U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

Office of Policy and Evaluation Research Brief

Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

June 2023 

In Brief

Sexual harassment and other forms of gender-based discrimination continue despite the renewed 

attention given to the problem in recent years. As a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, sexual harassment is a legally prohibited form of discrimination based on sex. Within 

Federal workplaces, sexual harassment conflicts with the merit system principles (MSPs)1

 and 

represents a prohibited personnel practice (PPP).2

 To better prevent and remediate sexual 

harassment, agencies need to objectively assess the effectiveness of their current efforts regarding 

sexual harassment. For example, are employees well-educated on agency policies and practices 

that were created to deter sexual harassment? Are employees confident that the agency will 

properly address violations of these policies by holding everyone, at all levels of the organization, 

accountable for upholding these values? Only through consistent, long-term efforts can agencies 

make progress in eradicating the wide variety of sexual harassment behaviors that can poison the 

work environment, and this is essential to establishing and maintaining a fair and inclusive 

workplace. 

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), as part of its role as the guardian of the 

Federal merit systems, has a lengthy history of studying sexual harassment in Federal workplaces. 

Since Congress first requested that MSPB study the issue in 1979, MSPB has conducted five 

Governmentwide surveys regarding the prevalence and impact of sexual harassment on Federal 

employees. As discussed in previous research, MSPB’s surveys have been updated and expanded 

to stay current with the contemporary understanding of sexual harassment.3 Therefore, the 2016 

Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2016) covered 12 sexual harassment behaviors, compared to seven 

on the 1980 survey.4 Between 2016 and 2021, the content of each item remained consistent, with 

only minor rewording for clarification purposes. 

This research brief summarizes Federal employee perceptions5 of sexual harassment based on 

MSPB’s 2021 Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2021), (which was administered between January 

and April 2021), with some comparisons to prior survey results. The survey instructions indicated 

that respondents should reflect on the prior two years when determining whether they 

experienced these sexual harassment behaviors. Consequently, the 2021 survey covered 

approximately one year of heightened telework during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, as well as the 

1 5 U.S. Code §2301(b).

2 5 U.S. Code §2302(b).

3 For additional background information on MSPB’s research into sexual harassment, please see the most recent report, Sexual Harassment 

in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, which was released on December 19, 2022. 

https://www.mspb.gov/studies/studies/Sexual_Harassment_in_Federal_Workplaces_Understanding_and_Addressing_the_Problem_198703

7.pdf.

4 Our report based on the 2016 Merit Principles Survey was published in December 2022. MSPB was unable to release that report during 

the time period that the agency lacked a quorum (January 7, 2017 through March 3, 2022). This current report now includes the relevant 

items included in the 2021 Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2021).

5 For brevity, we characterize employees who responded that they experienced any of the listed behaviors as having “experienced 

harassment.” We note that survey data reflect employees’ perceptions of their experiences, which may or may not meet the legal criteria for 

harassment. For more information, see the Method section on pages 2-4 of MSPB’s 2022 report on sexual harassment. Detailed legal 

guidance regarding sexual harassment is included in 29 CFR §1604.11 and posted on the website of the U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at https://eeoc.gov. 
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 2

preceding year of routine operations.6 This survey also captured the time following the 2017 

#MeToo movement, which spurred increased scrutiny of sexual harassment in a wide variety of 

workplaces and the efforts made to rectify it. 

In reviewing the overall results for sexual harassment prevalence as indicated on the MPS 2021 

compared to 2016, there was a slight decline in the percentage of employees indicating that they 

experienced one or more of 12 types of sexual harassment in the prior two years: 12.6% in 2021 

compared to 14.3% in 2016. Additionally,17.5%7 of women and 7.8% of men said they 

experienced one or more types of sexual harassment on the 2021 survey, down from 20.9% for 

women and 8.7% for men on the 2016 survey. Despite this apparent improvement towards a 

workplace free of sexual harassment, progress was uneven and somewhat limited in many cases 

across gender and agencies. Therefore, agencies need to strengthen their efforts to ensure that all 

employees are aware of the prohibitions on sexual harassment and to promptly address any 

behavior that is contrary to these expectations.8

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment 

The MPS 2021 provided an updated assessment regarding Federal employees’ experiences with 

12 behaviors that reflect three different categories of sexual harassment.9

A summary of the results overall and by individual behavior experienced by women and men is 

provided in Table 1. Women were more than twice as likely as men to experience sexual 

harassment overall, and more likely than men to experience each of the sexual harassment 

behaviors, except for unwanted exposure to sexually oriented material, which was the least 

6 As discussed later in this brief, additional research will be needed to determine the impact of increased telework on the prevalence of 

sexual harassment. However, the two-year reporting window for the MPS 2021, with half of that time being under normal work conditions, 

likely allowed an adequate opportunity for respondents to experience sexual harassment in the physical and/or virtual workplace if it was 

present.

7 The number is 17.48%, so it appears as 17.5% when rounded to the tenths and 17% when expressed as a whole number. 

8 For more detailed recommendations, refer to MSPB’s 2022 report, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and 

Addressing the Problem, including the “Conclusions and Recommendations” on pp. 41-46 and the “Supplement to the Recommendations: 

Implementing Practices and Issues” on pp. 47-62, as well as resources from the EEOC, such as Promising Practices for Preventing 

Harassment, EEOC-NVTA-2017-2, 11-21-2017, which can be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/promising-practicespreventing-harassment.

9 As discussed in MSPB’s 2022 report Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, these 

categories are consistent with those of other researchers in the field. See Gelfand, M.J., Fitzgerald, L.F., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The 

structure of sexual harassment: a confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 164-177. 

Fitzgerald, L.F., Gelfand, M.J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and 

Applied Social Psychology, 17(4), 425-445.

•Unwelcome behaviors that disparage or objectify Gender Harassment others based on their sex or gender

•Unwelcome behaviors of a sexual nature that are 

directed toward a person

Unwanted Sexual 

Attention

Sexual Coercion •Pressure or force to engage in sexual behavior
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 3

common form of gender harassment.10 Women were particularly more at risk for sexual assault or 

attempted sexual assault, pressure for dates, and unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or 

gestures. The most common sexual harassment behavior experienced by both women and men 

was an unwelcome invasion of personal space, (e.g., touching or crowding or leaning over), 

which may reflect sexual undertones and/or physical intimidation.

Table 1. Types of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Experienced, by Gender, 2021

Behavior Total Women Men Ratio

Women:Men

Any Type of Sexual Harassment 

Behavior (of 12) Experienced 12.6% 17.5% 7.8% 2.2:1

Gender Harassment Total Women Men Ratio

Women:Men

Unwelcome exposure to sexually 

oriented conversations 4.2% 5.7% 2.9% 2.0:1

Unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, 

comments, or questions 5.5% 8.2% 3.1% 2.6:1

Derogatory or unprofessional terms 

related to sex or gender 5.3% 7.0% 3.6% 1.9:1

Unwelcome exposure to sexually 

oriented material 1.4% 1.3% 1.4% 0.9:1

Unwanted Sexual Attention Total Women Men Ratio

Women:Men

Unwelcome invasion of personal 

space

6.4% 9.0% 3.7% 2.4:1

Unwelcome sexually suggestive 

looks or gestures 3.7% 6.2% 1.5% 4.1:1

Unwelcome communications of a 

sexual nature 3.2% 4.9% 1.7% 2.9:1

Sexual Coercion Total Women Men Ratio

Women:Men

Pressure for dates 1.3% 2.2% 0.5% 4:4:1

Stalking (intrusion into your 

personal life) 1.4% 1.9% 0.8% 2:4:1

Offer of preferential treatment for 

sexual favors (quid pro quo) 0.5% 0.6% 0.4% 1.5:1

Pressure for sexual favors 0.6% 1.0% 0.3% 3.3:1

Sexual assault or attempted sexual 

assault <0.5% 0.5% <0.5% 5.0:1

As noted earlier, compared to 2016, a slightly lower percentage of women and men across the 

entire Federal workforce indicated on the MPS 2021 that they had experienced one or more of the 

12 sexual harassment behaviors in the prior two years, as shown in Table 2. Further, when 

10 As stated in the guidance from the EEOC, Model EEO Programs Must Have An Effective Anti-Harassment Program, “It is important to 

note that ”non-sexual” harassment may include “sex-based” harassment that is not of a sexual nature as well as race, color, religion, 

national origin, age, disability, or retaliation.” https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/model-eeo-programs-must-have-effective-antiharassmentprogram#:~:text=EEOC%27s%20EEO%20Management%20Directive%20715%20%28MD%20715%29%20sets,must%20have%20in%20

place%20an%20effective%20anti-harassment%20program. These “sex-based harassment behaviors” frequently overlap with those labelled 

by researchers as “gender harassment.” However, for EEOC reporting, sex-based harassment behaviors are combined with harassment 

related to other legally protected bases or retaliation, rather than with the behaviors designated as “sexual harassment.”
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 4

examining the prevalence of each of the 12 sexual harassment behaviors experienced by women 

and men in 2016 and 2021, each of these behaviors appears to have decreased among women. 

However, a different pattern emerged for some of the behaviors among men. As indicated by 

shading in Table 2, there was an increase in the percentage of men who stated that they had 

experienced some of the sexual harassment behaviors, such as unwelcome invasion of personal 

space or derogatory, unprofessional terms related to sex or gender.

Table 2. Types of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Experienced, by Gender, 2016 and 202111

Sexual Harassment Behavior Women Men

2016 2021 2016 2021

Experienced any of 12 behaviors 20.9% 17.5% 8.7% 7.8%

Gender Harassment Women Men

2016 2021 2016 2021

Unwelcome exposure to sexually oriented 

conversations 9.5% 5.7% 5.4% 2.9%

Unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments, 

or questions 9.4% 8.2% 2.9% 3.1%

Derogatory or unprofessional terms related to 

sex or gender 7.1% 7.0% 3.0% 3.6%

Unwelcome exposure to sexually oriented 

material 3.6% 1.3% 2.0% 1.4%

Unwanted Sexual Attention Women Men

2016 2021 2016 2021

Unwelcome invasion of personal space 12.3% 9.0% 2.9% 3.7%

Unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or 

gestures 8.5% 6.2% 1.4% 1.5%

Unwelcome communications of a sexual nature 5.4% 4.9% 1.5% 1.7%

Sexual Coercion Women Men

2016 2021 2016 2021

Pressure for dates 2.5% 2.2% 0.8% 0.5%

Stalking (intrusion into your personal life) 2.4% 1.9% 1.1% 0.8%

Offer of preferential treatment for sexual 

favors (quid pro quo) 1.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.4%

Pressure for sexual favors 1.4% 1.0% 0.6% 0.3%

Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault <0.5% 0.5% <0.5% <0.5%

Numerous factors can drive the direction of changes in the prevalence of sexual harassment 

behaviors within organizations. Therefore, agencies should be cautious when interpreting year-toyear comparisons regarding the prevalence of sexual harassment and consider whether there 

might be contextual influences beyond the strategies that they have implemented. Further, 

multiple sources of input, such as employee feedback via surveys and various reporting 

mechanisms, should be considered to assess whether the trends are consistent.

Apparent decreases in sexual harassment could be attributed to success preventing sexual 

harassment as a result of agency efforts. However, a variety of other influences may also impact 

various measures of sexual harassment. For example, the increase in telework starting in March 

2020 due to the pandemic may have impacted the frequency and types of sexual harassment 

behaviors that occurred, given that some behaviors can only occur (or are much more likely to 

11 Shading highlights behaviors that increased in prevalence on the 2021 survey results compared to 2016.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 5

occur) when the harasser and target12 share a working space. Additionally, remote work may 

reduce the likelihood that an employee who experiences sexual harassment will report it.

If agencies see increases in sexual harassment, they should explore potential drivers and consider 

a variety of possible explanations. While an increase in harassment behaviors would constitute an 

undesirable outcome, other possible explanations for increased reporting might be more benign or 

even positive. Increased use of reporting mechanisms might indicate greater confidence that these 

systems will work in a fair, effective, and efficient manner. Additionally, the more frequent and

accurate labelling of sexual harassment behaviors could reflect an improvement in properly 

categorizing behaviors as sexual harassment.

Hence, while the increases on the MPS 2021 survey regarding sexual harassment behaviors 

experienced by men could be due to greater prevalence, they might also indicate greater 

awareness by men that these types of behaviors reflect sexual harassment and, therefore, are 

impermissible in the workplace.13 Historically, some men have been reluctant to view themselves 

as potential targets of sexual harassment due to perceived stigma or to report sexual harassment 

out of fear of not being believed.14 Therefore, another tenable explanation for more men stating 

that they experienced certain sexual harassment behaviors on the 2021 survey could be a more 

inclusive view of potential targets of sexual harassment. 

These changes may further reflect improved knowledge and readiness to appropriately label 

sexual harassment, even if the target and the harasser are the same sex. Legal cases have noted 

that sexual harassment need not be based on sexual desire,15 in part because harassers may be 

motivated by other factors, such as hostility towards a person’s gender or their perceived nonconformity to gender roles.16 Nevertheless, some organizations have retained permissive attitudes 

towards sexual harassment of men by viewing it as an acceptable part of the culture to support 

“male bonding” 17 and enforce expectations for “gender-appropriate” behaviors.18

Risk Factors for Sexual Harassment 

To prevent sexual harassment, agencies need to understand the wide variety of potential 

individual and organizational characteristics that can be associated with a higher risk for sexual 

harassment. Given that the data shows that harassers may be co-workers, other employees, and 

customers, agencies should not only focus prevention efforts on models involving hierarchical 

12 As noted in MSPB’s 2022 report on sexual harassment, the term “target” is used rather than “victim” because the latter implies that the 

person has been harmed, while modern conceptualizations of sexual harassment do not require proof of physical or psychological harm to 

substantiate that harassment occurred. 

13 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, 

December 2022, p. 11.

14 For example, see Madera, J.M., Podratz, K.E., King, E.B., and Hebl, M.R. (2007). Schematic responses to sexual harassment 

complainants: The influence of gender and physical attractiveness. Sex Roles, 56, 223-230 and McDonald, P. & Charlesworth, C. (2016). 

Workplace sexual harassment at the margins. Work, Employment & Society, 30(1), 118-134. 

15 Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998).

16 For examples, see Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) and Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.,510 U.S. 17 (1993).

17 The courts have explored whether “male-on-male horseplay” that is part of the organizational culture is actionable as sex discrimination. 

The Supreme Court’s decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) held that same-sex harassment can be actionable 

under Title VII, but the social context must also be considered. Therefore, “teasing or rough housing” could be permissible if a “reasonable 

person” in that environment would not find such behaviors to be “severely hostile or abusive.”

18 For example, see McDonald, P. and Charlesworth, S. (2016). Workplace sexual harassment at the margins. Work, Employment & 

Society, 30(1), pp. 118-134 and Spencer, L. and Barnett, J.T. (2011). When men are sexually harassed: a foundation for studying men’s 

experiences as targets of sexual harassment. Speaker and Gavel, 48(2), 53-67. 
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 6

relationships.19 Aspects of the workforce such as having a mix of employees, contractors, and 

interns or having “isolated or decentralized workplaces” can also increase the likelihood of sexual 

harassment.20 Organizational characteristics may include the organizational culture, leadership, 

and level of effort devoted to eradicating sexual harassment.21

Nevertheless, since correlation between any of these factors does not necessarily equate to 

causation, these risk factors may not directly explain the differences between agencies in the 

prevalence of sexual harassment but may provide clues as to where to delve more deeply into 

potential influences on sexual harassment. Identifying these risk factors can help agencies decide 

where they need to concentrate additional efforts and which strategies are likely to have the 

greatest ability to mitigate the problem. As a first step, agency leaders need to understand the 

prevalence of sexual harassment in their own organizations and then identify and assess potential 

contributing factors. Figure 1 shows that agencies vary in the prevalence of sexual harassment, 

but women are consistently more likely (and in some agencies, much more likely) than men to 

experience sexual harassment. Therefore, gender and employing agency represent two of the 

greatest risk factors for sexual harassment. 

19 Although questions regarding the role of the harasser were not included on the MPS 2021, data from the MPS 2016 revealed that

coworkers, other employees, and customers were most frequently identified as responsible for the harassment. Therefore, agencies should 

not focus their prevention efforts only on hierarchical relationships. See pp. 18-19 of Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 

Understanding and Addressing the Problem, for more information regarding characteristics of harassers.

20 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal #MeToo: Examining Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces Briefing Report, April 2020, 

p. 146.

21 Quick, J.C. and McFayden, M.A. (2017). Sexual harassment: have we made any progress? Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 

22(3), 286-298.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 7

Figure 1. Percentage of Employees, by Agency and Gender, Experiencing Sexual 

Harassment, 2021

Although the MSPB survey data have consistently shown women to be at greater risk of sexual 

harassment, gender may become even more salient under other organizational conditions, such as 

in work groups that predominantly include men or women. For example, the MPS 2021 data 

show that women who indicated on the survey that there were substantially more men than 

women in their immediate work group were significantly more likely to have experienced sexual 

harassment (26.4% compared to 17.5%). Likewise, when women vastly outnumbered men in the 

work group, men were at greater risk of sexual harassment (13.7% compared to 7.8%).22

Disproportionate gender composition of occupations23 has also been found to be linked with an 

increased risk of harassment for those who are under-represented.24 As an example of this from 

the MPS 2021 data, men accounted for less than one-third of Human Resources Management 

22 Analyses of the MPS 2016 also found workforce composition to be correlated with greater prevalence of sexual harassment. U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, December 2022, p. 16.

23 Due to the large number of occupations, the number of survey respondents in many occupations was too small for further analysis. Each 

of the occupations discussed here had more than 80 female and/or male survey respondents.

24 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Workplace Sexual Harassment: Experts Suggest Expanding Data Collection to Improve 

Understanding of Prevalence and Costs, September 2020, GAO-20-564, pp. 20-22. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-564.

11%

6%

6%

10%

8%

3%

4%

7%

5%

9%

7%

11%

8%

11%

6%

5%

6%

6%

5%

7%

5%

4%

8%

7%

8%

8%

20%

10%

22%

28%

13%

9%

11%

20%

17%

14%

24%

23%

12%

19%

14%

11%

18%

13%

14%

16%

13%

13%

16%

15%

15%

17%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Veterans Affairs

Treasury

Transportation

State

Social Security Administration

Securities and Exchange Commission

Office of Personnel Management

Navy

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Labor

Justice

Interior

Housing and Urban Development

Homeland Security

Health and Human Services

General Services Administration

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Environmental Protection Agency

Energy

Education

Defense

Commerce

Army

Air Force

Agriculture

Government-wide

Percent Experiencing Sexual Harassment

Agency by Gender

Women Men
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 8

Specialists (GS-201) in 202225 but were more than twice as likely to experience sexual 

harassment compared to men overall (18.0% compared to 7.8%). However, the MPS 2021 data 

also suggested that gender imbalance of the workforce may be correlated with higher-thanaverage rates of sexual harassment, even for targets who are the same gender as the majority 

gender. As one example, over 30% of female nurses (GS-610) experienced sexual harassment, 

even though 81% of nurses are women.26 (We note, however, that nurses are known to be at 

greater risk of experiencing sexual harassment due to occupational and organizational factors.27) 

As another example, in the male-dominated28 occupational series of Customs and Border 

Protection (GS-1895), Border Patrol Enforcement (GS-1896), and Transportation Specialist (GS2101), the rate of men experiencing harassment was nearly double the average, at about 15%.29

In addition to looking at gender alone and in conjunction with variables such as employing 

agency and occupation, looking at gender in combination with other personal characteristics may 

reveal effects related to intersectionality. Intersectionality refers to the fact that people 

simultaneously belong to multiple social groupings (e.g., ethnicity and race, sexual orientation, 

socio-economic status) which can impact their treatment.30 Looking at the experience of sexual 

harassment within each demographic category in isolation can mask the ways that sexual 

harassment varies in prevalence, types of behaviors, and intensity for individuals with different 

constellations of personal characteristics.31 However, sample size, particularly within certain 

subgroupings, limited the ability to conduct extensive intersectional analyses of MPS 2021 data. 

Based on the MPS 2021 data, of the personal characteristics that were examined, sexual 

orientation, age, ethnicity, and disability status all appear to be related statistically to a propensity 

to be harassed, but larger sample sizes would be required to explore these relationships more 

definitively. Therefore, it is important for agencies to consider the increased vulnerabilities of 

certain employees, based on a combination of factors, to increased risk of sexual harassment.

Possible Impacts of Pandemic-Related Increases in Telework

Since many employees shifted to working at home during early 2020 due to the pandemic, there 

has been much speculation about the potential impact on harassment. Although the researchbased evidence so far has been scant, several published articles arrived at the same conclusion—

while certain types of sexual harassment (e.g., unwanted touching) may decline when people are 

not physically together in the work environment, remote work does not stop other types of 

harassment behaviors (e.g., verbal harassment or sending sexually oriented material 

25 Occupational data was extracted from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) FedScope Federal Workforce Status Data 

Employment Cubes as of September 2022. All occupational data was calculated based on full-time permanent (FTP) employees only. Data 

was pulled on February 3, 2023, from https://www.fedscope.opm.gov/employment.asp.

26 Based on OPM’s FedScope employment data as of September 2022 for FTP employees.

27 Ross, S., Naumann, P., Hinds-Jackson, D.V., Stokes, L., (January 31, 2019) "Sexual Harassment in Nursing: Ethical Considerations and 

Recommendations" OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing Vol. 24, No. 1, Manuscript 1.

28 Per OPM’s FedScope employment data from September 2022 for FTP employees, percentages of men in these occupations are: GS1895, 80%; GS-1896, 94%; and GS-2101, 87%.

29 There was an insufficient number of women survey respondents in these occupations to calculate reliable rates of sexual harassment. 

30 For examples, see Cole, E.R. (2009). Intersectionality and Research in Psychology, American Psychologist, 64(3), 170-180. 

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014564. American Association of University Women, Limiting Our Livelihoods: The Cumulative Impact of 

Sexual Harassment on Women’s Careers, November 2019, p. 14.https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/limiting-our-livelihoods/ ; 

Brassel, S. T., Davis, T. M., Jones, M. K., Miller-Tejada, S., Thorne, K. M., & Areguin, M. A. (2020). The importance of intersectionality 

for research on the sexual harassment of Black queer women at work. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 6(4), 383–

391. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000261.

31 Ibid.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 9

electronically).32 In fact, some articles suggested that the informality of working from home may 

have blurred the lines between work life and social life for some employees, producing an 

increase in certain types of harassment.33

Within the Federal workforce, some agencies such as the General Services Administration, the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

Office of Personnel Management, switched more quickly and/or more widely to telework than 

others during the pandemic.34 In contrast, agencies such as the Departments of State, Justice, 

Interior, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs tended to have lower rates of telework.35

Notably, those agencies with a lower percentage of employees who teleworked during the peak of 

the pandemic generally had higher rates of sexual harassment. Therefore, it is possible that fewer 

in-person interactions decreased opportunities for certain types of harassment for agencies with 

higher rates of telework. 

However, the ability to shift employees more easily to telework may also be driven by the nature 

of the work performed, the customers, agency technology resources, and leadership and the 

organizational culture. These factors may correlate with a predisposition to have different rates of 

sexual harassment, thereby making it challenging without collecting additional data to separate 

out the impact of increased telework from other potential influences on the prevalence of sexual 

harassment.

Further, as noted in the prior report, shifts in the prevalence of sexual harassment could also be 

related to prior actions that the agency has taken (or not taken) to prevent and address sexual 

harassment. The greatest opportunities for impact likely fall under the primary areas identified in 

the 2022 report on sexual harassment: policies and practices, education, and accountability.36

With sustained attention and effort to remedy sexual harassment through these approaches 

simultaneously, agencies should begin to see improvements over time.

Actions Taken by Employees Following Sexual Harassment and Their Outcomes

Although agencies bear ultimate responsibility for rectifying sexual harassment,37 employees who 

are directly or indirectly exposed to sexual harassment have options regarding the steps that they 

can take. These responses can be categorized as active, avoidance, or toleration. Active behaviors 

involve the target (or an observer) putting the harasser on notice that the behavior is unwelcome 

and/or involving others to assist in stopping the harassment. Avoidance serves to keep the target 

away from the harasser, but frequently does not alert the harasser or others that the behavior is 

32 For example, see Fessler, L. (2021, June 8). Workplace harassment in the age of remote work. The New York Times, 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/08/us/workplace-harassment-remote-work.html, retrieved on January 18, 2023 and Barcroft, K.L. 

((2022, September 20). Blurred lines: the impact of remote working on sexual harassment. New York Law Journal, 

https://www.bing.com/search?q=blurred+lines+the+impact+of+remote+work+on+sexual+harassment&cvid=433e775d2f73499a97b4bf86f

853c34d&aqs=edge..69i57.10928j0j1&pglt=43&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531, retrieved on January 18, 2023. 

33 Ibid.

34 U.S. Government Accountability Office, COVID-19: Federal Telework Increased During the Pandemic, but More Reliable Data Are 

Needed to Support Oversight, GAO-22-104282, February 8, 2022.

35 Ibid, p. 9.

36 As previously noted, MSPB’s 2022 report, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, 

provides detailed recommendations in the “Conclusions and Recommendations” on pp. 41-46 and the “Supplement to the 

Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues” on pp. 47-62.

37 Although Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) established an employer’s liability for sexual harassment committed by a supervisor, 

Burlington Industries Inc., v. Ellerth (1998) and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) further clarified the conditions under which an 

employer can be held accountable for sexual harassment by coworkers. The EEOC provides additional information on employer liability on 

its Harassment webpage, which can be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 10

unwelcome. Similarly, toleration does not signal to the harasser or others that the behavior is 

viewed as inappropriate, and, consequently, may convey acceptance to the harasser and observers 

in the absence of negative feedback. 

Figure 2 demonstrates that targets of sexual harassment employ a variety of methods in response 

to sexual harassment, either singly or in combination. Although 72% of targets used avoidance of 

the harasser and 42% ignored the behavior or did nothing, over half (57%) took the more direct 

and active approach of asking the harasser to stop. A substantial number of targets also actively 

reported the behavior to officials (29%) or threatened to tell or told others (25%). Since the 

survey allowed respondents to select more than one response, targets of harassment may have 

escalated (or possibly de-escalated) their reactions depending upon the reaction of the harasser. 

Regardless, employees should keep in mind the 45-day deadline (from the date the harassment 

occurred) for initiating contact with an agency equal employment opportunity (EEO) counselor, 

even if they believe their initial response has been effective in ending the harassment or if they 

decide to pursue alternative means for resolving the issue.38

Figure 2. Actions Taken Following Sexual Harassment, 2021

Reviewing actions taken by employees in response to sexual harassment over time can provide 

some insights into how behavior has shifted. As shown in Figure 3, actions taken by women and 

men in response to sexual harassment generally converged by 2021 on the responses that they 

took. For example, compared to 1994, both women and men were more likely to take an active 

response in 2016 and 2021, and toleration behaviors have generally decreased. However, 

avoidance behaviors have generally increased since 1994, even though this seems to run counter 

to employees being willing to take a more active response. 

38 For more information on the Federal EEO Complaint Processing Procedures, please see guidance from the EEOC at 

https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/federal-eeo-complaint-processing-procedures.

10%

13%

42%

8%

11%

72%

8%

8%

9%

25%

29%

57%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Went along with the behavior

Made a joke of the behavior

Ignored the behavior or did nothing

Toleration

Began teleworking more frequently

Changed jobs or locations

Avoided the harasser(s)

Avoidance

Used an informal conflict resolution process

Filed a formal complaint

Contacted an EEO counselor

Threated to tell or told others

Reported the behavior to officials

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

Active

Percent Who Took This Action
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 11

Figure 3. Actions Taken by Employees in Response to Sexual Harassment, by Gender, 1994, 

2016, and 2021

In contrast, when comparing just 2016 and 2021, several of the active responses decreased. 

Additionally, some avoidance and toleration behaviors increased. The shift to greatly increased 

telework could partly explain this, as the types of harassment behaviors in the virtual workplace 

shifted from physical to primarily verbal or visual in nature, and there may be fewer witnesses.39

Therefore, targets may be less likely to take an active response, such as reporting the 

harassment.

40

Following their response to sexual harassment, employees typically assess reactions of the 

harasser(s), coworkers, and those in the leadership chain. And while they may hope for 

improvement, experience has demonstrated that no changes or even a worsening of the situation 

may occur. Therefore, when asked about the result of their actions, employees noted varying 

outcomes, as shown in Figure 4. The most frequently chosen responses, avoiding the harasser, 

and asking the harasser to stop, were viewed as improving the situation for the majority of 

employees who tried these approaches. However, less commonly selected options, of changing 

jobs or locations, and teleworking more frequently, were even more likely to be viewed as 

producing a better outcome for the targets of harassment. In contrast, filing a formal EEO

39 Nicholson, N. (2021, July 15). Remote Sexual Harassment. It’s Happening. Are You Ready?, HR Daily Advisor, 

https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2021/07/15/remote-sexual-harassment-its-happening-are-you-ready/.

40 Ibid.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 12

complaint or contacting an EEO counselor were viewed as less effective responses, as between 

one-quarter and one-third of those who tried these options perceived a negative outcome.41

Figure 4. Employee Perceptions of the Effect of Their Responses to Sexual Harassment, 

2021

Although in 2021 women and men demonstrated more similar reactions to sexual harassment, 

they did not always view these actions as having the same outcomes, as previously seen with the 

MPS 2016 data.42 For actions viewed as improving the situation, Figure 5 shows a continuing 

large gap for the most popular option of changing jobs or locations, as 87% of women who 

experienced sexual harassment and took this action thought it improved the situation, while only 

about 71% of the similarly situated men did. And while both women and men viewed increased 

telework as helpful, men were more likely to say this improved their situation. For the least 

popular option of going along with the behavior, there was also a large difference: only 4% of 

women thought this helped, while 18% of men who tried this response thought that it did. 

Nevertheless, the greatest discrepancy in outcomes related to filing a formal complaint: women 

were much more likely to find this to be effective (36%) compared to men (14%). Therefore, 

while women and men may hold comparable opinions regarding the effectiveness of some 

responses to sexual harassment, they still differ on others.

41 Given the similar concerns expressed on the MPS 2016, we included additional follow-up questions regarding the EEO complaint 

process on the MPS 2021. The responses to these questions will be discussed later in this research brief. 

42 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, 

December 2022, pp. 29-30.

11%

28%

29%

29%

30%

34%

41%

42%

55%

59%

71%

83%

74%

67%

43%

38%

53%

51%

41%

45%

38%

36%

26%

14%

14%

6%

27%

33%

17%

14%

19%

13%

7%

5%

3%

3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Went along with the behavior

Ignored the behavior or did nothing

Contacted an EEO counselor

Filed a formal complaint

Used an informal conflict resolution process

Made a joke of the behavior

Reported the behavior to officials

Threatened to tell or told others

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

Avoided the harasser(s)

Began teleworking more frequently

Changed jobs/locations

Effect of Their Response

Action Taken

Better Same Worse
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 13

Figure 5. Actions Viewed as Improving the Situation after Sexual Harassment, by Gender, 

2021

Similarly, there were differences among women’s and men’s opinions regarding actions that 

made their situation worse after sexual harassment, as seen in Figure 6. Women were much more 

likely than men to view going along with the behavior or making a joke of the behavior as having 

a negative impact, while men differed from women regarding reporting the behavior to a 

supervisor or manager, which they viewed as carrying more risk of worsening the situation. 

Therefore, several of the response behaviors were viewed very differently by women and men. 

Women viewed toleration responses as more likely to have unintended, negative consequences. In 

contrast, men more frequently viewed active responses as resulting in negative outcomes. 

18%

26%

26%

36%

35%

14%

45%

37%

52%

56%

78%

71%

4%

28%

30%

34%

34%

36%

41%

43%

56%

60%

65%

87%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Went along with the behavior

Ignored the behavior or did nothing

Contacted an EEO counselor

Made a joke of the behavior

Used an informal conflict resolution process

Filed a formal complaint

Threatened to tell or told others

Reported the behavior to the supervisor or manager

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

Avoided the harasser(s)

Began teleworking more frequently

Changed jobs or locations

Percent Agreeing Action Improved Their Situation

Action Taken

Women Men
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 14

Figure 6. Actions Viewed as Worsening the Situation after Sexual Harassment, by Gender, 

2021

One concerning finding that stands out from Figure 6 is the similarity between women and men in 

viewing the EEO process as risky, with about one-third of women and men viewing it as making 

their situation worse. This concern is supported by data from other sources, as those who have 

experienced and/or observed sexual harassment and taken an active response have noted that 

retaliation can be a negative consequence. For example, the EEOC’s Annual Reports reveal 

reprisal/retaliation43 for participating in the EEO process to be the most frequently alleged basis 

for an EEO complaint filed by Federal employees for over 15 years.44

Similarly, even contacting an EEO counselor was seen as worsening the situation for 26% of 

women and 30% of men. With these results of perceptions of little gain for either women or men 

and greater risk of making the situation worse, it is unsurprising that fewer than 10% of targets of 

sexual harassment decided to contact an EEO counselor or file an EEO complaint. For those 

respondents who indicated that they had experienced sexual harassment but not filed an EEO 

complaint, the survey asked why they had not done so. The responses, as shown in Figure 7, 

frequently indicated concerns about future impacts, such as negative effects on their careers 

(32%) and peer relationships (21%), and a lack of benefit to be gained compared to these 

potential costs (41%). 

43 The EEOC defines retaliation/reprisal as “treating employees badly because they complained about discrimination on the job, filed a 

discrimination charge or complaint, or participated in any manner in an employment discrimination proceeding” per the 

Retaliation/Reprisal brochure, which can be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/retaliationreprisal-brochure. 

44 The EEOC’s Annual Report on the Federal Workforce is posted at https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports. As of January 27, 2023, 

the most recent data available is the FY19 report.

18%

26%

26%

36%

35%

14%

45%

37%

52%

56%

78%

71%

4%

28%

30%

34%

34%

36%

41%

43%

56%

60%

65%

87%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

Went along with the behavior

Ignored the behavior or did nothing

Contacted an EEO counselor

Made a joke of the behavior

Used an informal conflict resolution process

Filed a formal complaint

Threatened to tell or told others

Reported the behavior to the supervisor or manager

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

Avoided the harasser(s)

Began teleworking more frequently

Changed jobs or locations

Percent Agreeing Action Worsened Their Situation

Action Taken

Women Men
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 15

Figure 7. Reasons Employees Provided for Not Filing EEO Complaints Following Sexual 

Harassment, 2021

Nevertheless, although fear of retaliation and other negative impacts were noted by some 

respondents, the most common reason expressed for not filing an EEO complaint was that the 

behavior lacked sufficient severity to be reported. Results on the MPS 2016 indicated that Federal 

employees are increasingly recognizing sexual harassment behaviors when they occur.45 Yet, 

given the legal standard46 required for substantiating an EEO complaint, these employees may 

also be correct that, although the behavior was inappropriate, it did not meet the threshold for an 

EEO complaint. On a more positive note, nearly 40% responded that they did not need to pursue 

the matter further because the behavior stopped,47 which may have been due to other actions 

taken by the target to alert the harasser that their actions were unwelcome and inappropriate. 

Also, management, once aware of harassment, regardless of whether the target has elevated the 

issue, has an obligation to proceed with investigating and taking action to ensure that the behavior

stops.48 Therefore, in some cases, the situation may have been resolved by supervisors or others 

without requiring the employee to take further action. 

45 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, 

December 2022, pp. 10-11.

46 At https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment, EEOC provides the following guidance: “Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, 

offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a 

hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).”

47 Employees need to be aware of the requirement to contact EEO within 45 days of harassment or other forms of discrimination, to 

preserve their rights to file an EEO complaint, even if they believe that the behavior will stop.

48 EEOC’s Management Directive 715 (MD-715) states that a requirement of a model EEO program is to have an EEO policy that prohibits 

workplace harassment (sexual and nonsexual) and that the agency will correct “harassing conduct before it becomes severe or pervasive.” 

https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/management-directive/instructions-federal-agencies-md-715-section-i-model-eeo

1%

5%

5%

9%

18%

21%

32%

39%

41%

58%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

I intend to file in the future

I changed jobs

I did not know how to file an EEO complaint

My supervisor or management intervened

I had concerns about the formal complaint process

I was concerned about how my peers would treat me

It could negatively affect my career

The behavior stopped

I did not think the outcome would be worth the effort

I did not think the behavior was serious enough

Percent Agreement 

Reasons for Not Filing an EEO Complaint
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 16

What are the Potential Impacts on the Organization? 

In addition to negative outcomes for employees who experience sexual harassment, the presence 

of sexual harassment in the workplace can have deleterious impacts on the organization.49

Therefore, beyond the need to adhere to applicable laws and regulations, it is in agencies’ best 

interests to be vigilant in preventing and promptly addressing sexual harassment lest it undermine 

their mission. This can occur in numerous ways, such as jeopardizing the ability to recruit and 

retain the most capable and diverse workforce, and not fully utilizing all the talent that they have 

on board.50 Further, the stress and dysfunction caused by sexual harassment can undermine the 

cohesion and productivity of work groups.51

As noted earlier, over 80% of those who changed jobs or locations after experiencing sexual 

harassment indicated that this improved their situation Therefore, it should not be surprising that 

those who experienced sexual harassment were more likely than those who had not to express 

withdrawal behaviors such as moving to a different organization or occupation, as shown in 

Figure 8. Those who experienced sexual harassment were also less likely to pursue supervisory 

or managerial responsibilities or higher-level technical responsibilities. As a result, some targets 

of harassment were compelled to take actions that may have negatively impacted their career 

trajectory due to their efforts to physically withdraw or otherwise disengage from the situation 

where they were being subjected to harassment. 

Figure 8. Career Intentions by Experience of Sexual Harassment, 2021

49 For example, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the 

Problem, December 2022, p. 23 and U.S. Government Accountability Office, Workplace Sexual Harassment: Experts Suggest Expanding 

Data Collection to Improve Understanding of Prevalence and Costs, September 2020, GAO-20-564, pp. 22-29. 

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-20-564

50 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, 

December 2022, pp. 21-23.

51 Raver, J.L. and Gelfand, M.J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. 

The Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 387-400. 

19%

19%

8%

4%

84%

13%

41%

74%

64%

32%

30%

11%

7%

84%

13%

39%

71%

53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Move to a different organization or agency

Move to a different occupation or line of work

Reduce your work hours or responsibilities

Resign from the Federal Government

Take on new challenges, assignments, or roles in

current job

Retire from the Federal Government

Take on supervisory or managerial responsibilities

Take on higher level technical responsibilities

Continue job/role at same level

Agreement by Sexual Harassment Experience

Career Intentions

Yes None
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 17

Employees who had experienced sexual harassment were also less likely to provide a positive 

response on every item of the MPS 2021 engagement scale,

52 as seen in Figure 9. Past MPSB 

research has found that “(e)ngaged employees find personal meaning in their work, take pride in 

what they do and where they do it, and believe that their organization values them” and that 

“Federal agencies with employees who are more engaged experience better outcomes than 

agencies with employees who are less engaged.”53 Therefore, although we cannot determine 

causality from the measures obtained with this survey, the discrepancies on the engagement items 

reflect the expected trends of less satisfaction among those who have experienced sexual 

harassment one or more times in the past two years. The greatest differences related to 

employees’ feelings of being respected, as reflected through responses to questions that were 

either direct or indirect (e.g., asking whether they felt that their opinions counted at work). 

Employees who had experienced sexual harassment were less likely to be satisfied with upper 

management or to feel a sense of cooperation and teamwork in their work unit. Not surprisingly, 

those employees were also less likely to recommend their agency as a place to work—creating an 

impediment to both recruitment and retention.

52The engagement scale measures the “connection between employees and their work, their organization, or the people they work for or 

with, and is discussed in the September 2008 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board report, The Power of Employee Engagement starting on 

p. i.

53 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Employee Engagement, September 2008, p. i.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 18

Figure 9. Employee Agreement with Engagement Items by Experience of Sexual 

Harassment, 2021

What Have Agencies Done to Address Sexual Harassment?

As discussed in the 2022 report, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and 

Addressing the Problem, three broad strategies are needed to prevent sexual harassment and 

better respond to it when it occurs. These include:

1. Policies and practices: To document and communicate definitions, expectations for conduct, 

and procedures for seeking and obtaining redress;

90%

90%

88%

70%

88%

79%

77%

66%

73%

67%

63%

58%

83%

78%

76%

71%

80%

80%

73%

55%

72%

63%

58%

45%

52%

44%

39%

34%

58%

53%

51%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

The work I do is meaningful to me.

I know what is expected of me on the job.

My work unit produces high quality products and

services.

I have the resources to do my job well.

My agency is successful at accomplishing its mission.

Overall, I am satisfied with my supervisor.

My job makes good use of my skills and abilities.

I am given a real opportunity to improve my skills in

my organization.

I have sufficient opportunities (such as challenging

assignments or projects) to earn a high performance

rating.

Overall, I am satisfied with managers above my

immediate supervisor.

Recognition and rewards are based on performance

in my work unit.

I am satisfied with the recognition and rewards I

receive for my work.

I am treated with respect at work.

I would recommend my agency as a place to work.

A spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my

work unit.

My opinions count at work.

Agreement by Sexual Harassment Experience

Engagement Items

Yes No
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 19

2. Education: To inform employees, supervisors, and managers about agency policies and 

actions they can take to prevent or respond to harassment; and

3. Accountability: To reinforce agency policy and expectations, at both the organizational and 

individual level. 

For these to be effective, they must work in concert. Employees must be aware of the existing 

policies, understand the expectations for behavior in the organization, and have confidence that 

management will enforce these policies, fairly and consistently. 

As one sign that many agencies are achieving these goals, the majority of employees in 2021 

expressed approval of their agency’s efforts to combat sexual harassment: approximately 80% of 

respondents agreed that their agency “takes sufficient steps to prevent sexual harassment.”54

However, this global response can mask differences of opinion between those who experienced 

sexual harassment and those who did not,55 and other potential areas of improvement within 

specific strategies for preventing and responding to sexual harassment.

Policy and Practice

Most fundamentally, all Federal agencies should have a policy in place regarding sexual 

harassment and ensure that all employees are aware of it. The MPS 2021 survey results indicated 

widespread agency success in notifying employees of their sexual harassment prevention policy: 

96% of respondents agreed that their agency has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment, while 

just 3% did not know,56 as shown in Table 3.

57 Similarly, the vast majority (95%) of employees 

were familiar with the contents of these policies, and nearly as many (94%) agreed that the policy 

clearly communicates expectations for employees’ behavior. 

Table 3. Employee Agreement Regarding Agency Policies to Prevent Sexual Harassment, 2021

Item Agreement

My agency has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment. 96%

I am familiar with the contents of my agency’s policy regarding 

sexual harassment. 95%

My agency’s policy clearly communicates how employees should 

act to prevent and respond to sexual harassment. 94%

This policy is effective in preventing and addressing sexual 

harassment. 79%

However, just under 80% of employees viewed the policy as effective in preventing sexual 

harassment. Policies represent only one tool agencies can and should use to prevent sexual 

harassment. These policies are meaningless without agency efforts to educate their employees, 

supervisors, managers, and executives about the contents of the policies and to hold them 

accountable for their behavior in accordance with these expectations.

54 This response was comparable to the 2016 response of 79%.

55 Of those who experienced sexual harassment, just under half agreed that their agency “takes sufficient steps to prevent sexual 

harassment,” compared to 86% of those who had not experienced sexual harassment. 

56 The response options for the item “My agency has a policy prohibiting...” were simplified to “Yes,” “No,” or “Don’t Know.” Although 

“Don’t Know” responses are typically excluded from analyses, for the items related to agency policies, “Don’t Know” responses were 

included because employee knowledge regarding the existence of agency policies is relevant. 

57 This result was identical to the response from 2016.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 20

Education

As noted in MSPB’s 2022 report, educational programs designed to combat sexual harassment in 

Federal agencies frequently serve multiple purposes:58

1. Compliance—meeting a requirement established in law, regulation, or agency policy;

2. Notice—establishing a record, for purposes of compliance or accountability, that an 

individual has been provided with certain materials or information;

3. Knowledge—conveying facts about a subject, such as agency policies related to harassment 

and nondiscrimination, the definition of sexual harassment, and behaviors that may constitute 

sexual harassment;

4. Culture—conveying information about the organization’s expectations and values, and its 

vision for employee conduct and the work environment; and

5. Behavior—guiding and influencing decisions and actions in the workplace, such as how to 

avoid sexual harassment and how to respond appropriately to sexual harassment.

At a minimum, agencies are required by the Notification and Federal Employee 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act) (5 C.F.R. §724.202 and 

§724.203) to educate employees regarding discrimination on all legally protected bases (including 

discrimination based on sex, which includes sexual harassment), and protection for 

whistleblowers. Therefore, agencies must: 

1. Issue a notice to all employees regarding their rights and remedies under antidiscrimination 

laws and whistleblower protection laws within 90 days of entry on duty (EOD) and annually 

thereafter; and 

2. Provide training on this topic to employees within 90 days of EOD and, at a minimum, every 

two years. 

However, agencies (particularly those with a higher prevalence of sexual harassment) need to 

invest more time and effort into educating their employees after discerning the reasons behind the 

failure by employees (or others who are present in the workplace and/or interacting with 

employees) to meet the minimum standards for nondiscriminatory behavior. Beyond the basics of 

communicating that sexual harassment is illegal and that these behaviors will not be tolerated 

within the organization, agencies need to clarify what behaviors may constitute sexual harassment 

since employees may have different perspectives on this.59 Further, agencies can provide 

employees with knowledge and tools to use when they encounter sexual harassment, whether as a 

target, an observer, or a supervisor or manager. Accomplishing these goals necessitates time and 

sustained effort devoted not only to providing employees with information but also to persuading 

them to modify their work behavior, even if they are not the perpetrators of sexual harassment.

Additionally, agencies should ensure they address behavior promptly even if it does not meet the 

legal threshold of harassment. For example, as seen previously in Table 1, some of the most 

58 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, 

December 2022, p. 55.

59 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, 

December 2022, pp. 10-11.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 21

prevalent sexual harassment behaviors relate to violation of workplace conversational norms. 

Although these sometimes subtle forms of harassment may be viewed as less severe, if left 

unaddressed, they can create a hostile work environment—a legally prohibited form of sexual 

harassment—and further undermine diversity and inclusion. EEOC guidance encourages agencies 

to address conduct before it rises to the level of legally prohibited harassment.60

In response to the MPS 2021, 92% of employees indicated that, within the past two years, they 

had received training focused specifically on preventing sexual harassment, and a similar 

percentage (93%) agreed that this training clearly communicated how to prevent and respond to 

sexual harassment (Table 4). However, only about 77% viewed this training to be effective in 

preventing and addressing sexual harassment. 

Table 4. Employee Agreement Regarding Agency Training to Prevent Sexual Harassment, 

2021

Item Agreement

In the past 2 years, have you received training that is focused 

specifically on preventing and addressing sexual harassment? 92%

This training clearly communicates how to prevent and respond to 

sexual harassment. 93%

This training is effective in preventing and addressing sexual 

harassment. 77%

Beyond the value in the baseline requirement of educating employees regarding sexual 

harassment and their legal rights and remedies should it occur, the ability of training to achieve 

the goals of preventing sexual harassment has generated debate among researchers. In fact, some 

studies suggest that sexual harassment training may increase knowledge about sexual harassment 

and complaint procedures, but may not be effective in changing employee behavior.61 Further, 

training that is intended to prevent sexual harassment can backfire and have unintended 

consequences.62 Therefore, agencies need to carefully consider what goals they want to achieve 

with educational efforts designed to prevent sexual harassment, the training methods to best 

achieve these goals, and the limitations of such training to change attitudes and behavior. 

As shown in Table 5, some of the challenges to the effectiveness of sexual harassment prevention 

training may be due to the relative brevity of the training for employees. Of those who received 

training focused specifically on sexual harassment prevention, the length of the training for most 

(58%) employees was less than one hour. Although factors such as the scope, audience, and 

format of the training may impact the optimal length of training, some researchers have expressed 

concern that training of an inadequate length may be more harmful than no training.63

60 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Promising Practices for Preventing Harassment, EEOC-NVTA-2017-2, 11-21-2017, 

which can be found at https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/promising-practices-preventing-harassment.

61 Roehling, M., Wu, D., Choi, M.G., and Dulebohn, J. (2022). The effects of sexual harassment training on proximal and transfer training 

outcomes: a meta-analytic investigation. Personnel Psychology, 75, pp. 3-31. 

62 For examples, see Dobbin, F. and Kalev, A. The promise and peril of sexual harassment programs. Proceedings of the National Academy 

of Sciences, 116(25), pp. 12255-12260 and Bingham, S.G. and Scherer, L.L. (2001). The unexpected effects of a sexual harassment 

education program. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37(2), pp. 125-153. 

63 Bingham, S.G. and Scherer, L.L. (2001). The unexpected effects of a sexual harassment education program. The Journal of Applied 

Behavioral Science, 37(2), pp. 144-145.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 22

Table 5. Length of Training Designed to Prevent Sexual Harassment, 2021

Length of Training Percentage

Less than 15 minutes 2%

15 to 59 minutes 56%

1 to 3 hours 39%

4 to 8 hours 3%

More than 8 hours <1%

The method of delivery varied across respondents, but online delivery of recorded materials 

(85%) was noted as the most prevalent training format, followed by written materials (35%), inperson training (30%), and interactive webinars or video-teleconferences (23%). However, these 

choices may have been influenced by the pandemic, which caused dramatic shifts in how training 

could be delivered during part of the time covered by the MPS 2021. In the future, agencies 

should carefully evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of various instructional methods based 

on the specific needs of their workforce.

Accountability

Finally, agencies must create a culture in which employees have confidence that sexual 

harassment will not be tolerated by anyone at any level of organization. Deterring employees 

from engaging in sexual harassment will be more easily accomplished when employees: (1) have 

supervisors who will impose discipline on those who engage in sexual harassment, and (2) work 

among peers who visibly demonstrate that they will not tolerate sexual harassment. Table 6

shows that employees expressed confidence in many aspects of accountability. Over 80% of 

respondents indicated that employees are held accountable according to their agencies’ sexual 

harassment policies and that their coworkers would speak up to stop sexual harassment. Most 

employees (85%) also expressed a personal comfort level with calling out sexual harassment. 

Yet, 20% of employees responded that their agency tolerates sexually charged comments and 

behaviors that are inappropriate at work. This result indicates that some employees perceive their 

agencies as abdicating their responsibilities and unfairly burdening employees with either 

policing the behavior of others or having to endure a work environment where sexual harassment 

is condoned. 

Table 6. Employee Perceptions of Organizational Culture Related to Sexual Harassment, 

2021

Item Agreement

My agency holds employees accountable for the requirements of this 

policy. 81%

My agency tolerates comments and actions of a sexual nature that I 

view as inappropriate for the workplace. 20%

My work colleagues would stand up for someone who was 

experiencing sexual harassment. 83%

I would feel comfortable speaking up if I observed sexual 

harassment. 85%

Trust in the organization to hold perpetrators of sexual harassment accountable is critical because 

if sexual harassment does occur, employees who experience or observe these behaviors will be 

more likely to pursue corrective action, including formal complaint channels, when they believe 

that this will stop the harassment without negative consequences for those involved in filing the 
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 23

complaint or serving as witnesses. For the formal EEO complaint process to work effectively, 

employees must be aware of the procedural requirements so they can act in a timely manner (i.e., 

within 45 days of the harassment), and who to contact for assistance. They must also trust that the 

system will work as promised. Although Table 7 demonstrates that employee responses 

regarding the formal complaint process were positive, there is still room for improvement, 

particularly regarding confidence in appropriate action being taken by management following 

sexual harassment and not being subjected to retaliation.

Table 7. Employee Perceptions of the Formal Complaint Process, 2021

Item Agreement

I am familiar with the formal complaint channels that are available to 

people who have experienced sexual harassment. 86%

If I filed an action charging sexual harassment, I am confident that it 

would be resolved in a fair and just manner. 69%

If a supervisor or manager in my organization was found to have 

committed sexual harassment, management would take appropriate 

action.

73%

Differences of Opinion Based on Experience with Sexual Harassment 

As noted in our previous research,64 employees who have experienced sexual harassment 

consistently expressed less confidence in actions taken by their agencies to prevent and address 

sexual harassment. On the MPS 2021, employees who experienced one or more forms of sexual 

harassment within the prior two years provided a more negative overall assessment related to the 

sufficiency of their agency’s actions to prevent harassment: just 48% of those who experienced 

sexual harassment thought their agency took sufficient steps to prevent harassment, compared to 

86% of employees who had not experienced harassment. Their responses also indicated more 

skepticism on every item that addressed actions taken by the agency. The largest differences 

related to accountability for sexual harassment claims being resolved in a fair and just manner, 

followed closely by skepticism regarding the effectiveness of agency policies and training to 

prevent and address sexual harassment. While these responses may reflect perceptual differences 

(e.g., those who have experienced sexual harassment may hold more negative views regardless of 

the actions taken by their agency), an alternative explanation is that these responses reflect actual 

differences between organizations, since those that invest more time and effort in improving their 

policies and practices, education, and accountability should have lower rates of sexual 

harassment. 

Having an agency policy regarding sexual harassment and notifying employees of its existence 

represents the most fundamental step that agencies must take.65 As seen in Figure 10, regardless 

of whether they had experienced sexual harassment, employees generally agreed that their agency 

has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment and that they are familiar with its contents. However, 

employees’ experiences of sexual harassment made them much less likely to see such a policy as 

64 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, 

December 2022, pp. 38.

65 For example see U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Question and Answers: No FEAR Act, 

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/nofear/qanda.cfm and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Instructions to Federal 

Agencies for MD-715, https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715/section3.cfm and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC), 

Model EEO Programs Must Have An Effective Anti-Harassment Program, https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/model-eeo-programs-musthave-effective-anti-harassmentprogram#:~:text=EEOC%27s%20EEO%20Management%20Directive%20715%20%28MD%20715%29%20sets,must%20have%20in%20

place%20an%20effective%20anti-harassment%20program.
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 24

effective. Thus, agencies must further ensure that their policies not only clearly explain what 

employees should and should not do but also convince them to adhere to these expectations to 

help prevent and address sexual harassment. 

Figure 10. Employee Agreement Regarding Agency Policies to Prevent Sexual Harassment, 

by Experience with Sexual Harassment, 2021

As seen with policy, employees who experienced sexual harassment and those who had not are 

less likely to have a shared perspective regarding the effectiveness of sexual harassment training, 

as seen in Figure 11. Both groups of employees agreed that their agency has a sexual harassment 

policy and that it clearly communicates how to prevent and respond to sexual harassment. 

Employees were more likely to agree regarding having sexual harassment prevention training, 

although the gap here in sexual harassment experiences could reflect different organizational 

experiences as those who work in organizations that did not offer training might have higher rates 

of harassment. Similarly, if training is not clearly communicating how to prevent and respond to 

sexual harassment, this could also lead to greater prevalence of sexual harassment. 

94%

90%

85%

48%

97% 95% 95%

84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

My agency has a policy

prohibiting sexual

harassment.

I am familiar with the

contents of my agency's

policy regarding sexual

harassment.

My agency's policy

clearly communicates

how employees should

act to prevent and

respond to sexual

harassment.

This policy is effective in

preventing and

addressing sexual

harassment.

Percent Agreement

Experienced Sexual Harassment

Yes No
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 25

Figure 11. Employee Agreement Regarding Agency Training to Prevent Sexual 

Harassment, by Experience with Sexual Harassment, 2021

As in previous items, Figure 12 shows the smallest gap for the knowledge-based item—

familiarity with the formal complaint process. In contrast, the greatest gaps reflect a difference of 

opinion between those who have experienced sexual harassment and those who have not 

regarding the agency’s commitment to hold perpetrators of sexual harassment accountable. When 

employees who have experienced sexual harassment are much less likely to believe that harassers 

will be held accountable, this suggests that they may have experienced a failure of the 

organization to act in accordance with its policies and anti-discrimination laws—or at least 

believe that they have. 

86% 82%

47%

93% 95%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Within the past 2 years, have

you received training that is

focused specifically on sexual

harassment?

This training clearly

communicates how to prevent

and respond to sexual

harassment.

This training is effective in

preventing and addressing

sexual harassment.

Percent Agreement

Experienced Sexual Harassment

Yes No
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 26

Figure 12. Employee Agreement Regarding Agency Organizational Climate and 

Accountability to Prevent Sexual Harassment, by Experience with Sexual Harassment, 2021

These stark differences on many survey items suggest that those who have experienced sexual 

harassment in their workplaces have very different views of their agencies and other aspects of 

their work environment than those who have not. Understanding the reasons behind these gaps 

can help organizations in shoring up their policies and practices, educational initiatives, and 

systems for holding all employees accountable for upholding a work environment free of 

harassment. While these efforts require ongoing effort, the investment pays off for employees, the 

organization, and the public. Maintaining a harassment-free workplace provides a healthier work 

environment and supports critical organizational capabilities, such as employee recruitment, 

engagement, performance, and retention, while ensuring that the organization functions in a fair 

and effective manner that is in accord with the merit system principles. 

49%

35%

54%

63%

75%

34%

39%

86%

18%

87% 89% 87%

74%

78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

My agency

holds

employees

accountable

for the

requirements

of this policy.

My agency

tolerates

comments

and actions

of a sexual

nature that I

view as

inappropriate

for the

workplace.

My work

colleagues

would stand

up for

someone

who was

experiencing

sexual

harassment.

I would feel

comfortable

speaking up

if I observed

sexual

harassment.

I am familiar

with the

formal

complaint

channels that

are available

to people

who have

experienced

sexual

harassment.

If I filed an

action

charging

sexual

harassment, I

am confident

that it would

be resolved

in a fair and

just manner

by my

agency.

If a

supervisor or

manager in

my

organization

was found to

have

committed

sexual

harassment,

management

would take

appropriate

action.

Percent Agreement

Experienced Sexual Harassment

Yes No
Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: 2021 Update

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Policy and Evaluation 27

Conclusions

As discussed in this brief, results from the MPS 2021 suggest a slight improvement regarding the 

prevalence of sexual harassment,—both Government-wide and when looking separately at 

women as a group and men as a group. However, more time will be needed to assess whether this 

shift represents a sustained improvement in the work environment due to changes in the behavior 

of management and employees—or whether it reflects the unique circumstances of the 2019-2021 

time period, which included just over one year of greatly increased telework by many Federal 

employees due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. 

Importantly, although the overall prevalence of sexual harassment decreased slightly, sexual 

harassment did not decrease uniformly in all agencies; some agencies demonstrated increases for 

women or men—or both. Further, all agencies still have substantial room for improvement in 

their efforts to eliminate sexual harassment. Therefore, all agencies should continue to evaluate 

potential causes of sexual harassment and strive to eliminate it. Those with above-average rates of 

harassment for women and/or men should pay particular attention to opportunities to improve 

their policies and practices, educate their workforce and ensure accountability for violating their 

standards.66

66 For detailed recommendations regarding how to achieve this, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in Federal 

Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem, December 2022, pp. 43-62.