The best-publicized recent accounts of sexual harassment have come from elite industries such as Hollywood, the news media, and politics. But pervasive abuse is the norm in many less rarefied settings, as the #TimesUp movement to show.
Research that anywhere from 25 to 85 percent of working women have experienced sexual harassment or abuse in the workplace. A variety of risk factors make low-wage workers particularly vulnerable. Mitigating those factors is key to curbing the problem, and there are several promising new initiatives that may help.
One is workplace power disparity. In the restaurant industry, for example, the lower minimum wage for tipped workers contributes to disparities between workers on the one hand, and patrons and supervisors on the other. While women make up just over half of all restaurant workers, they constitute of tipped workers. Because the federal minimum wage for tipped workers is just $2.13, servers must rely heavily on tips to earn a living.
This dynamic places these workers in a difficult position if they are harassed by customers. They may feel pressured to keep quiet for fear of jeopardizing their tips. Similarly, the reliance on tips makes them more vulnerable to abuse by supervisors, who have the power to assign waitresses to shifts that yield better or worse tips. According to , 80 percent of female workers in the restaurant industry reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment at work. And many don’t speak up because they fear losing their jobs or facing other retaliation — which, , is a well-founded fear.
Women who work in low-wage positions also often face — that is, burdens posed by race, national origin, gender identity, and other characteristics beyond gender alone — that may trigger biased treatment. Many low-wage jobs, such as home health aide, nanny, or agricultural worker, are disproportionally . Immigrant workers may face language barriers that impede their ability to get help, be unfamiliar with laws against sexual harassment, and — if they’re undocumented — fear deportation. In a 2009 of Iowa meatpacking workers, 91 percent responded that immigrant women do not report sexual harassment or sexual violence in their workplace. Transgender women are particularly vulnerable: According to one , trans restaurant workers were more than twice as likely as cisgender employees to report harassing comments about their gender identity or sexual orientation.
Another risk factor is physical isolation. One revealed that 58 percent of hotel workers — who often work alone — reported experiencing sexual harassment from a guest, ranging from men exposing themselves or answering the door naked to outright assault. High-profile examples of this kind of harassment abound, from a prominent Egyptian banker who to forcibly kissing and groping a housekeeper at a New York hotel, to the housekeeper who accused former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn of .
Women also report sexual harassment and assault while , working in , or providing to elderly patients. As Erika Morales, a night shift janitor to a reporter: “There’s no one to ask for help when certain things happened and you screamed … No one can hear. And there are certain places where there are no cameras. There’s no sound. There’s nobody.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace sexual harassment, only applies to employers with 15 or more employees. That leaves many nannies, housekeepers, home health aides, and other domestic workers — who are already at increased risk because of their physical isolation — without protection.
There are, however, some promising developments for low-wage workers at high risk of sexual harassment and assault. In 2011, New York City’s hotel union requiring hotel workers to be given personal panic buttons to notify security when they encounter trouble in hotel rooms. More than 30 hotels in Washington, D.C., have to workers. In Seattle, voters approved in 2016. While not a silver bullet, panic buttons help put emergency help within reach of isolated workers.
The most comprehensive measure addressing the sexual harassment of hotel workers was recently . The “Hands Off, Pants On” ordinance requires hotels to provide panic buttons, inform employees of legal protections against sexual harassment, and — for those who do experience assault by guests — provide them paid time off to file police reports or testify, and offer them temporary re-assignment to less solitary positions. The ordinance also forbids retaliation for using the panic button, reporting abuse, or exercising any other right afforded by the ordinance. Violation of the ordinance carries a fine, and repeated violations can result in the loss of operating licenses.
In a separate development, now provide the same minimum wage for tipped and non-tipped workers. In New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo a proposal to consider doing the same.
One of the most inventive strategies comes from the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a national workers’ rights organization. Its requires participating growers — who supply produce to mega-chains like Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and Whole Foods — to discipline supervisors who have engaged in sexual harassment or risk expulsion from the program. In the Florida tomato fields where the program began, workers sexual harassment.
As Congress and legislatures around the country consider reforms to existing anti-discrimination laws that would expand protections to workers — and increase penalties to recalcitrant employers — these industry-specific reforms make clear that labor unions, advocates, businesses, and concerned consumers, in addition to the government, all can play a role in combating sexual harassment.
Low-wage workers always have been uniquely vulnerable to sexual harassment. Using the red carpet to amplify their struggle was a powerful beginning. Now, the real work begins.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseOct 2024
LGBTQ Rights
+2 Issues
At Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender YouthAt Supreme Court, Tennessee Seeks to Expand Reach of Dobbs to Ban Health Care for Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON – In their brief defending the state’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has asked the Supreme Court to expand its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and allow the state to target transgender people’s autonomy over their own bodies, too. In U.S. v. Skrmetti, three Tennessee transgender youth and their families are challenging a state law that prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that are allowed for minors who are not transgender. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, the families argue that the ban violates their Equal Protection rights under the 14th Amendment. In the brief filed today, Tennessee relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health in an attempt to justify its ban on gender-affirming health care for transgender people. The brief cites to Dobbs at least 10 times in sweeping arguments to justify government sex discrimination. “We’ve seen just how far extreme politicians will push to deny us our reproductive freedom, from banning abortion to threatening IVF to even threatening to put doctors in jail for providing emergency care, with deadly consequences for women’s lives,” said Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. “The same politicians who are trying to control women have now set their sights on transgender people and their families and are trying to control their bodies and lives. Allowing politicians to continue down this road could hold severe implications for the freedom of all people to decide what is right for their own body.” Tennessee claims that their ban on gender-affirming care does not discriminate on the basis of sex even though it bans minors of one sex from accessing health care it allows to members of another sex. A transgender girl is barred from taking doctor-prescribed estrogen because Tennessee considers it “inconsistent” with her birth-assigned sex of male but a cisgender girl with a birth-assigned sex of female is permitted to take estrogen for any purpose including to affirm her female gender identity. “Since this Project’s founding by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we have adamantly challenged efforts to limit who we can be based on our gender or ability to bear children,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “Tennessee’s attempt to limit who young people can become based on their sex shares a through-line with our nation’s history of subjugating women in the name of biology. The fight for each of us to live fully and authentically must include trans people. There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” In April 2023, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sued the state of Tennessee to block S.B. 1, which prohibits medical providers from prescribing medical treatments to transgender youth, such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, that it exempts for minors who are not transgender. Following a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, S.B. 1 took effect in July 2023. Since 2021, 24 states have banned hormone therapies for transgender youth. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care; they are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution,” said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law.” -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Women's Rights
Civil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion CareCivil Rights Groups Tell Federal Appeals Court that Protections for Pregnant Workers Cover Abortion Care
WASHINGTON, D.C. - On Friday, a broad coalition of labor, workers’ rights, and gender justice organizations — led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Arkansas, and the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) — filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in support of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations implementing the landmark Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including the regulations’ explicit protection for workers who have abortions. The PWFA, which took effect last year, was the culmination of a decade-long campaign to secure access to reasonable accommodations for workers with temporary limitations caused by “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” The EEOC’s regulations provide comprehensive guidance to workers, employers, and the courts about the statute’s range of protections, including job-protected time off for medical treatment and recovery. The amicus brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit supports the EEOC in a challenge by 17 red states that are trying to block the PWFA regulations’ coverage of accommodations for abortion-related care. In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the states’ challenge, and the states appealed to the Eighth Circuit. Their appeal includes a request that the Eighth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction of the regulations’ abortion provisions. The ACLU-NWLC brief details the federal law’s longstanding ban on discrimination against workers who obtain abortions – protection the PWFA intended to continue. The brief also documents the accounts of workers whose health and jobs were put at risk when their employers denied them accommodations, including time off, for abortion care. Such accounts illustrate the urgent need for clarity with respect to the PWFA’s coverage of abortion-related accommodations, and the devastating medical and financial consequences if such accommodations are denied. “Abortion has long been recognized as part of the full spectrum of workers’ pregnancy-related needs that are protected by the law, ” said Gillian Thomas, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women's Rights Project. “The states’ challenge has created uncertainty, and seeks to deprive workers of essential, job-protected time off for abortion care, posing significant health risks and leading to forced pregnancies. The EEOC regulations are vital to ensure pregnant workers don't have to choose between their health and their jobs.” “Extremist politicians are demonstrating repeatedly their willingness to risk women’s health to advance their anti-abortion agenda,” said Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for Education and Workplace Justice at the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). “Let’s be clear: abortion care is pregnancy-related care, and stripping essential protections for abortion from the PWFA would endanger the health and economic security of pregnant workers.” “The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and its regulations provide a lifeline for workers who need accommodations during the most critical periods of their lives. Attempting to strip away these protections, particularly for abortion-related needs, is an affront to the rights and well-being of pregnant workers,” said John Williams, legal director of the ACLU of Arkansas. “All people in all aspects of pregnancy, including abortion, should be treated with the care and consideration they deserve. We stand firmly with the EEOC in defending these essential protections.” A copy of the brief can be found here. -
PodcastSep 2024
Women's Rights
How Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's SportsHow Sue Bird Is Supercharging Women's Sports
-
Press ReleaseJul 2024
Women's Rights
LGBTQ Rights
ACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX RuleACLU Condemns House Measure Against Department of Education Title IX Rule
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.J. Res. 165, a Congressional Review Act resolution disapproving of the U.S. Department of Education’s final Title IX rule providing guidance to schools on protecting students from sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination, anti-LGBTQ discrimination, and other forms of sex discrimination. Mike Zamore, ACLU National Policy and Government Affairs Director, had the following response: “Today’s vote to completely repeal the Title IX rule takes a sledgehammer to the government’s ability to ensure that all students have the opportunity to learn free from sex discrimination and harassment. Stripping critical civil rights protections from LGBTQ students and students who are pregnant and parenting - as this resolution would do - is something that all members of Congress should strongly oppose. This is also not how Congress should act to protect the rights of students who face disciplinary action under Title IX because passing this resolution would prevent future rulemaking to ensure fair processes in school disciplinary proceedings.” The ACLU’s letter urging a “No” vote on H.J. Res. 165 can be found here: /documents/aclu-urges-no-vote-on-h-j-res-165 The ACLU’s statement on the final Title IX rule can be found here: /press-releases/155090