Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: What Strides Have We Made?

The baseline the law built

Over nearly four decades, a handful of Supreme Court decisions defined what “unlawful sexual harassment” is and when employers are on the hook:

• Hostile work environment exists under Title VII. In Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), the Court held that unwelcome sexual conduct that’s severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive environment violates Title VII—even without economic harm. Justia Law
• How bad is “bad enough”? Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993) clarified that conduct need not cause psychological injury; the question is whether a reasonable person would find the environment hostile or abusive. Justia Law
• When are employers liable? In companion cases Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (both 1998), the Court created a framework: employers are automatically liable when a supervisor’s harassment ends in a tangible employment action; if there’s no tangible action, employers can raise an affirmative defense by showing they exercised reasonable care to prevent/correct harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to use those procedures. OyezLegal Information Institute
• Same-sex harassment counts. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998) confirmed harassment “because of sex” includes same-sex harassment. Oyez
• Who is a “supervisor”? Vance v. Ball State University (2013) narrowed the term to someone empowered to take tangible employment actions (hire, fire, promote, reassign with significant change, etc.). That narrowing often makes employer vicarious liability harder to prove. Legal Information Institute
• Constructive discharge. Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (2004) explained when a hostile environment effectively forces a resignation and how the Ellerth/Faragher defenses apply. Legal Information Institute

What #MeToo changed

#MeToo (2017–) didn’t rewrite Title VII, but it changed behavior, reporting, and policy. The EEOC recorded a double-digit jump in sexual-harassment charges in FY 2018 and significantly higher recoveries, signaling more people came forward and more cases moved. EEOC

It also catalyzed federal reforms:

• Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (2022): gives survivors the choice to go to court despite predispute arbitration clauses. Congress.gov+1GovInfo
• Speak Out Act (2022): limits enforcement of pre-dispute NDAs and non disparagement clauses in sexual harassment/assault matters, helping survivors speak publicly. Congress.gov+1

Early appellate decisions are now applying these laws in real disputes, reinforcing that employees can bypass arbitration in covered cases. Reuters

2024–2025: Fresh guidance-and new friction

• EEOC’s 2024 Harassment Guidance updated the agency’s view on what harassment looks like today (including online conduct and post-Bostock protections). Jackson Lewis
• Litigation over that guidance is ongoing; a federal court has already vacated portions in 2025, a reminder that standards continue to evolve in the courts.
• Beyond harassment, discrimination standards shifted: In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), the Supreme Court lowered the bar for proving a Title VII discrimination claim (no need to show “significant” harm), a move that—while not a harassment case—may influence how lower courts view workplace harms overall. Supreme Court

So…have we made progress?

Yes—and unevenly.

What’s better

• Clearer liability rules (if imperfect), recognition of same-sex harassment, and more robust internal policies across industries.
• Survivors have more voice and more venue choice (court vs. arbitration), and less gagging by boilerplate NDAs. Congress.gov+1
• Reporting surged after #MeToo, with the EEOC noting measurable increases in charges and recoveries. EEOC

What’s still hard

• The “severe or pervasive” threshold remains a high bar, and Vance’s narrow “supervisor” definition can limit employer vicarious liability. Justia LawLegal Information Institute
• Compliance expectations keep shifting (e.g., contested EEOC guidance), creating uncertainty for employers and employees alike.

What employers are advised to be doing now

1. Refresh policies and training to reflect Ellerth/Faragher defenses: easy reporting paths (multiple channels), prompt investigations, and documented corrective action. OyezLegal Information Institute
2. Account for 2022 federal laws: don’t rely on pre-dispute arbitration or broad pre-dispute NDAs to manage risk in sexual harassment/assault claims. Update onboarding templates and vendor agreements. Congress.gov+1
3. Clarify who is a “supervisor.” If someone directs work daily, consider whether they wield tangible employment power; structure approvals and documentation accordingly to avoid ambiguity under Vance. Legal Information Institute
4. Address modern harassment vectors: remote/hybrid work, messaging apps, and social platforms are part of the work environment for Title VII purposes under the EEOC’s 2024 guidance. Train for that reality. Jackson Lewis
5. Measure, don’t guess: track complaints, response times, outcomes, and retaliation checks. Public commitments are only as strong as the follow-through.

Bottom line

American workplaces are far better equipped-and more legally obligated-than a generation ago to prevent and respond to sexual harassment. The #MeToo movement accelerated reporting and drove federal reforms on arbitration and NDAs, but real progress depends on daily practice. Employers are required to ensure policies are accessible, reporting paths are trusted, investigations are swift, managers are properly trained, and accountability is consistent. The strides we’ve made are significant, but prevention and responsibility remain everyday commitments for building safe, respectful workplaces.

Take Action

Strengthen your organization’s compliance and culture with our specialized training programs. Explore our employee and manager sensitivity training at www.americansensitivitytraining.com