Skip to main content

Retaliation And Sexual Harassment at Workplace?

71% of women fail to report incidences of sexual harassment at work, according to a 2015 survey. Only 68.9% of Indian women who experience sexual harassment report their experiences to the Internal Committee (IC) or management, according to a 2017 survey by the Indian National Bar Association (INBA).

Retaliation is a tactic used to ridicule, humiliate, and spread rumours about the sexual harassment victim. When an employee reports sexual harassment in the workplace, the company may take action against them. Retaliation is any negative employment action that involves "exerting power." Demotion, wage reduction, job transfer, and termination are a few examples.

For fear of retaliation, many women choose not to report sexual harassment at work. The victim may be the target of reprisals from the accused or the organisation. In fact, studies has shown that businesses frequently devalue sexual harassment. As a result, the victim faces hostility and reprisals.

The organization's environment affects how it reacts to reporting. If the organisation backs the reporter, retaliation can be restrained. If a reporter receives more backing from the organisation, especially the management, they are less likely to face reprisals. An indication of this support is the work being done to substantiate the claims and address the complaint. The organization's intolerance of sexual harassment helps the support even more.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Posh Act - Confidentiality vs Transparency

Confidentiality vs Transparency – Managing Sensitive Investigations Confidentiality is a statutory mandate under the POSH Act . Disclosure of identities, contents of complaint, witness details, or recommendations is prohibited. The objective is to protect dignity and prevent retaliation or workplace gossip. However, confidentiality does not mean secrecy without accountability. Employers must still ensure procedural transparency between parties sharing responses, evidence summaries, and findings. The balance lies in controlled disclosure within the inquiry framework, not public communication. Improper leaks can result in statutory penalties and reputational damage. Organizations must restrict access to inquiry records and sensitize leadership about non-interference. Simultaneously, leadership must communicate a culture of zero tolerance without discussing case specifics. Transparency about policy commitment, rather than individual cases, strengthens trust. Managing this balance is criti...
Post a Comment
Read more

POSH Cases: Madras High Court Highlights the Need for Sensitivity and Neutrality

V. Anantharaman v. The Institute of Financial Management & Others In an important judgment that underscores the need for sensitivity, neutrality, and procedural fairness in handling sexual harassment complaints, the Madras High Court in V. Anantharaman v. The Institute of Financial Management & Others reinforced the responsibilities of Internal Committees (ICs) and employers under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ). The Court emphasized that while the protection of the complainant is central to the Act, the rights of the accused must also be safeguarded through a fair and unbiased process. The case involved V. Anantharaman, a senior official accused of sexual harassment, who challenged the Internal Committee’s inquiry process on grounds of procedural lapses, lack of neutrality, and failure to provide him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner contended that the IC's proceedings we...
Post a Comment
Read more

Delhi High Court Reaffirms Importance of Natural Justice in POSH Inquiries: Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors

In a landmark judgment reinforcing the principles of fairness and impartiality under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ( POSH Act ), the Delhi High Court in Somaya Gupta v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Others (2018) clarified the essential procedural safeguards to be followed by Internal Committees (ICs) while handling complaints of sexual harassment. The Court held that mere apprehension of bias is insufficient to exclude a member from the Internal Committee; rather, there must be a real likelihood of bias established on substantive grounds. The case involved a faculty member at Jawaharlal Nehru University who raised concerns over the composition of the Internal Committee, alleging potential bias and lack of impartiality. The petitioner sought the removal of certain committee members on the grounds of perceived conflict of interest and personal connections, fearing that these factors could influence the inquiry process....
Post a Comment
Read more