The Sanitized Workplace

One of the prevailing trends in society is that the workplace is, or should be asexual. By analyzing the situation from a historical and sociological standpoint, Vicki Schultz shows that the law’s focus on eliminating unwanted sexual conduct from the workplace has given more reasons to have a management project of suppressing sexuality. Schultz argues that workplace sexuality is not always discriminatory or disruptive and that the sexual model is too broad. Schultz mentions that Title VII of the Civil Rights act does not include sexuality or sexual harassment. The purpose of Title VII is to end discriminatory job segregation. Because of strict liability, many employers are prohibiting harmless forms of sexual conduct, without attending to genuine sexual harassment arises, such as sex segregation and inequality. The need to conform to the law has pushed employers to impose strict disciplinary measures that unfortunately cost employees their jobs, reputation, or expressing their culture in the workplace. To make matters worse, employers are punishing sexual conduct without discovering whether the conduct is linked to sexual discrimination, or not. The problem also lies with the use of the law when encountering issues with sexual harassment. According to Schultz, the law is supposed to help rid of sex segregation and inequality. Instead of eliminating sex segregation and inequality, the goal has been replaced with eradicating workplace sexuality.

I agree with Schultz that workplace sexuality is not always discriminatory or disruptive. I believe that
the problem lies with the law. The sexual model is too broad because of the way the law is structured. Unlike math equations, the law is not absolute and is permeated with contradictions. The sexual model that Schultz mentions is broad by nature to accommodate for inconsistencies with the law and unwanted sexual conduct. Unfortunately, having the sexual model broad makes the acts that result in sexual harassment broad as well. If the law and acts that result in sexual harassment were absolute, then there will be more acts of sexual harassment that will go unpunished. The problem with sexual harassment claims is that it’s based on the judgment of the recipient of such acts.

Although Schultz does mention the effects of attempting to remove sexuality from the workplace, she does not go into depth concerning the effects on industries or companies that are already dominated by a particular sex. For example, Curves Gym is a company that opens gyms for women and only women are employed by the company. According to their website, Curves Gym is supposed to be an equal opportunity employer, yet only women are employed. A similar situation can be said about the beauty industry. One of my colleagues is employed at a local Bath and Body Works and he noticed that the company is very selective with their employees. Although males do apply for the position as a cashier, receptionist, or assistant, almost all male applicants are ignored. However, if the male applicant applies for a back office or a management position, the applicant is considered. The reasoning behind hiring only females is to uphold an atmosphere. According to his boss, females appear more nurturing and trustworthy than males. Although male applicants may be more qualified, the atmosphere is sacrificed. The difference between Curves Gym and the beauty industry is that Curves Gym acts more like a club for women, which makes it justifiable to have only women employed.

Although Schultz explains that Title VII is only meant to end discriminatory job segregation, I do believe that Title VII can include sexuality or sexual harassment. Refusing to promote an employee because the employee did not adhere to sexual advances is a form of job discrimination. Such situations are legitimate forms of discriminatory job segregation because there is evidence of favoritism. However, acts such as expressions of love or office romance is more difficult to justify under Title VII because of the motive. If the motive is not for the advancement of the employee’s career, then it cannot be discriminatory. The law is also a problem here because the recipient of such acts determines if they have been sexually harassed.

Ideally, to avoid issues with discriminatory job segregation in relation to sexual harassment is to rid the organization of sexuality. Although this option is ideal, it is impossible to accomplish because sexuality cannot be isolated and removed. A way to reduce the number of instances is for an organization to adopt a more decentralized, egalitarian structure that encourages interaction between employees. Such environment fosters the idea of employees relying on each other rather than having employees being on guard towards each other.

*** My paper has been edit to protect the privacy of others. The only person that read the original version was my professor.