x.com/QiaochuYuan/status/2077821992955531560
1 correction found
Schrödinger's harasser is not a Tumblr exaggeration of the law; it is the law's actual epistemic structure
Federal harassment law is not triggered simply by how an advance is later received. The governing standard also requires objective and contextual elements, including that conduct be severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would find the environment hostile or abusive.
Full reasoning
This overstates and misdescribes U.S. workplace-harassment law.
The Supreme Court and EEOC do not treat harassment as turning solely on the recipient's later reaction. Under federal law, harassment becomes unlawful when enduring the conduct is made a condition of employment, or when the conduct is severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would consider the environment intimidating, hostile, or abusive. The EEOC also states that "petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)" do not rise to illegality.
The Supreme Court's decision in Harris v. Forklift Systems further explains that the standard requires both:
- an objectively hostile or abusive environment — one a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive; and
- the victim's subjective perception that the environment is abusive.
So the law's structure is not simply "if the recipient received it badly, the actor was a harasser." It includes objective, contextual, and threshold requirements that go beyond ex post reception alone.
2 sources
- Harassment | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
"Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive." It also says: "Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality."
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) | LII / Legal Information Institute
The Court states: "Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment--an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive--is beyond Title VII's purview. Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, ... there is no Title VII violation."