not tolerated,
and in which respect and civility are promoted. Employers should communicate and model a
consistent commitment to that goal.
• Employers should assess their workplaces for the risk factors associated with harassment
and explore ideas for minimizing those risks.
• Employers should conduct climate surveys to assess the extent to which harassment is a
problem in their organization.
• Employers should devote sufficient resources to harassment prevention efforts, both to ensure
that such efforts are effective and to reinforce the credibility of leadership’s commitment to
creating a workplace free of harassment.
• Employers should ensure that where harassment is found to have occurred,
discipline is prompt and proportionate to the severity of the infraction. In addition,
employers should ensure discipline is consistent and does not give (or create the
appearance of) undue favor to any particular employee.
• Employers should hold mid-level managers and front-line supervisors accountable for
preventing and/or responding to workplace harassment, including through the use of metrics 
and performance reviews.
• Should employers have a diversity and inclusion strategy and budget, harassment
prevention should be an integral part of that strategy (pp. 66-67).

Recommendations on policies and procedures

Policies regarding harassment, including reporting procedures, the course of
investigations, and corrective actions are all components of a comprehensive effort to
address harassment.

The most basic starting point for all employers is to have a stated policy against harassment that
sets forth the behaviors that will not be accepted in the workplace and the procedures to follow in
reporting and responding to harassment.

Employers should:

• adopt and maintain a comprehensive anti-harassment policy that prohibits harassment
based on sex, race, disability, age, national origin, or religion. The policy should extend
to social media and should establish clear procedures for reporting and dealing with
harassing behaviors.
• communicate frequently and in a variety of forms the organization’s anti-harassment
policy, how to make a complaint of harassment, and how to report observed harassment.
• be alert for and take steps to ensure retaliation against an employee who reports
harassment does not occur.
• periodically test the reporting system to make sure it is working.
• devote sufficient resources so that workplace investigations are prompt, objective, and
thorough. While confidentiality or anonymity may not always be possible, investigations
should be kept as confidential as possible.
• offer employees the ability to report harassment in multiple ways and provide
multiple points of contact. The Task Force heard broad support for multiple reporting
options including choices of procedures as well as choices among “complaint handlers” that
could include multi-lingual complaint hotlines, web-based submissions, and others.
• disciplinary action for harassment must be proportionate to the offense. Noting they
heard from witnesses who told them that weak responses can be viewed as affirming
the behaviors, “zero tolerance” policies can convey a one-size-fits-all policy that could
backfire. Termination, for example, may be an appropriate response for demanding sexual
favors in return for a promotion, but probably not appropriate for the first-time telling of
a sexist joke. This could in fact, contribute to employees not reporting harassment,
particularly when the person targeted does not want a co-worker to lose their job over
relatively minor harassing behavior — they just want the behavior to stop.
• consider working with other employers to allow researchers to access workplaces
to research the effectiveness of policies, reporting systems, investigative procedures,
and corrective actions put into place by those employers. Working with other businesses
would allow research data to be aggregated in a manner that would not identify individual
employers (pp. 40-44).

The EEOC should:

• work with other federal agencies to ensure confidentiality of workplace investigations
and policies regarding the regulation of social media usage of employees meets all federal
regulations. When appropriate, EEOC should seek settlement agreements with employers
where policies, complaints, or investigative procedures implemented to resolve a charge
or lawsuit are in line with the Task Force’s recommendations.

• seek as part of its settlement agreements with employers an agreement that researchers
will be allowed to work with the employer in assessing the impact and efficacy of the
policies, reporting systems, investigative procedures, and corrective actions put into
place by that employer, whenever this is appropriate (pp. 43-44).

In unionized workplaces, the labor union should:

• ensure that its own policy and reporting system meet the principles outlined in this
section (p. 43).

Finally, the Task Force acknowledged that reports of harassment after policy changes may increase
but cautioned against using that number as a sole measurement of success in addressing workplace
harassment. Higher numbers of complaints initially can reflect an increased willingness of those
victimized to come forward (p. 36).

Key Finding: Training must change.

“...effective training cannot occur in a vacuum — it must be part of a holistic culture
of non-harassment that starts at the top” (p. v).

The Task Force recommends a two-pronged
training strategy:
Anti-harassment compliance training
PLUS
Workplace civility and bystander training

Anti-harassment compliance training 

Compliance training is generally recognized as the most prevalent type of training that organizations
use to teach employees about workplace harassment. The report noted that compliance
training for many workplaces has often come about as a result of legal mandates or prior EEOC
conciliation agreements (p. 44).

As compliance training is one of the principal mechanisms organizations use as a way to
prevent harassment, the Task Force looked for evaluation data on effectiveness but found
limited studies that could be representative. Based on expert testimony and empirical data
(however limited), the Task Force concluded that:
“…deficiencies notwithstanding, based on the practical and anecdotal evidence we heard
from employers and trainers, we conclude that training is an essential component of an antiharassment
effort. However, to be effective in stopping harassment, such training cannot
stand alone but rather must be part of a holistic effort undertaken by the employer to prevent
harassment that includes the elements of leadership and accountability described above
(emphasis added). In addition, the training must have specific goals and must contain certain
components to achieve those goals”(p. 45).

Two key components to successful training include:

Content
 
Compliance training educates employees about the types of behavior or conduct that are not
acceptable in the workplace — for example, forms of sexual conduct that are unwelcome and
offensive to women. The report noted specifically that effective trainings should:
• be tailored to the specific contexts of each workplace using examples and scenarios
that realistically involve situations from the specific workplace.
• focus on behavior that is unacceptable in the workplace, not just the legal standards where
the behavior becomes legally actionable.
• clarify what conduct is, and is not, harassment. For example, it’s not harassment for a
supervisor to tell an employee that their job performance is not adequate, nor is a random
compliment (in the absence of other factors).
• educate employees about their rights and responsibilities if they experience behaviors that
are not acceptable as defined by their employer.
• inform employees about how the formal complaint process works, confidentiality
provisions in place, and assurances of no retaliation (p. 50).

Structure

The Task Force suggests employers pay attention to how trainings are structured and
suggests:
• training should be supported at the highest levels within organizations;
• training should be reinforced on a regular basis — although not by routine exercises, but varied
and dynamic in content and style.
• training should be conducted by qualified, in-person trainers. If in-person training
presents a difficulty such as cost or location of employees, online or video-based training
should be tailored to specific workplaces or workforces and designed to include active
engagement by participants.
• training should be evaluated routinely for effectiveness. (pp. 52-53).

In addition to incorporating the above principles into their training efforts, employers should also
allocate sufficient resources to train middle-management and first-line supervisors on how to
respond effectively to harassment. This includes harassment that they observe, is reported to them,
or they have knowledge or information about. Supervisors should be responding to harassment
before it reaches a legally-actionable level (p. 53).

The Task Force also made recommendations directed to the EEOC including: developing a
resource guide for employers that contains checklists and training modules for compliance
trainings; reviewing and updating their own anti-harassment compliance training modules
used in trainings; and education programs using the content and structural recommendations
highlighted above.

Key Finding: New and different approaches to training should be explored.

“In short, an organization’s commitment to a harassment-free workplace must not be
based on a compliance mindset, and instead must be part of an overall diversity and
inclusion strategy” (p. 31).

The Task Force heard testimony regarding several new models of training that could
show promise for harassment prevention. These include bystander intervention training,
which aims to empower bystanders by giving them tools to intervene when they witness
troublesome behavior, and workplace civility training, which focuses on promoting respect and
civility in the workplace generally.

Workplace civility and bystander intervention training

Noting various research studies that suggest uncivil behaviors can often “spiral” into harassing
behaviors and create a climate of general derision and disrespect, the Task Force suggests investing
in training that can shape a positive organizational culture (p. 55). Two types of training that show
promise in improving organizational culture are workplace civility training and bystander
intervention training.

“...we know from the research that organizational culture is one of the
key drivers of harassment” (p. 54).

The Task Force characterizes workplace civility training as promoting respect and civility in the
workplace. Civility trainings are different from compliance trainings in that compliance training
focuses largely on eliminating unwelcome behavior based on protected class attributes while civility
training often includes skills-based training that targets areas such as conflict resolution, effective
supervision, and interpersonal skills training (p. 54). It focuses on the positive — “what employees and
managers should do rather than what they should not do” (p. 55). While acknowledging this type of
training has yet to be rigorously evaluated as a harassment prevention tool, they believe it could be
an important complement to compliance training.

Bystander training is another potential strategy the Task Force is suggesting to workplaces.
Currently less common as workplace training, bystander training is increasingly visible as a
strategy on college campuses to prevent sexual assaults.

Bystander intervention training could help employees identify unwelcome and offensive
behavior; create a sense of responsibility on the part of employees to “do something” and
not stand by; give employees the skills and confidence to intervene in some manner to stop
harassment; and demonstrate the employer’s commitment to empowering employees to act
(p. 57). While acknowledging a lack of research evaluating the effectiveness of bystander
training as a workplace harassment prevention strategy, the Task Force believes in the
potential of this strategy to positively impact an organization’s culture (p. 58).

The Task Force recommends:
• employers consider including workplace civility training and bystander intervention training
as part of a holistic harassment prevention program.
• EEOC work with other federal agencies to clarify what would be permissible in workplace
civility codes under federal statutes.
• researchers assess the impact of workplace civility training on reducing the level of
harassment in the workplace.
• EEOC work with experts on sexual assault bystander intervention training to develop
and evaluate a bystander intervention training module for reducing harassment in the
workplace.
• EEOC, where appropriate and as a best practice, seek as part of its settlement agreements that
researchers will be allowed to work with the employer in assessing the efficacy of workplace
civility training and/or bystander intervention training on reducing workplace harassment.
• multiple employers should consider coming together to offer researchers access to their
workplaces. Allowing researchers to study multiple employers would allow them to
gather data that is not identifiable to any one individual employer (pp. 59-60).

Outreach: Getting the word out
 
The Task Force noted a significant amount of time was spent discussing outreach and
education efforts that would be useful to informing workers about their rights as well as
educating employers to better understand their responsibilities to their workers. They noted that
EEOC is updating its Enforcement Guidance on Harassment and is proposing to upgrade the
technology of its website, including making the site accessible in a number of languages (p. 62).

They also noted that to reach everyone who should be reached with information and
resources, other organizations in addition to EEOC should be involved.

The Task Force suggested the following:

• EEOC should develop additional resources and user-friendly guides on workplace harassment
for both employers and employees accessible on mobile devices.
• Other organizations including non-profit groups should develop educational materials
designed for employers to explain the business case for strong harassment prevention
cultures, policies, and procedures.
• Non-profit organizations (including employee advocacy organizations, business membership
associations, and labor unions) should develop both written and creative materials
such as videos, posters, etc. for employees to understand their rights and employers to
understand their responsibilities.
• EEOC should ensure that a range of EEOC resources to prevent and respond to
workplace harassment appear high on the list of results returned by search engines so
people have easy access to resources (p. 62).

To learn more about EEOC’s Enforcement Guidances and Related
Documents, visit: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement_guidance.cfm

Young workers

As a result of hearing testimony on the particular impact of harassment on youth, especially those
just starting out in the workforce, the Task Force recommends a targeted effort be made to
educate this group of workers about their rights — specifically “…to work in an environment
free from harassment, intimidation, and /or discrimination…” (p. 63). Some members of the
Task Force and other witnesses stressed the importance of reaching youth before they enter
the workplace (p. 63).

Commending the Youth@Work national initiative that EEOC launched in 2004 as an
outreach and education campaign targeted to young workers, the Task Force made the
following recommendations:

To learn more about the EEOC Youth@Work Initiative, visit: https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/

• EEOC should update its Youth@Work initiative and update the website to include more about
workplace harassment.
• Colleges and high schools should incorporate workplace harassment into their school-based
anti-bullying and anti-sexual assault programs.
• EEOC should partner with web-based educational websites, such as Khan Academy or YouTube
channels that have a large youth following, to develop content around workplace harassment.
• EEOC should work with youth to help educate their peers on workplace harassment by
establishing a contest for youth to design videos or apps on workplace harassment (pp. 63-64).

Key Finding: It’s On Us.

“Harassment in the workplace will not stop on its own” (p. 64)

Finally, the Task Force proposed a public outreach initiative patterned after the successful
effort that was initiated for campus sexual violence called It’s On Us. The It’s On Us
campaign grew out of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault
begun in 2014 to develop a multipronged approach to address campus sexual assault.

It’s On Us aimed to fundamentally shift the way people think about sexual assault from the
belief that this is about a crime committed by a perpetrator against a victim, to one which the
whole community feels empowered to prevent. The EEOC Task Force would like to see workplace
harassment transformed similarly: moving from a focus on targets, harassers, and legal compliance
to one where all employees, regardless of position, feel empowered to change the workplace culture.

The EEOC Task Force suggests the three pillars of the It’s On Us campaign — increasing
bystander intervention, defining consent, and creating an environment to support survivors —
can be adjusted to fit workplace anti-harassment efforts with a particular emphasis on bystander
intervention. They embrace this bold goal and the potential results of patterning a workplace
campaign using the multi-faceted approach of a public awareness campaign complemented with a
strong organizing campaign. This strategy offers an invaluable opportunity to engage individuals
in workplace harassment prevention on a level beyond any policy, procedure, or compliance
training (pp.64-65).

To learn more about the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, see
https://tinyurl.com/mupn9yh 
To learn more about the It’s On Us campaign, see www.itsonus.org

Conclusion

This report of the Task Force on Workplace Harassment provides a call to action for all
organizations, businesses, and employers to recognize and take steps to address and prevent
workplace harassment. The specific strategies in the report provide a solid framework for
an organization to begin building an effective response to harassment, or to update and revise
a current one. There are several appendices included in the full report that could be useful
to helping employers take stock of their current efforts including a chart of risk factors and
possible responses for employers.

Especially promising is the acknowledgement that compliance training alone is not a solution.
Thirty years of compliance training has not stopped workplace harassment. The Task Force
emphasized multiple times their belief that workplace culture is a critical driver of employee
behavior. Creating and fostering workplace cultures that are respectful and inclusive may
contribute most to stopping harassment in all its forms for all employees.

For additional information, the full report contains rich discussion and details behind these
recommendations. It is accessible from the EEOC website, along with minutes from the various
Task Force meetings and testimony that informed this report at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_
force/harassment/index.cfm

Primary Source

Feldblum, C. R., & Lipnic, V. A. (2016). Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the
Workplace: Report of the Co-Chairs of the EEOC. Retrieved from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission: https://www.eeoc.gov/ eeoc/task_force/harassment/upload/report.pdf

References

Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P. A., Cortina, L. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The
(un)reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual
harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,230-242. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.230

Cortina, L. M., (2015, June 15). Written testimony of Lilia M. Cortina, Ph.D., professor of
psychology and women’s studies, University of Michigan. Retrieved from the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission: https:// www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/task_force/harassment/
testimony_cortina.cfm

Cortina, L . M., & Berdahl, J. L. ( 2008). Sexual harassment in organizations: A decade
of research in review. In J. Baring & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 469-497). doi:10.4135/9781849200448.n26

Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following
interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8,
247-265. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247

eBossWatch. (2012, October 16). National Boss Day report: Employers paid over $356 million
for workplace harassment and discrimination complaints [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://
blog.ebosswatch.com/2012/10/national-bossday- report-employers-paid-over-356-millionfor-
workplace-harassment-and-discriminationcomplaints/

Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women.
Retrieved from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service: https://www.ncjrs.gov/
pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

Holmes, W. C. (2008). Men’s self-definitions of abusive childhood sexual experiences,
and potentially related risky behavioral and psychiatric outcome. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32,
83–97. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2007.09.005

Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, N. (1999). Outcomes of self-labeling
sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 390-402. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.390

Munson, L. J., Miner, A. G., & Hulin, C. (2011). Labeling sexual harassment in the military: An
extension and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 293-303. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.86.2.293

Senn, T., Carey, M. P., & Coury-Doniger, P. (2011). Self-defining as sexually abused and adult
sexual risk behavior: Results from a crosssectional survey of women attending an STD
clinic. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 353–362. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.01.013

U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.a). Harassment. Retrieved from https://
www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
(n.d.b). Sexual harassment. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_
harassment.cfm

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.c). What you should know about EEOC and
the enforcement protections for LGBT workers. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/
newsroom/wysk/enforcement_protections_ lgbt_workers.cfm

Wilson, L. C., & Miller, K. E. (2016). Meta-analysis of the prevalence of unacknowledged rape.
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17, 149-159. doi:10.1177/1524838015576391

Vaillancourt-Morel, M., Godbout, N., Bédard, M. G., Charest, E., Briere, J., & Sabourin, S. (2016).
Emotional and Sexual Correlates of Child Sexual Abuse as a Function of Self-Definition
Status. Child Maltreatment,21, 228-238. doi:10.1177/1077559516656069