#MeToo Has Changed the World—Except in Court
The #MeToo movement claimed another victory Tuesday when New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation over numerous sexual-harassment allegations. As more and more powerful harassers face consequences for their actions in the form of resignations, firings, or broader public discrediting, many seem to believe that the #MeToo movement has fully upended the status quo. But as much as the court of public opinion has shifted in favor of victims of workplace sexual harassment, actual courts—where such victims should be able to seek relief for the abuse they have suffered—have not shifted nearly as much.
Sexual-harassment cases are a relatively recent phenomenon. The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized the legal claim of workplace sexual harassment in 1986, and since that time, employees have been able to sue for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
There are two types of sexual-harassment claims. The first—quid pro quo—is generally pretty straightforward: Did a supervisor demand sexual favors as a condition of employment? But the second—a claim of a hostile work environment—has been a tougher sell in court. Unlike a quid pro quo claim, a hostile work environment can arise from sexual harassment by anyone in the employee’s workplace. To win a hostile-work-environment claim, a survivor has to
