This file was prepared for electronic distribution by the inforM staff. Questions or comments should be directed to inform-editor@umail.umd.edu. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report discusses the results of a major 1987 survey and study dealing with sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. It marks the second time the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board has focused on this important topic. As an update, the report provides some contrasts and comparisons with data gathered in the Board's first landmark study of sexual harassment in 1980. It details findings on employee attitudes toward and experiences with uninvited behavior of a sexual nature. It also describes the actions Federal agencies have taken in their efforts to reduce sexual harassment, and the financial as well as human costs when those efforts fall short. The report reviews relevant case law that has developed over the last 7 years as the Board and the courts have sought to define the legal rights and redress for victims of sexual harassment. It concludes with recommendations for future action within the Government. Background In late 1979, the Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Post Office and Civil Service requested that the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) conduct a thorough and authoritative study of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. The Board was asked to carry out the study since it is an independent, quasijudicial agency that decides appeals from personnel actions taken against Federal employees and conducts studies of the civil service and other merit systems. It is responsible for protecting the integrity of the Federal civil service system from abuse. The initial study of sexual harassment conducted by MSPB in 1980, with a final report issued in early 1981, was a "first of its kind" broadscale survey of the attitudes and experiences of a representative cross-section of both self-identified victims and nonvictims within the Federal Government. In 1986, on its own initiative, the Board decided to conduct a follow-up study on sexual harassment to determine what changes, if any, had occurred in the Federal Government since the time of the first study. As part of this follow-up study, which was conducted in 1987, a questionnaire that replicated much of the original survey was used so responses for 1987 could be compared with the 1980 data. The questionnaire was sent to a representative cross-section of approximately 13,000 Federal employees, and 8,523 employees responded. One of the difficulties inherent in any discussion of sexual harassment is that the term itself is a "term of art" that holds different meanings for different people. In late 1979, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a policy statement that defined sexual harassment as "deliberate or repeated unsolicited verbal comments, gestures, or physical contact of a sexual nature which are unwelcome." In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidelines on unlawful discrimination because of sex that expanded this definition. EEOC specified, for example, that conduct of a sexual nature could be considered sexual harassment if it created "an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment." The EEOC guidelines also noted that a determination of the legality of alleged sexually harassing conduct would be made from the facts, on a case-by-case basis. Since the EEOC guidelines were issued, a body of legal precedents, including a 1986 Supreme Court decision, has provided legal clarification as to what constitutes sexual harassment. For purposes of this report, however, the Board relies upon the expressed views of Federal employees for its definition. If a respondent to the Board's survey stated that he or she had received uninvited or unwanted sexual attention during the preceding 24 months, that was counted as an incident of sexual harassment even though not every incident, if fully investigated, would necessarily meet the legal definition of sexual harassment. As this report discusses, sexual harassment in the workplace, like racial discrimination, can be a pervasive form of illegal discrimination that is both difficult to precisely measure and difficult to change. Yet, like racial discrimination, sexual harassment must be addressed so that positive change call occur. The purpose of this report is to clarify the nature and extent of the problem within the Federal Government, to review some of the actions taken during the last 7 years to address that problems and to offer some suggestions for future efforts. Summary of Findings Compared to 7 years ago, Federal workers are now more inclined to define certain types of behavior as sexual harassment. For example, in 1980 approximately 77 percent of all employees considered uninvited pressure for dates by a supervisor to be sexual harassment. In 1987 that percentage had increased to almost 84 percent. Likewise, in 1980, 84 percent of male employees and 91 percent of female employees considered unwanted supervisory pressure for sexual favors to be sexual harassment. In 1987 those percentages had increased to 95 percent and 99 percent, respectively. Similar changes were seen in employee attitudes about most other types of behavior. In 1987, 42 percent of all women and 14 percent of all men reported they experienced some form of uninvited and unwanted sexual attention. Despite an apparent increase in the level of sensitivity about what behavior may be considered sexual harassment, there has been no significant change since the Board's last survey in 1980 in the percentage of Federal employees who say they have received such uninvited and unwanted attention. Within the context of this report, unwanted and uninvited sexual attention is considered sexual harassment. Interestingly, among current Federal employees who had also worked outside the Federal Government, the preponderant opinion is that sexual harassment is no more of a problem in the Government than outside it. The most frequently experienced type of uninvited sexual attention is "unwanted sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions." The least frequently experienced type of harassment-- "actual or attempted rape or assault" --is also arguably the most severe. Sexual harassment takes many forms and an employee may experience more than one form. In answering the Board's 1987 survey, 35 percent of all female respondents and 12 percent of all male respondents said they experienced some type of "unwanted sexual teasing, jokes, remarks, or questions." Also in 1987, approximately .8 percent of all female respondents and .3 percent of male respondents said they experienced "actual or attempted rape or assault." The incidence rate for alleged sexual harassment varies by agency. For example, in 1987 a high of 62 percent of the female employees at the Department of State claimed they experienced some form of uninvited sexual attention, compared to a low of 29 percent of the female employees at the Department of Health and Human Services. Moreover, among the 16 agencies whose employees were surveyed in both 1980 and 1987, several did show some shifts in the percentage of employees claiming they experienced uninvited and unwanted sexual attention. A few agencies (for example. the Departments of Labor and Transportation) experienced a significant decline in the percentage of female employees who said they were harassed. Coworkers are much more likely than supervisors to be the source of sexual harassment. In 1987, 69 percent of female victims and 77 percent of male victims said they were harassed by a coworker or another employee without supervisory authority over them. Only 29 percent of the female victims and 19 percent of the male victims cited someone in their supervisory chain as the source of their harassment. This pattern is consistent with the Board's 1980 findings. Some individuals are more likely than others to be victims of sexual harassment. For example, based on the data obtained in 1987, women who: are single or divorced; are between the ages of 20 and 44; have some college education; have a nontraditional job; or work in a predominantly male environment or for a male supervisor have the greatest chance of being sexually harassed. However, as the Board found in 1980, despite this generalization, sexual harassment is still widely distributed among women and men of all ages, backgrounds, and job categories. Many victims tried more than one response to unwanted sexual attention. Although later judged ineffective by most of them, almost half of all victims tried to ignore the behavior or otherwise did nothing in response. In 1987, only 6 percent. of both female and male victims said they took some type of for- mal action. Although most employees were aware of the availability of formal action--e.g., filing a grievance or a discrimination complaint--very few chose to use those potential remedies. When victims of sexual harassment did take positive action in response to unwanted sexual attention, it was largely informal action and, in many cases, was judged to be effective. The most effective and frequently taken informal action was simply telling the harasser to stop. Forty-four percent of the female victims and 26 percent of the male victims said they took this action and, in over ~;() percent of the cases, both groups said it "made things better." Among the 22 largest Federal departments and agencies surveyed, all had issued policy statements or other internal guidance during the 7-year period from FY 1980 through FY 1986 concerning prohibitions against sexual harassment. How frequently that guidance was updated and each agency's method of dissemination varied. Most employees~ however, said they are aware of their agency's policies regarding sexual harassment and the internal complaint procedures available to victims. Every agency maintained it provided training on the issue of sexual harassment, although most efforts were directed at managers and personnel and equal employment opportunity officials rather than nonsupervisory employees. Most (18 of 22) agencies estimated that during the 7-year period from FY 1980 through FY 1986, the average employee spent 2 hours or fewer in training, related to sexual harassment. It should be noted, however, that agencies are not required to keep detailed records in this regard and, therefore, most responses tended to be "best estimates". Most agencies maintained that they have taken a number of different actions in an effort to reduce sexual harassment and that, in most cases, those actions have been effective. Employees were more skeptical. For example, every agency surveyed said it provided "swift and thorough investigations of complaints" and that such investigations were effective. Only 32 percent of the employees surveyed felt their agencies provided such investigations. During the 2-year period from May 1985 through May 1987, sexual harassment cost the Federal Government an estimated $.267 million. This cost is in addition to the personal cost and anguish many of the victims had to bear. This conservative estimate is derived by calculating the cost of replacing employees who leave their jobs as a result of sexual harassment, of paying sick leave to employees who miss work as a consequence, and of reduced individual and work group productivity. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the findings discussed in this report, since the Board conducted its first study of sexual harassment, there is evidence that some positive changes have occurred in Federal employee attitudes and perceptions regarding uninvited sexual attention. More employees, both men and women, are aware that certain behaviors of a sexual nature can be both unwanted and inappropriate in the workplace. In addition, most employees are now aware that sexual harassment is contrary to established agency policy. During this time, Federal agencies have also taken a number of actions designed to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment and at least a few agencies have had some success in this regard. Despite these positive trends, however, the overall bottom line did not change. Uninvited and unwanted sexual attention was experienced by almost the identical proportion of the work force in 1987 as in 1980. Sexual harassment is still a pervasive, costly, and systemic problem within the Federal workplace. The Board recommends that: * All agency employees should be periodically reminded of their responsibilities and held accountable for compliance with Federal law and agency policy prohibiting sexual harassment in the workplace. It must be clear that sexually harassing behavior by any employee cannot and will not be tolerated. This can be accomplished in a number of ways, including issuing an agency policy statement signed by the head of the agency detailing the specific prohibited practices and the penalties associated with those practices. This statement should be updated annually or as needed. Agencies should also require each employee to acknowledge that he or she has read and understands the policy. * With regard to enforcement of the law and agency policies on sexual harassment, each agency should: --Seek to identify, on its own initiative, possible instances of sexual harassment; --Quickly and thoroughly investigate allegations (within 120 days if possible); and --Establish and exercise strong sanctions against harassers where the facts warrant. Federal agencies should provide training on sexual harassment to nonsupervisory employees as well as to managers and EEO and personnel officials. The training should include discussion of the various behaviors that may be construed as sexual harassment and, for victims, some of the appropriate and more effective responses possible. The training should also stress that individuals need to be sensitive to the ways in which their actions may be interpreted by others. Whether certain behavior constitutes sexual harassment depends not only on the intent behind the behavior but also on the perceptions of those affected.