Sexual harassment of Miami-Dade County Public School students by school personnel

The purpose of this research was to assess the type and extent of sexual harassment of Miami-Dade County Public School (M-DCPS) students by school employees. In addition, the school system's existing procedures for handling such harassment were investigated, including students' awareness of and willingness to follow such procedures.^ Over 500 seniors from fourteen high schools around the county completed surveys which asked them to indicate whether or not they had received training on the topic of sexual harassment, whether or not they were aware of their school's policy on sexual harassment, whether or not they would feel comfortable reporting an incident of sexual harassment, whether or not they had experienced various forms of sexual harassment, and if they had been harassed, whether or not they reported the incident to a school official.^ Results indicated that sexual harassment of M-DCPS students by school employees is widespread, and the procedures that are currently in place to deal with this harassment are ineffective. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of the sample population indicated that a school employee had sexually harassed them; however, only four percent (4%) reported the incident to a school official. Responses indicated that this discrepancy exists because few students have received any training, few are aware of their schools' policies, and few are comfortable with the existing reporting procedures. ^

The boundaries of acceptance: Do expectations for the complainant's psychological injury affect legal decisions in a sexual harassment case

Research indicates that people engaged in legal decision-making use a host of biases and preconceptions to guide their decisions about whether the evidence presented to them is reasonable. However, few theories address how such expectations affect legal decision-makers. The present study attempted to determine if social judgment theory (SJT) can explain how and when legal decision-makers rely on expectations for the complainant's psychological injury in a hostile environment sexual harassment case. Two experiments provided undergraduate participants with a written summary of a hostile work environment allegation that first manipulated participants' expectations about reasonable psychological injuries (mild v. severe), and then presented them with actual severity levels of psychological injury (ranging from minimal to extreme). Experiment 1 (N = 295) hypothesized and found that participants who expected severe injuries perceived a greater range of psychological injuries to be reasonable than participants expecting mild injury. Experiment 2 ( N = 202) used similar methodology and investigated whether perceived reasonableness for the injury allegations affected legal decisions. Experiment 2 hypothesized that participants expecting severe psychological injury should render more pro-complainant decisions than participants expecting mild psychological injury. This result should be most pronounced when participants receive a moderate injury allegation, since this allegation was perceived as reasonable by participants expecting severe injury, but unreasonable by participants expecting mild injury. Consistent with SJT, participants who received a moderate injury but expected a severe injury found more liability than participants who received a moderate injury but expected a mild injury. Inconsistent with SJT, participants' expectations did not affect their compensatory damage decisions. In fact, more severe injury allegations increased damage awards regardless of participants' expectations. Although the results provide mixed support for applying SJT to legal decisions in sexual harassment cases, they emphasize the continuing role of oft-unstudied extra-legal factors (juror's expectations and psychological injury severity) on legal decisions.

Sexual Harassment:A Long-Dormant Demon

Because of its service nature, the hospitality industry is especially prone to cases of sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly from female employees. The author discusses Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legal and moral implications of its guidelines for the industry.

Jurors' use of social framework evidence

Monahan and Walker (1988) delineated three uses of social science evidence within the courts: social authority, social fact, and social framework. Social authority evidence is social science evidence used in making policy or law. Social fact evidence is social science evidence that describes research undertaken expressly for the case at hand. Social framework evidence involves providing conclusions from previously conducted social science research to assist jurors in evaluating the other evidence in the case. Although this type of evidence has traditionally been presented via expert testimony, Monahan and Walker (1988) have suggested that, because the social science research involved comes from the extant literature and is not the province of any particular expert, it would be more economical to have the judge present this information as part of the judicial instructions to the jury. This study tested the implicit assumption that the presentation of the social framework evidence by the judge will have the same impact on juror verdicts as presentation of this evidence by an expert. ^ Two hundred mock jurors watched a videotaped hostile work environment sexual harassment trial. The social framework evidence consisted of the discussion of factors that have been found to increase the likelihood of sex stereotyping of women by men. The trial included either no social framework evidence, social framework evidence presented by the expert, or social framework evidence presented in judicial instructions. ^ Results indicated that men who heard the social framework evidence from the judge were more likely to vote for the defendant than men who heard no social framework evidence. Men who heard the judicial instruction with the social framework evidence also rated the plaintiff as less credible than the other men and women in the study. Thus, it appears that, for men, social framework evidence presented by the judge harms the plaintiff's case by reducing ratings of her credibility, but the same evidence presented by an expert does not affect men's verdicts. For women, however, social framework evidence, irrespective of who presents it, enhances the plaintiff's case. ^

Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science

In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom. Although jurors maybe unable to identify flaws in scientific research without some assistance, social psychological research suggests that people can be trained to make more sophisticated judgments about scientific quality. Further, previous research demonstrated that an opposing expert who addresses the methodology of proffered expert testimony may not enable jurors to evaluate scientific validity. In three studies, I tested why this safeguard was ineffective using a variety of stimulus materials. In the first study, I examined the mediating effect of attitudes on juror decisions within the context of a sexual harassment trial. In the second study, I examined the moderating effect of the presentation of expert credentials on participant decisions regarding child suggestibility literature. In the third study, I tested several improvements to the safeguard using improvements designed to correct for the effects of attitudes and credential presentation on juror decisions within the context of a first-degree murder trial. I found that while opposing expert testimony may have potential as a safeguard, in its current form it is ineffective. That is, a traditional opposing expert caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to the validity of the research presented at trial. Further, while the improvements tested in this study may have potential to assist jurors in making scientifically sound decisions, more research is needed to further test and refine these improvements. ^

Current State of Management/Union Relations in Hospitality Sector

Labor management relations in the hospitality sector is an important aspect of effective management. Increasingly, unions are becoming proactive in organizing hospitality workers. This manifests itself in strikes, boycotts, picketing, sexual harassment complaints, and complaints to OSHA regarding safety and health workplace violations. This research monitors the current scene with respect to labor management relations and analyzes work issues that have been brought up for third-party resolution by NLRB staff or arbitrators. The study reports on 66 NLRB cases and 104 arbitration cases. Issues brought before the NLRB include mostly contract interpretations. In arbitration, there were mostly discipline issues, including work rule violations, disorderly conduct, poor performance and employee theft. Quite often, the proposed job action on the part of the employer was discharge. In NLRB cases, the employee usually prevailed, while in arbitration the employer usually prevailed.