Fuller v. City of Oakland,47 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1995).
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,114 S. Ct. 367 (1993).
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson,477 U.S. 57 (1986).
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,523 U.S. 75 (1998).
Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co.,805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986).
Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate
social-sexual conduct: A psycholegal model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85,75–85.
Wiener, R. L., Winter, R., Rogers, M., & Arnot, L. (2004).
The effects of prior workplace behavior on subsequent
sexual harassment judgments. Law and Human Behavior,
28,47–67.SEXUALHARASSMENT,
JURYEVALUATION OF
Research examining juror decisions in sexual harass-
ment has generally found a relationship between juror
gender and liability decisions, in that women are more
likely than men to consider sociosexual behavior sexual
harassment. This relationship is mediated by several
variables, including attitudes of hostile sexism, juror
self-referencing, juror ratings of the credibility of the
plaintiff, and the story constructed by the juror. Using a
“reasonable woman” standard as opposed to a “reason-
able person” standard has not been successful in atten-
uating the gender gap in decision making in sexual
harassment cases. However, some research suggests
that expert testimony addressing these issues may help
jurors make better decisions. Expert testimony address-
ing the “abuse excuse” has been suggested by some
experts as a defense strategy, but researchers have
demonstrated that this defense is not only flawed but
also ineffective with jurors. Some research suggests
that jurors may need an expert to testify about the
harms experienced by targets of sexual harassment
because they underestimated those harms. In addition,
researchers have begun to examine how jurors award
damages in sexual harassment cases, and a preliminary
study has demonstrated that they award compensatory
damages incorrectly but are correct in their allocation
of punitive damages.
Sexual harassment in the workplace is a serious
legal problem that has only gained attention in the
legal arena in the past few decades. There are two
types of sexual harassment that are actionable in the
U.S. legal arena: (1) quid pro quo sexual harassment,that is, behavior in which an employee directly threatens
a subordinate employee with a sexual request that the
subordinate must comply with to maintain employment,
and (2) sexual harassment caused by a hostile work envi-
ronment (HWE), that is, unwelcome behavior from any
employee that is gender-based and that is severe and per-
vasive enough to negatively affect the victim’s working
environment. Research investigating juror decisions in
sexual harassment cases has focused on how jurors per-
ceive different types of sexual harassment and has exam-
ined several different factors that affect jurors’ decisions
in sexual harassment cases (e.g., juror gender, the legal
standard used, the use of expert testimony). Researchers
have also begun to examine how jurors award damages in
sexual harassment cases.Gender Effects on Juror
Decisions in Sexual Harassment Cases
Research on jurors’ decisions in sexual harassment
cases has consistently demonstrated that women are
more likely than men to perceive more types of socio-
sexual behavior in the workplace as sexually harassing.
This effect has been consistent across several levels of
ecological validity (e.g., participants acting as jurors,
participants judging workplace scenarios), types of
stimuli (e.g., written summaries of workplace situa-
tions, videotaped trials), and participant types (e.g.,
students, community members) and has been con-
firmed by two meta-analyses. In addition, researchers
have found that the magnitude of the gender difference
is moderated by the type of harassment perceived.
Specifically, men and women make similar judgments
about cases of clear-cut sexual harassment (e.g., quid
pro quo, sexual coercion), but women are more likely
than men to make judgments in favor of the plaintiff in
cases in which the behavior is more ambiguous (e.g.,
HWE sexual harassment).MMeeddiiaattiinngg VVaarriiaabblleess iinn tthhee RReellaattiioonnsshhiipp
BBeettwweeeenn GGeennddeerr aanndd VVeerrddiicctt
Researchers have also examined mediating variables
in the relationship between gender and verdict in sexual
harassment cases. Several studies have shown a mediat-
ing effect of juror self-referencing (i.e., jurors imagining
how they would have acted or what they would have
done in the same situation) on the relationship between
juror gender and verdict. In these studies, women were740 ———Sexual Harassment, Jury Evaluation ofS-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:44 PM Page 740