职场骚扰法的道德风险

Ryan H. Nelson
{"title":"职场骚扰法的道德风险","authors":"Ryan H. Nelson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3833129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Workplace harassment law is infected with moral hazards that shelter accused harassers from many of the risks associated with harassment. This Article is the first to explicate those moral hazards and theorize how to eradicate them. Foremost, it presents new empirical data showing that imposing statutory harasser liability across several jurisdictions has not materially deterred harassment. It then argues that workplace harassment law and its enforcement are to blame for such suboptimal deterrence because they acquiesce in employers shielding accused harassers from risks via indemnification, hold harmless, defense, and insurance arrangements. The Article goes on to expose a free rider problem that results from employer-funded settlements in a world where employers’ and accused harassers’ liability travel hand in hand. Subsequently, it contextualizes these moral hazards within law and economics literature and tort law’s optimal deterrence theory. Through those lenses, it resolves that law reform ought to prioritize the imposition of individualized, non-transferable risks on accused harassers. Finally, this Article considers how public ordering might assail these moral hazards and achieve that ideal. It compares and contrasts statutory and common-law harasser liability, explaining why statutory liability would achieve optimal deterrence. Subsequently, it explores articulations of public policy against insurance for intentional actions, applies that public policy to harasser risk shields, and makes the case for an ensuing interdiction of harasser risk shields by administrative agencies. Lastly, and assuming arguendo that harasser liability exists and harasser risk shields do not, it considers a proposal to reduce employers’ liability for hostile work environment claims, thereby decreasing opportunities for survivors to secure restitution, but reducing employer-funded settlements that inure to the benefit of accused harassers, mitigating against the free rider problem, and forcing harassers themselves to bear the brunt of the risks associated with harassment. In summary, this Article exposes the moral hazards of workplace harassment law, contextualizes them within social sciences scholarship, and explores how law reform efforts might eradicate them.","PeriodicalId":142985,"journal":{"name":"Feminist Theory & Philosophy eJournal","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Moral Hazards of Workplace Harassment Law\",\"authors\":\"Ryan H. Nelson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3833129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Workplace harassment law is infected with moral hazards that shelter accused harassers from many of the risks associated with harassment. This Article is the first to explicate those moral hazards and theorize how to eradicate them. Foremost, it presents new empirical data showing that imposing statutory harasser liability across several jurisdictions has not materially deterred harassment. It then argues that workplace harassment law and its enforcement are to blame for such suboptimal deterrence because they acquiesce in employers shielding accused harassers from risks via indemnification, hold harmless, defense, and insurance arrangements. The Article goes on to expose a free rider problem that results from employer-funded settlements in a world where employers’ and accused harassers’ liability travel hand in hand. Subsequently, it contextualizes these moral hazards within law and economics literature and tort law’s optimal deterrence theory. Through those lenses, it resolves that law reform ought to prioritize the imposition of individualized, non-transferable risks on accused harassers. Finally, this Article considers how public ordering might assail these moral hazards and achieve that ideal. It compares and contrasts statutory and common-law harasser liability, explaining why statutory liability would achieve optimal deterrence. Subsequently, it explores articulations of public policy against insurance for intentional actions, applies that public policy to harasser risk shields, and makes the case for an ensuing interdiction of harasser risk shields by administrative agencies. Lastly, and assuming arguendo that harasser liability exists and harasser risk shields do not, it considers a proposal to reduce employers’ liability for hostile work environment claims, thereby decreasing opportunities for survivors to secure restitution, but reducing employer-funded settlements that inure to the benefit of accused harassers, mitigating against the free rider problem, and forcing harassers themselves to bear the brunt of the risks associated with harassment. In summary, this Article exposes the moral hazards of workplace harassment law, contextualizes them within social sciences scholarship, and explores how law reform efforts might eradicate them.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142985,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Feminist Theory & Philosophy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Feminist Theory & Philosophy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3833129\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Feminist Theory & Philosophy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3833129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

工作场所骚扰法受到道德风险的影响,使被指控的骚扰者免受许多与骚扰有关的风险。本文首次阐述了这些道德风险,并从理论上阐述了如何消除这些道德风险。最重要的是,它提出了新的经验数据,表明在几个司法管辖区强加法定骚扰责任并没有实质性地阻止骚扰。然后,它认为工作场所骚扰法及其执行应归咎于这种次优威慑,因为他们默许雇主通过赔偿,保护被指控的骚扰者免受风险,保持无害,辩护和保险安排。这篇文章接着揭露了一个搭便车的问题,这个问题是在一个雇主和被指控骚扰者的责任齐头并进的世界里,由雇主资助的和解所导致的。随后,将这些道德风险置于法律经济学文献和侵权行为法的最优威慑理论的语境中。通过这些镜头,它决定了法律改革应该优先考虑对被指控的骚扰者施加个性化的、不可转移的风险。最后,本文考虑公共秩序如何打击这些道德风险并实现这一理想。它比较和对比了成文法和普通法的骚扰责任,解释了为什么法定责任能达到最佳威慑。随后,它探讨了针对故意行为保险的公共政策的表述,将公共政策应用于骚扰者风险屏蔽,并为行政机构随后对骚扰者风险屏蔽的拦截提出了理由。最后,假设存在骚扰者责任而骚扰者风险盾牌不存在,本文将考虑一项提案,以减少雇主对敌对工作环境索赔的责任,从而减少幸存者获得赔偿的机会,但减少雇主资助的有利于被指控骚扰者的和解,减轻搭便车问题,并迫使骚扰者自己承担与骚扰相关的风险的冲击。总之,本文揭示了工作场所骚扰法的道德风险,将其置于社会科学研究的背景下,并探讨了法律改革如何消除这些风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Moral Hazards of Workplace Harassment Law
Workplace harassment law is infected with moral hazards that shelter accused harassers from many of the risks associated with harassment. This Article is the first to explicate those moral hazards and theorize how to eradicate them. Foremost, it presents new empirical data showing that imposing statutory harasser liability across several jurisdictions has not materially deterred harassment. It then argues that workplace harassment law and its enforcement are to blame for such suboptimal deterrence because they acquiesce in employers shielding accused harassers from risks via indemnification, hold harmless, defense, and insurance arrangements. The Article goes on to expose a free rider problem that results from employer-funded settlements in a world where employers’ and accused harassers’ liability travel hand in hand. Subsequently, it contextualizes these moral hazards within law and economics literature and tort law’s optimal deterrence theory. Through those lenses, it resolves that law reform ought to prioritize the imposition of individualized, non-transferable risks on accused harassers. Finally, this Article considers how public ordering might assail these moral hazards and achieve that ideal. It compares and contrasts statutory and common-law harasser liability, explaining why statutory liability would achieve optimal deterrence. Subsequently, it explores articulations of public policy against insurance for intentional actions, applies that public policy to harasser risk shields, and makes the case for an ensuing interdiction of harasser risk shields by administrative agencies. Lastly, and assuming arguendo that harasser liability exists and harasser risk shields do not, it considers a proposal to reduce employers’ liability for hostile work environment claims, thereby decreasing opportunities for survivors to secure restitution, but reducing employer-funded settlements that inure to the benefit of accused harassers, mitigating against the free rider problem, and forcing harassers themselves to bear the brunt of the risks associated with harassment. In summary, this Article exposes the moral hazards of workplace harassment law, contextualizes them within social sciences scholarship, and explores how law reform efforts might eradicate them.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信