(Published October 26, 2009)
Let's say a male company owner has a series of intimate relationships with several of his female employees. Is this illegal? Is it inappropriate? Is it anyone else's business?
That's what media pundits, bloggers, lawyers, HR personnel, and "regular" people gossiping around the water cooler have been asking ever since David Letterman admitted to having sex with women who worked for him as employees of his TV show, which is produced by the TV/film production company Letterman himself owns, Worldwide Pants, Inc.
It's important to note that, so far at least, no one has come forward with a harassment complaint against Letterman. If that continues to be the case, then the question of whether or not Letterman is guilty of illegal sexual harassment is moot.
If, however, a woman comes forward complaining that she had been coerced into a relationship with Letterman by promises of job benefits or by threats of adverse consequences, that would be quid pro quo sexual harassment.
Another possibility: A woman comes forward complaining that Letterman's sexual advances towards her were unwelcome and were so pervasive that they created a hostile work environment.
Also, if Letterman's romantic activities were so widespread that they seemed to constitute an almost unofficial policy that you had to sleep with the boss to get ahead in the company, the women and men he did not sleep with might be able to bring a claim of sexual favoritism. (Click here for EEOC Policy Guidance on Employer Liability under Title VII for Sexual Favoritism.)
On a final note, the National Organization of Women (NOW) issued a statement on the controversy, saying in part, "As 'the boss,' [Letterman] is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace — and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees — including employees who happen to be women — in an awkward, confusing, and demoralizing situation." I would add: Even if one argued that the women were not victimized and were using their so-called "feminine wiles" to take advantage of Letterman, he, as the boss, still allowed sex to infiltrate and corrupt what should be a fair environment for all. So, legalities aside, the behavior was inappropriate and ultimately proved damaging to that workplace.
What's your take on such behavior in the workplace?
Eileen Mager
Home
