Originally published here.

Because people with authority misuse it, sexual harassment is truly about power. It isthe use of sex to humiliate, threaten, or coerce certain workplace conduct that anotheris unwilling to participate in. Because those in power tend to be males and those without tend to be women, women endure significantly more sexual harassment than men.

 Women are more likely than males to face negative consequences from sexualengagement, regardless of how they respond. Furthermore, women who refuse sexualengagement at work are more likely than males to face workplace-related penalties,such as job loss.

One study indicated that women were nine times more likely thanmen to have left a job due to sexual harassment, over twenty times to have beentransferred because of sexual harassment, and over three times to have lost a jobbecause of rejection of sexual demands.

Victims of sexual harassment in the workplace face a variety of negative consequences,including psychological and physiological concerns, which reduce their productivityat work. If the harassment does not stop, such victims may decide to leave their jobs. Alternatively, the victims' job may be terminated due to inadequate productivity without necessarily determining the cause. Such occurrences have a domino impacton both the organization and society. Organizations that condone sexual harassmentmay face substantial staff turnover as employees try to prevent or halt sexualharassment.

The claimant sought adeclaration that the respondent acted irrationally, unfairly, and unreasonably, and violated the claimant's human dignity by disclosing allegations of a sexual nature without verifying or ascertaining their veracity, causing her and her familypsychological and social torment, trauma, and distress, in violation of Article 28 ofthe Constitution. It was argued on behalf of the claimant that making false charges ofsexual escapade against the claimant publicly during the procession constituteddehumanizing and a violation on the claimant's right to dignified treatment asguaranteed by Article 28 of Kenya's 2010 Constitution.

 As was the case in E v Ikwezi Municipality & another, the victim is occasionallyobliged to quit from his or her employment owing to Post-traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD), which may be caused by the perpetrator continuing to work.

In this instance, the municipality was held vicariously responsible for failing to safeguard the victim from sexual harassment while their senior official sexually harassed hissubordinate.

General Recommendation No. 19 on Violence Against Women According toGeneral Comment 18, sexual harassment also constitutes discrimination when the victim reasonably believes that rejecting the inappropriate sexual conduct will have anegative impact on her employment, as manifested by unfair denial of employment-related benefits or an unpleasant working environment, wherethe second respondent physically attacked the claimant after she refused his sexual advances. The claimant reported the event to her employer, but her contract wasterminated by the 2nd respondent due to the claimant's alleged misdeed in South Africa. Furthermore, she was not paid for the month of May 2010.

You can read the complete article here.