Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 263

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment

Schultz, Vicki·1998·The Yale Law Journal

Abstract

This Article documents and criticizes the prevailing paradigm for conceptualizing sex-based hostile work environment harassment. The prevailing paradigm understands harassment as an expression of men's sexual desire for, or domination of, women. Within the paradigm, male-female sexual advances are the core forms of harassment that can constitute a hostile work environment. The paper demonstrates the limitations of this paradigm. Most importantly, the sexual desire-dominance paradigm is underinclusive. The focus on sexual abuse omits, and even obscures, many of the most debilitating forms of harassment experienced by women at work. Much of the conduct that makes workplaces hostile and alienating to women is difficult to construe as sexual in design; many men are also harmed by sex based harassment that cannot be easily understood within a sexualized paradigm. In addition, the prevailing paradigm may be overinclusive. By emphasizing sexual advances as the core harassment, the paradigm may subtly encourage a paternalism that seeks to protect women's sexual sensibilities rather than to promote their empowerment as workers. This paternalism may inspire companies to prohibit some forms of sex talk that do not contribute to gender hierarchy at work. These problems point to a need for a new account of hostile work environment harassment that highlights its relationship to broader forms of gender stratification of work. This piece proposes a new account. It advances an account of sex harassment that emphasizes its role in reproducing work and work competence along gendered lines. In this account, harassment is not driven by a need for sexual domination, but by some men's desire to retain favored lines of work for themselves. Hostile work environment harassment serves a gender-guarding, competence- undermining function. By marking women as incompetent to perform the most highly rewarded forms of work, harassment policies the boundaries of such work and protects its idealized masculine image. By maintaining their jobs as bastions of masculine competence, men protect their material advantage and also preserve their sense of identity (even superiority) as men. This new competence-centered account not only provides a more comprehensive basis for understanding the customary cases of male female harassment by supervisors and coworkers, it also opens up promising new approaches to less conventional forms of harassment, such as harassment of female supervisors by their male subordinates. It also provides a basis for prohibiting some, but not all, instances of men's harassment of other men at work. The conclusion describes concrete ways to implement the new account, at both a conceptual and doctrinal level.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/797337

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 263

Metadata

Authors
Schultz, V.
Venue
The Yale Law Journal
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1998-04
Volume
107
Issue
6
Pages
1683
ISSN
0044-0094 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3125133888
Cited by
263
References
0
FWCI
113.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/797337
The paper
Schultz, V. (1998). Reconceptualizing Sexual Harassment. The Yale Law Journal. https://doi.org/10.2307/797337

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.