A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

December 2022

Sexual Harassment 

in Federal Workplaces:

Understanding and Addressing the Problem

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

December 19, 2022

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sir and Mesdames:

In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit this U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding 

and Addressing the Problem. We are submitting this report electronically, with paper copies to follow. 

Since 1981, MSPB has periodically evaluated the prevalence of sexual harassment in Federal workplaces 

and Federal agency efforts to prevent and respond to such harassment. This report, the fourth MSPB 

report on sexual harassment, is based on research that was underway when a quorum was lost on

January 7, 2017. As a result, when the report was completed, it could not be released. With a quorum 

recently restored, we are now releasing the entire report because the findings and recommendations 

remain relevant given that eradicating sexual harassment from all Federal workplaces will take time and 

persistence.

To support MSPB’s long-term perspective on sexual harassment, items regarding this topic appeared on 

the 2016 Merit Principles Survey, as well as on the 2021 Merit Principles Survey, which will 

be summarized in a separate publication. Results indicate that Federal employees are less likely to 

experience sexual harassment, compared to twenty years ago. Yet approximately 21% of women and 

almost 9% of men responding to the MPS had experienced one or more forms of sexual harassment 

during the preceding two years, with rates varying by agency. Also, many employees who experience 

harassment take no action—such as telling the harasser to stop or filing a formal complaint—believing 

that an action might be futile or even worsen the situation. Clearly, Federal agencies should do more 

to prevent sexual harassment and respond promptly and appropriately should it occur. Therefore, in 

addition to summarizing findings, this report provides practical recommendations that agencies can 

implement to address both prevention and response. 

Sexual harassment is both illegal and contrary to the Federal Government’s fundamental values, which 

include the merit system principles of treating all employees fairly and maintaining high standards of 

conduct and integrity. Actions to eradicate sexual harassment would foster a better work environment 

for all employees and help agencies better serve the American public.

I believe you will find this report useful as you consider issues affecting the Federal workforce.

Respectfully, 

Cathy Harris

Enclosure

THE CHAIRMAN

Sexual Harassment

in Federal Workplaces:

Understanding and Addressing the Problem

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 

December 2022

U.S. Merit Protection Board

Cathy Harris, Acting Chairman

Raymond A. Limon, Member

Tristan Leavitt, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

Tiffany J. Lightbourn, Ph.D.

Project Manager

Cynthia H. Ferentinos, Ph.D.

Publication Production

Vernetta Johnson

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................i

Findings................................................................................................................................................ii

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................iv

Introduction ...............................................................................................................................1

Background ..........................................................................................................................................1

Method.................................................................................................................................................2

What is Sexual Harassment.........................................................................................................5

Legal Definition....................................................................................................................................5

Establishing and Enforcing Policy on Workplace Sexual Harassment ....................................................6

MSPB’s Research on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace........................................................8

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context...............................................................................13

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment Behaviors...........................................................................................13

Trends in Employees’ Experiences of Sexual Harassment.......................................................................15

Risk Factors for Sexual Harassment.......................................................................................................16

Characteristics of Harassers...................................................................................................................18

The Consequences of Sexual Harassment....................................................................................21

Effects of Sexual Harassment on Employees..........................................................................................21

Effects of Sexual Harassment on the Organization ................................................................................23

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment ................................................................................25

Actions Taken by Targets of Harassment ...............................................................................................25

Perceived Outcome of Actions Taken by Target.....................................................................................27

Role of Observers of Harassment ..........................................................................................................30

Employee Perceptions and Use of Formal Reporting and Resolution Processes......................................32

Employee Perceptions of Agency Success Combating Sexual Harassment...................................37

Conclusions and Recommendations...........................................................................................41

Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................41

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................43

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues ................................47

Appendix A. MSPB Merit Principles Survey 2016 Methodology ................................................63

Appendix B. Comparison of MSPB Sexual Harassment Survey Items.........................................67

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i

As the guardian of Federal Government merit systems, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has 

conducted several studies since 1980 regarding the prevalence of sexual harassment in Federal workplaces.1

 This 

study, the fourth, is based on MSPB’s 2016 Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2016), a review of statute and case law, 

a review of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint processing statistics, and information provided by 

Federal agencies and EEO officials about policies, practices, and issues related to sexual harassment. Although this 

research commenced prior to the MPS 2016 being administered, MSPB was unable to release this report during 

the time period that the agency lacked a quorum (January 7, 2017 through March 3, 2022).2

 With a quorum 

re-established, the Board can recommence the statutory missions for which a quorum is required, such as issuing 

final decisions on petitions for review and releasing reports to the President and the Congress of the United 

States.3

 Although there have been many changes in Federal workplaces in recent years, due in large part to the 

impact of the pandemic on increased teleworking, as well as greater awareness regarding sexual harassment, this 

report remains timely given that sexual harassment remains an ongoing challenge for many Federal employees.

Additionally, MSPB has continued research on this topic given the ongoing concern regarding preventing and 

addressing sexual harassment. For example, MSPB included items related to sexual harassment on the 2021 Merit 

Principles Survey (MPS 2021). These results are being summarized in an upcoming publication and will facilitate 

greater understanding regarding the current state of sexual harassment in Federal workplaces.

Sexual harassment is unlawful because it is a form of sex-based discrimination that violates Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sexual harassment is also contrary to the Federal merit system principles (MSPs)4 and 

constitutes a prohibited personnel practice (PPP).5

 To uphold the expectations of the MSPs, Federal employees—

at all levels—must treat each other fairly and conduct themselves with integrity. Failure to do so jeopardizes the 

health and wellbeing of the workforce and undermines mission accomplishment. For example, employees who 

either experience or observe sexual harassment witness its negative impact on productivity and work satisfaction. 

They may use annual leave or sick leave, either to avoid their harasser or to address illness resulting from the stress 

of being harassed. Ultimately, they may choose to leave or may be involuntarily reassigned or relocated. These 

negative outcomes represent avoidable threats to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government.

Regulations governing the Federal workforce (29 C.F.R. §1604.11) characterize sexual harassment as 

“[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” 

Such actions can create “an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment” or coerce the target6

 to comply 

with the harasser’s demands to engage in sexual activities.7

 Whether the harassment is legally actionable depends 

on whether it meets certain criteria, such as severity or pervasiveness, and on the roles of those involved and the 

specific circumstances. However, any instance of harassment is inconsistent with fair treatment of employees, or 

a professional and productive workplace. Accordingly, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC) advocates that employers look beyond the narrow legal definition of sexual harassment when addressing 

1

 The citations for these earlier reports are: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Is It a Problem?, March 1981. U.S. 

Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update, June 1988. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in 

the Federal Workplace: Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges, October 1995. These previous reports can be found at https://www.mspb.gov/studies/viewallstudies.

htm.

2

 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Frequently Asked Questions about the Lack of Board Quorum and Lack of Board Members, https://www.mspb. gov/

FAQs_Absence_of_Board_Quorum_March_4_2022.pdf.

3

 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, MSPB Welcomes Vice Chair Raymond Limon and Member Tristan Leavitt, Press Release, March 4, 2022, https:// www.

mspb.gov/publicaffairs/press_releases/Restoration_of_the_Quorum_Press_Release_1904722.pdf.

4

 5 U.S. Code §2301(b).

5

 5 U.S. Code §2302(b).

6 The term “target” is used throughout this report 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.

7 Exchanging sexual favors for preferential treatment (or to avoid negative consequences) is also known as “quid pro quo,” which is translated from Latin as 

“something for something,” per Merriam-Webster online dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quid%20pro%20quo, retrieved on November 

15, 2018.

Executive Summary
ii Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Executive Summary

harassment in the workplace8 stating that harassment “does not have to be of a sexual nature...and can 

include offensive remarks about a person’s sex.”9

 In other words, legally prohibited discrimination related to a 

person’s sex or gender may include harassment of a sexual nature (sexual harassment), as well as harassment of 

a nonsexual nature that is based on the target’s sex (sex-based or gender-based discrimination).10

Adopting this broader view, contemporary research has identified three dimensions of sexual harassment:11,12

1. Sexual Coercion: Pressure or force to engage in sexual behavior;

2. Unwanted Sexual Attention: Unwelcome behaviors of a sexual nature that are directed toward a 

person; and

3. Gender Harassment: Unwelcome behaviors that disparage or objectify others based on their sex or 

gender.

Findings

Understanding of Sexual Harassment

Federal employees are increasingly likely to correctly identify behaviors that might be considered sexual 

harassment in the workplace. Further, opinions of men and women about behaviors that may be sexual 

harassment have converged, primarily because men are now more likely to agree that a behavior is or may be 

viewed as sexual harassment. Consequently, there is less room for misunderstanding and less opportunity for 

employees to inadvertently engage in behaviors that others interpret as sexual harassment.

Federal employees are most likely to recognize the following behaviors as sexual harassment: pressure for 

sexual favors or dates, offers of preferential treatment for sexual favors, and unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, 

comments or questions or other communications of a sexual nature, as well as stalking and sexual assault. 

That recognition may reflect familiarity with high-profile litigation involving these blatant forms of sexual 

harassment. However, employees increasingly realize that other behaviors (e.g., exposing others in the 

workplace to sexually-oriented talk or material or disparaging others based on their sex) may also constitute 

sexual harassment. 

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment

Based on the MPS 2016, approximately 14% of Federal employees experienced one or more sexual 

harassment behaviors during the preceding two years.13 The most frequently experienced behaviors were:

1. Exposure to sexually oriented conversations (7.3%);

2. Unwelcome invasion of personal space (7.2%);

3. Unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments or questions (5.9%); 

4. Derogatory or unprofessional terms related to sex or gender (5.0%); and

5. Unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures (4.6%)

8

 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, June 2016, p. 11.

9 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sexual Harassment. Retrieved from https:www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm on 

September 6, 2018.

10 Because both forms of harassment are harmful, this report uses the more inclusive definition of sexual harassment that encompasses both sexual and 

nonsexual forms. However, sexual and nonsexual harassment are distinct for several equal employment opportunity (EEO) purposes, such as adjudicating 

cases, conducting barrier analyses, and official (Form 462) reporting.

11 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. 12 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. 13 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 of the Introduction. 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 at https://eeoc.gov. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board iii

Executive Summary

Risk Factors for Sexual Harassment

The average of 14% across the Federal workforce masks a continuing and clear difference by gender: women 

were more than twice as likely as men to experience sexual harassment, with a rate of 21% for women 

compared to 9% for men. Although these rates are substantially lower than the comparable rates from the 

1994 survey, they still represent an unacceptable amount of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. 

MSPB’s further analysis confirms what a quick comparison of the rates of sexual harassment for men and 

women suggests: the single greatest risk factor for experiencing harassment is being female.

Rates of sexual harassment for men and women also vary across agencies. Among the Federal agencies 

surveyed, the rate for women ranged from 9% to 27%, and the rate for men ranged from 4% to 15%. 

Various factors, including workforce demographics and policies, practices, and culture, likely influence each 

organization’s rate of sexual harassment. Analyzing workforce data (and measures of sexual harassment) along 

demographic lines may help organizations identify risk factors and target interventions accordingly, while also 

implementing broader organizational practices and actions to reduce the incidence of sexual harassment.

Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment

The survey data show that sexual harassment can be committed by anyone present in the workforce. In 

terms of gender, a harasser is most frequently a man acting alone, particularly when the target is a woman. 

However, women also commit harassment, most commonly acting as an individual and targeting a man. 

In terms of role, harassment is typically committed by an agency employee, either at the peer level or by 

someone in a position of authority. For example, 45% of those who experience sexual harassment attributed it 

to a coworker, 11% to an immediate supervisor, 12% to a higher level manager, while 15% to a customer or 

other member of the public. As with workforce demographics, careful collection and analysis of data can help 

organizations identify patterns or risk factors that can be addressed through targeted and tailored actions.

Employee Response to Sexual Harassment

An employee can respond to sexual harassment in three general ways:

1. Active response (e.g., asking the harasser(s) to stop or reporting the harassment);

2. Avoidance (e.g., avoiding the harasser—either temporarily, or permanently by leaving the 

organization); and

3. Toleration (e.g., ignoring the behavior or going along with it).

Employees most frequently indicated that they asked the harasser to stop (59%) or that they avoided the 

harasser (61%). Although each type of response has a variety of possible advantages and disadvantages, active 

responses tend to be more effective to actually stop harassment, for both the target and others.14 Further, 

should the harassment continue, demonstrating that the behavior was unwelcome bolsters the employee’s 

case and provides a basis for future corrective action by the agency, the EEOC or the courts. In contrast, 

avoiding the harasser may solve the problem for the initial target—but pass the problem on to the next target. 

Similarly, toleration may embolden the harasser to continue or escalate misconduct, because it provides no 

feedback that the behavior is unwelcome or wrong. Employees in 2016 were more likely to take an active 

response, and less likely to tolerate sexual harassment, than their predecessors. Yet they were also more likely 

to resort to avoidance strategies, such as avoiding the harasser or even changing jobs. This implies that some 

organizations have failed to create a culture where employees feel safe to stand up to a harasser.

14 MPS 2016 data showed that over half of respondents indicated that asking the harasser to stop improved the situation.
iv Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Executive Summary

Further, although asking the harasser to stop and avoiding the harasser are different in important respects, 

they share a common characteristic: an attempt to resolve the situation without involving the organization 

or its officials. Although such an attempt can be a reasonable first step, targeted employees should not 

believe that they must shoulder the entire burden of stopping sexual harassment. Survey results indicate 

that employee views of the formal complaint process—a keystone of Federal agency anti-discrimination 

programs—are mixed. Although most employees (61%) believed that a formal complaint would be a “very 

effective” remedy for a hypothetical experience of sexual harassment, only 11% of employees who had actually 

experienced sexual harassment filed a formal complaint or grievance. Reasons for this difference may include 

fears of retaliation, the low odds of prevailing, and a belief that harasser(s) will not be stopped or disciplined, 

as well as time and cost. Among employees who filed a formal complaint in response to sexual harassment, 

36% indicated that this action improved their situation—but nearly the same percentage (32%) indicated 

that it made their situation worse.

These results suggest that employees need better options to halt sexual harassment, whether experienced or 

observed, and more support for choosing an active response. It also suggests that many organizations need 

to strengthen existing channels and work to earn trust that harassment will be addressed. Increasing the 

likelihood that employees will speak up, rather than remain silent, could strengthen accountability and lead to 

better outcomes for all.

Employee Perceptions of Agency Efforts to Combat Sexual Harassment

The survey revealed that Federal employees believe their agencies have achieved varying degrees of success in 

preventing and addressing sexual harassment. While there was widespread awareness of policies prohibiting 

sexual harassment and formal complaint channels, employees (particularly those who had experienced sexual 

harassment) were less confident about the implementation and effectiveness of these policies and practices 

to hold harassers accountable, as indicated by the lower percentages of employees agreeing with some of the 

following items:

y Aware of agency policies prohibiting sexual harassment (96%);

y Aware of the formal complaint channels for discrimination (81%);

y Agency takes sufficient steps to prevent sexual harassment (79%);

y A charge of sexual harassment would be resolved fairly and justly (60%); and

y Management would act on a supervisor who committed sexual harassment (63%).

Recommendations

Although the survey results reflect progress towards a greater understanding and avoidance of sexual 

harassment in most Federal workplaces, agencies should continue to strive to develop and implement 

strategies to prevent sexual harassment and better respond to it when it occurs. These strategies and actions 

fall into three categories, as follows:

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

procedures for seeking and obtaining redress;

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

These categories (“prongs”) are interrelated and interdependent. For example, for agency policy to be effective, 

it must be clear and comprehensive—then communicated (through education) and enforced and evaluated 

(through accountability). 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board v

Executive Summary

Policies and Practices

For agency leaders—

y Communicate through policy and individual action that sexual harassment and other misconduct 

will not be tolerated. Agency leaders do not only exercise formal authority; they are also role 

models for expected behavior in their organizations.

For agencies—

y Ensure that policies on sexual harassment clearly and concisely summarize critical information, 

which includes: (1) the types of behaviors that are prohibited; (2) employee rights and 

responsibilities should harassment occur; and (3) where to find additional guidance.

y Distribute policies on a regular basis and make the policies and associated materials accessible, 

so they are prominent in employees’ minds and readily available should the need arise. This 

information should be available to employees as soon as they enter the workforce and whenever 

they are promoted to new roles. Agency policy and guidance should also describe expected 

behaviors—what is optimal, in addition to what is appropriate—and not focus exclusively on 

prohibited or negative behaviors.

y Establish multiple channels for handling harassment, and ensure that employees are knowledgeable 

regarding their options, as well as the requirements of each, such as 45 days from the date of the 

alleged discriminatory act to initiate contact with an EEO counselor to preserve one’s rights to file 

a formal EEO complaint, even after pursuing alternative methods of resolution.15 Ideally, those 

channels will collectively cover a full range of issues, and provide differing levels of formality and 

means of resolution. For example, once aware of harassment, agencies should promptly start the 

management investigation process. However, they should simultaneously notify employees of 

the 45-day deadline to seek EEO counseling through the agency’s EEO program since these two 

processes may take place concurrently.

y Allocate sufficient funding so alleged harassment can be fairly and expeditiously investigated by 

experienced and well-trained investigators and take prompt and appropriate corrective action 

when the investigator finds that harassment occurred.

y Encourage targets of harassment to report these behaviors and provide the support that they need 

throughout the process.

y Communicate cultural support for employees serving as allies in maintaining a healthy work 

environment and taking actions to report and stop sexual harassment.

Education

For Federal agencies— 

y Provide timely training to all Federal employees (including interns and contract employees) on 

their rights and their responsibilities to foster a productive and professional workplace for all—one 

that is free of discrimination, harassment, and misconduct.

y Provide notice of basic policies and rights to employees on or immediately following entry on 

duty (EOD)—“first day of the job.” That notice should outline what to do if sexual harassment is 

observed or experienced.

y Provide basic information about agency policy (e.g., non-tolerance of sexual harassment and 

discrimination) and standards of conduct (e.g., expectations for behavior) to other individuals 

present in the workplace, such as contractors and visitors, to the extent practicable.

15 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal EEO Complaint Processing Procedures, https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/federaleeocomplaint-processing-procedures.
vi Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Executive Summary

y Develop training materials and requirements that address the unique responsibility of Federal 

supervisors, managers, and executives to prevent and address any form of harassment. Whenever 

possible, provide basic information, such as agency policy, to employees before they assume 

supervisory authority.

y Provide employees with training that prepares them to stop sexual harassment. Such training 

should address employees as both potential targets of harassment and as potential observers of 

harassment. Prompt action from observers (“bystanders”) can be highly effective in stopping 

harassment and preventing escalation.16

y Tailor training content, frequency, and delivery to an organization’s particular circumstances, 

including evidence and indicators about the prevalence and nature of sexual harassment. 

For example, an agency with a higher rate of sexual harassment may need greater investment 

in training, and more frequent and forceful messages about agency policy and employee 

accountability.

y Evaluate the effectiveness of sexual harassment prevention training—not only in terms of 

increasing employee knowledge, but also in terms of organizational outcomes, such as the 

prevalence of sexual harassment.

For agency leaders—

y Establish expectations for employee conduct through mandatory training as well as via direct 

communications regarding the intended work culture.

Accountability

For Federal leaders—

y Serve as a role model for respectful treatment of others.

y Promptly address inappropriate behavior rather than waiting for harassment to escalate and 

respond swiftly and appropriately to substantiated allegations of misconduct—even if they do 

not meet the stringent legal standards that are required to support a formal charge of sexual 

harassment.

y Acquire and evaluate data on the scope and nature of sexual harassment within the agency, to 

make informed choices about how to best prevent and address harassment.

For Federal agencies—

y Hire, promote, and reward or discipline supervisors, managers, and other agency leaders on the 

basis of criteria that evaluate the ability to (1) manage people fairly and effectively and (2) foster a 

positive workplace that is free of harassment and discrimination.

y Demand that supervisors and managers serve as role models, in both their personal conduct and 

holding others accountable. The obligations of supervisors and managers include taking action 

when harassment is observed or reported and refraining from retaliation (or the appearance of 

retaliation) against any employee who raises concerns about harassment or participates in a formal 

complaint process.

y Investigate and address allegations of sexual harassment fairly and promptly. Timely investigations 

are important to (1) prevent further harm; (2) provide a foundation for corrective action; (3) 

communicate that the agency is taking the matter seriously; and (4) deter future misconduct.

16 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. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal #MeToo: Examining Sexual Harassment in Government Workplaces, Briefing Report, April 2020, pp. 139-141.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board vii

Executive Summary

y Base corrective action, including discipline for harassers, on the seriousness of the misconduct and 

the interests of the target(s) and the agency. Although there is a high legal standard (e.g., severe 

or pervasive) for the finding of sexual harassment through the EEO process, an agency is not 

constrained to this legal criterion in order to take action. Using a different criterion (for example, 

“inappropriate conduct”) allows an agency to quickly and forcefully address less serious sexual 

harassment behaviors before they become unlawful.17 It also empowers managers to act and stop 

behaviors that are inappropriate. 

y Exercise transparency through their timely reporting and posting of accurate agency statistics. 

For Federal employees—

y Ensure that your behavior is appropriate for the workplace.

y Consider options to stop harassment should you experience or observe it.

Pursuing a multi-pronged strategy, as outlined above, will help agencies eliminate (or at least greatly 

reduce) sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. The result will be a more positive and productive work 

environment for all employees, and one that is better able to accomplish the organization’s vital missions. 

17 However, using a charge for behavior that meets the definition of sexual harassment may have the effect of masking issues of sexual harassment within an 

agency or diluting a potential penalty by proposing a charge that carries a lesser range of penalties than a “sexual harassment” charge might. It might also 

prevent agencies from providing appropriate remedial action to the target of the harassment. For these reasons, agencies should be sure to not just promptly 

correct but also remediate sexual harassment.
viii Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Executive Summary
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

Background

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) was established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 

(CSRA) to safeguard the “effective operation of the merit principles in practice.”18 To that end, the CSRA 

authorizes MSPB to conduct studies of the Federal civil service on matters related to adherence with the merit 

system principles (MSPs) and the prevention and commission of prohibited personnel practices (PPPs).

The nine MSPs are basic standards for management of the Federal workforce. Those standards include 

treating employees fairly, protecting employees against reprisal for lawful disclosures or exercise of a right, and 

maintaining high standards for integrity and conduct.19 The PPPs20 include discrimination on selected bases 

(including sex) and reprisal for exercising of a right, including filing a complaint of discrimination under Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Sexual harassment is clearly a matter directly related to the MSPs and PPPs.

Consistent with that understanding, in 1979 a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked MSPB 

to conduct a study “to determine the extent, if any, of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace.”21 At that 

time, the concept of sexual harassment was evolving in both case law and U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC) guidance. In March 1981, MSPB issued the report Sexual Harassment in the Federal 

Workplace: Is It a Problem? with follow-up reports in 1988 and 1995. Over that period, the prevalence of sexual 

harassment among Federal employees was stable, with approximately 40% of women and slightly less than 20% 

of men indicating in MSPB surveys that they had experienced sexual harassment in the prior two years.22

In 2014, MSPB included an update on sexual harassment in the MSPB Research Agenda for 2015-201823 and 

sexual harassment was among the subjects covered by MSPB’s 2016 Merit Principles Survey (MPS 2016).24

This study was designed to—

y Measure the rate at which Federal employees experience or observe sexual harassment;

y Assess Federal agency progress in preventing and responding to sexual harassment; and

y Develop recommendations for preventing and responding to sexual harassment.

While this research was in progress, MSPB lost a quorum, meaning that the completed report could not be 

released. However, given heightened awareness at that time of the continuing problem with workplace sexual 

harassment, MSPB had an obligation to share the highly relevant information that it had gathered, within 

the constraints imposed by an absence of a quorum. Therefore, MSPB issued a high-level summary of basic 

research findings via a Research Brief, Update on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace,

25 in March 2018 

and provided numerous briefings and consultations to Congressional staff, Federal agency executives, managers, 

supervisors, and staff, shared information with the U.S. Government Accountability Office as requested to assist 

them with their reports and presented research findings at a variety of public sector and academic conferences. 

18 S. Rep. 95-969, at 6, reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723, 2728.

19 5 U.S. Code §2301(b).

20 5 U.S. Code §2302(b).

21 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Is it a Problem?, March 1981, p. v. 22 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace; Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges, October 1995, p. 15. 23 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Research Agenda 2015-2018, February 2015, p. 10. See https://www.mspb.gov/MSPBSEARCH/viewdocs. 

aspx?docnumber=1140540&version=1145045&application=ACROBAT.

24 Appendix A provides a description of the survey method.

25 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Update on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace, March 2018, https://www.mspb.gov/studies/ researchbriefs/Update_

on_Sexual_Harassment_in_the_Federal_Workplace_1500639.pdf.

Introduction
2 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Introduction

Since a quorum was restored in March 2022, MSPB has taken steps to release the entire report because the 

findings and recommendations remain timely. The report is based largely on data gathered via the 2016 Merit 

Principles Survey. Therefore, this report captured Federal employees’ perspectives on sexual harassment before 

the influence of the #MeToo movement, as well as prior to the pandemic, which caused a dramatic increase 

in telework.26 This provides a useful comparison point for subsequent surveys where Federal employee views 

are likely to have been impacted by these changes. This report also represents a meaningful contribution 

to MSPB’s long history of studying sexual harassment. MSPB began studying sexual harassment in 1979 

and has continued to issue reports periodically on the subject, providing long-term research and laying the 

groundwork for future studies.27 Finally, by publishing this MSPB report, we summarize a unique perspective 

in terms of breadth of coverage by examining sexual harassment across the Federal Government’s sizable fulltime permanent civilian workforce.

As noted earlier, MSPB has continued researching sexual harassment in Federal workplaces. For example, 

some items related to this topic were included on the 2021 Merit Principles Survey. These survey results 

will provide an opportunity to consider potential impacts that recent changes in the nature of work, such as 

increased telework, may have had on the prevalence and types of sexual harassment. These findings will be 

summarized in an upcoming publication.

Method

The findings and recommendations in this report are based on—

y A literature review of topics related to sexual harassment from a variety of sources, including 

academic journals, Federal agency reports regarding sexual harassment, and guidance and reports 

from Federal agencies, such as the EEOC.

y A review of relevant Federal laws and regulations.

y A review of case law (litigation and decisions) on sexual harassment, in both the public and private 

sectors.

y Surveys of Federal employees, including the MPS 2016 and previous MSPB surveys (from 1980, 

1987, and 1994) that covered sexual harassment.

y Discussions with EEOC staff.

y A review of Federal statistics and program reports on matters related to EEO, nondiscrimination 

and anti-harassment policy, and complaint activity, including MD-715 reports, Form 462 data, 

and Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No 

FEAR Act) data.

y Information from agency EEO and civil rights directors, agency Chief Human Capital Officers 

(CHCOs) and Human Resources (HR) Directors and staff, collected through interviews, 

discussion groups, and other correspondence.

y Information from Federal employee discussion groups.

The MPS 2016 was the primary source of data on aspects of sexual harassment, such as the prevalence of 

sexual harassment, employee views of agency efforts to prevent and respond to harassment, and demographic 

and organizational factors that might be associated with an increased or reduced risk of sexual harassment. 

Figure 1 summarizes selected features of that survey.

26 This provides a useful comparison point for subsequent surveys where Federal employee views are likely to have been impacted by these changes.

27 The citations for these earlier reports are: U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Is It a Problem?, March 1981. 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update, June 1988. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual 

Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges, October 1995. These previous reports can be found at https://www. mspb.gov/

studies/viewallstudies.htm.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

Introduction

Figure 1. Design Elements of the 2016 Merit Principles Survey

Survey Sampling and Administration

y Government wide (24 participating agencies).

y Stratified random sample, to provide statistically reliable measures and permit analysis by 

agency and key demographic dimension (including gender).

y Confidential, to protect employee privacy and encourage accurate reporting of experiences and 

opinions.

Survey Content

The survey covered several topics related to sexual harassment, to answer questions such as—At what rate 

do Federal employees experience behaviors associated with sexual harassment? How has that rate changed 

over time? How do rates differ across dimension such as employing agency, gender and supervisory status?

y What forms does sexual harassment take? Has that changed as technology and culture have 

evolved?

y Are employees familiar with agency policies prohibiting sexual harassment and how to file a 

formal complaint?

y Do employees have confidence that their agency takes sufficient steps to prevent sexual 

harassment and would take appropriate action if warranted?

y What behaviors do employees view as likely to constitute sexual harassment in the workplace?

y Which sexual harassment behaviors were most prevalent within the prior two years?

y What were common characteristics of the harassers (e.g., role, sex, relative age)?

y What actions did the employees take after being harassed (an how effective were they)?

y What were the outcomes of being harassed and/or any actions taken?

Survey Design and Measurement Approach

The survey was designed to provide a reliable, behavior-based measure of sexual harassment and to gauge 

change over time, while reflecting a contemporary view of sexual harassment. Design elements supporting 

these objectives include—

y Replication of items from previous MSPB sexual harassment surveys, with additions or 

revisions when needed to update an item or measure; 

y A measure of “experience of sexual harassment” is based on a set of clearly-defined behaviors 

within a defined time period. Throughout this report, where we say that an employee has 

“experienced” harassment, we mean that the employee indicated that they experienced at least 

one of these behaviors; at least one time, within the two years before the survey. This approach 

produces a more reliable and meaningful measure than a single, general question such as “Have 

you ever experienced sexual harassment at work?; and 

y Expanded demographic items, beyond individual characteristics such as gender and age, 

to explore conditions or factors that might be related to the prevalence or nature of sexual 

harassment.
4 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Introduction

As noted, this survey data captured employees’ perceptions of behaviors that they experienced or observed. 

Without additional background information, it is not possible to determine whether these behaviors rose 

to the level of sexual harassment within the context in which they occurred. However, using a behavioral 

approach (e.g., providing a list of potential sexual harassment behaviors) is considered to be more accurate 

than simply asking if they experienced sexual harassment, which is susceptible to different (and not always 

accurate) interpretations of what constitutes sexual harassment.28 Additionally, the survey limited the time 

frame to be considered to the prior two years to establish a window large enough to cover a reasonable 

period of time, yet short enough to enable accurate memory of the events that transpired. Further, with 

the confidential nature of these survey responses in which individuals cannot be identified, employees may 

truthfully respond regarding their experiences without any negative repercussions for themselves or the 

harasser(s). Likewise, there is no motivation for these survey respondents to report behaviors if they did 

not occur. These survey method decisions serve to reduce the likelihood of respondents underestimating or 

overestimating the frequency with which they have may have experienced or observed sexual harassment. 

Therefore, this survey data provides greater insights into the types of behaviors that employees are 

experiencing and observing in the workplace, as opposed to the comparatively small numbers of sexual 

harassment complaints that are filed through the formal EEO complaint process. 

28 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Workplace Sexual Harassment: Experts Suggest Expanding Data Collection to Improve Understanding of Prevalence and 

Costs, GAO-20-564, September 2020, p. 15.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

What is Sexual Harassment

Legal Definition

The EEOC states that “Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964.”29 EEOC regulations 29 CFR §1604.11(a) further clarify that sexual harassment30 occurs 

when: 

y acceptance of the harassment is required (implicitly or explicitly) as a condition of continued 

employment;

y acceptance or rejection of the harassment by an individual affects their treatment at work; or

y the conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, 

hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment in the first two categories is commonly characterized as “quid pro quo,” which translates 

from Latin as “something for something.”31 This type of harassment typically involves a person with supervisory 

or other official authority who demands that the target acquiesce to avoid punitive action (such as a low 

performance evaluation or removal) or to obtain a desired outcome (such as an award or promotions). The third 

category of sexual harassment is frequently abbreviated as “hostile work environment.”

Behaviors Covered

The initial legal definition of sexual harassment focused narrowly on behaviors “of a sexual nature” in one or more 

of the categories listed above.32 However, a 2016 EEOC report states that agencies should be vigilant about other 

forms of legally prohibited discrimination, advocating a broader view of workplace harassment.33 For example, 

harassment “does not have to be of a sexual nature...and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex.”34

This type of harassment may involve behaviors that are neither overtly sexual nor related to sexual attraction, but 

that reflect attitudes or beliefs related to another person’s sex or gender.35 A common form involves disparaging 

individuals of a particular sex as an expression of bias against some or all members of that sex. Gender-based 

harassment may also be directed at individuals who are seen as “different” (for example, because they do not 

conform to sex role stereotypes).36

The behaviors prohibited by Title VII are not limited to discrimination on a protected basis. Title VII also 

prohibits retaliation for either exercising a right under Title VII (such as requesting EEO counseling or filing a 

formal complaint) or participating in an associated activity (such as testifying in a complaint proceeding).37

29 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact-sheet-sexual-harassment-discrimination.

30 However, in recent years, some states have passed legislation eliminating the “severe or pervasive” requirement for sexual harassment, see e.g., https://www.

americanbar.org/groups/litigation/publications/litigation-news/featured-articles/2020/new-state-laws-expand-workplace-protections-sexual-harassmentvictims/#:~:text=Softening%20the%20Federal%20%E2%80%9CSevere%20and%20Pervasive%E2%80%9D%20Standard,-New%20York%2C%20

California&text=Such%20conduct%20is%20prohibited%20if,hostile%2C%20or%20offensive%20work%20environment. For example, see Md. Code Ann. State 

Gov’t § 20-601; Md. Code Ann. State Pers. & Pen. § 2-203.1.

31 Merriam-Webster online dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quid%20pro%20quo, retrieved on November 15, 2018.

32 Nemy, E. (1975, August 19). Women begin to speak out against sexual harassment at work. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com. 33 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace, June 2016, p. 1. 34 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sexual Harassment. Retrieved from https:www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm on September 6, 

2018.

35 The term sex refers to “biological aspects of maleness or femaleness, whereas gender implies the psychological, behavioral, social, and cultural aspects of being 

male or female (i.e., masculinity or femininity.)” Source: American Psychological Association. (2015). APA Dictionary of Psychology (2nd ed.). Washington, DC. In 

this report, we have continued to use the traditional terms of “sexual harassment” and “harassment based on sex” although some researchers advocate terms such as 

“gender-based harassment” or “harassment based on gender.”

36 Kabat-Farr, D., & Cortina, L.M. (2014). Sex-based harassment in employment: New insights into gender and context. Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 58-72; 

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989).

37 See the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3).
6 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

What is Sexual Harassment

Circumstances and Context

A legal determination of sexual harassment is not based solely on behaviors; it also accounts for the 

circumstances and the context.38 For example, was the behavior or action unwelcome? In terms of reactions 

to the behavior, it should be kept in mind that voluntary does not always mean welcome.39 Was the 

behavior pervasive? Pervasive may be behavior that is sufficient in number and continuous. It also may be 

an action such as the posting of offensive materials in the workplace.40 If not pervasive, was the action or 

behavior severe? Severe harassment may be a onetime but egregious event (e.g., a kiss on the lips) or it may 

be a behavior that occurred more than once.41 Relevant circumstances also include who committed the 

harassment—did the harasser have official or effective authority to make personnel decisions?

Establishing and Enforcing Policy on Workplace Sexual Harassment

In the United States, legislation, interpretation, regulation, and enforcement are distributed across the three 

branches of the Government: (1) Congress, the legislative branch, has the authority to make laws regarding 

prohibited discrimination; (2) the judicial branch interprets and applies laws and regulations in cases brought 

before the courts; and (3) the executive branch (primarily through the EEOC) issues anti-discrimination 

guidance to all employment sectors and adjudicates discrimination cases under its purview. Consequently, 

the legal definition and treatment of sexual harassment have evolved gradually. The broader societal 

understanding of sexual harassment has also evolved gradually and unevenly. Yet both the legal and cultural 

shifts over the decades are clear, toward a fuller understanding of sexual harassment and higher expectations 

for behavior in the workplace.

Table 1 lists selected events that have shaped and marked this evolution. In the mid-1970s, behaviors that 

were once viewed as a natural and inevitable effect of men and women sharing workspace, were increasingly 

seen as a problem that was termed “sexual harassment.”42,43 In the late 1970s, in cases such as Williams v. 

Saxbe (1976) and Barnes v. Costle (1977), lower courts began to hold that sexual harassment was a violation 

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Accordingly, the EEOC issued guidelines in 1980 to define and 

prohibit sexual harassment.44 That interpretation was not fully ratified until 1986, through the Supreme 

Court’s holding in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), which examined agency liability for sexual 

harassment that included both quid pro quo and hostile work environment.45

38 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment, N-915-050, March 19, 1990.

39 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). 40 Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 760 F.Supp 1486 (M.D.Fla. 1991). 41 As mentioned previously, some states have removed the “severe or pervasive” requirement for sexual harassment, see e.g., https://www.americanbar.

org/groups/litigation/publications/litigation-news/featured-articles/2020/new-state-laws-expand-workplace-protections-sexual-harassmentvictims/#:~:text=Softening%20the%20Federal%20%E2%80%9CSevere%20and%20Pervasive%E2%80%9D%20Standard,-New%20York%2C%20

California&text=Such%20conduct%20is%20prohibited%20if,hostile%2C%20or%20offensive%20work%20environment. For example, see Md. Code Ann. 

State Gov’t § 20-601; Md. Code Ann. State Pers. & Pen. § 2-203.1.

42 Farley, L. (2017, October 18). I coined the term ‘sexual harassment.’ Corporations stole it. The New York Times, https:nyti.ms/2zkAtYk, retrieved on March 

22, 2018.

43 Swenson, K. (2017, November 22). Who came up with the term ‘sexual harassment’? The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morningmix/wp/2017/11/22/who-came-up-with-the-term-sexual-harassment/?utm_term=.45d662b81f72, retrieved on March 22, 2018.

44 As described in EEOC’s March 19, 1990 Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment, N-915-050, https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/ 

currentissues.html, retrieved December 4, 2018.

45 Per EEOC’s Guidelines as codified in 29 C.F.R. §§ 1604.11(a)(2) and (3), there are two kinds of sexual harassment: “quid pro quo,” in which “submission 

to or rejection of [unwelcome sexual] conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual,” and “hostile work 

environment,” in which unwelcome sexual conduct “unreasonably interfer[es] with an individual’s job performance” or creates an “intimidating, hostile or 

offensive working environment.”
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

What is Sexual Harassment

Table 1. Milestones Related to Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces

Date Development Result

1974 Barnes v. Train, Civ. No. 1828-73 (D.D.C. 1974)

Typically viewed as the first U.S. court case alleging sex 

discrimination/sexual harassment related to the supervisor’s 

sexual advances. The case was dismissed in D.C. District 

Court but won on appeal in Barnes v. Costle in 1977 (561 

F.2D 983)

1975 Term “sexual harassment” coined Facilitated discussion and improved understanding of the 

problem.

1976 Williams v. Saxbe,

413 F. Supp. 654 (1976)

Ruled that retaliation for rejecting a supervisor’s sexual 

advances is prohibited sexual discrimination under Title VII 

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

1980 EEOC issued guidelines regarding 

sexual harassment Provided employers and employees with guidance regarding expectations for behavior in the workplace.

1986 Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 

477 U.S. 57 (1986)

First Supreme Court case finding an employer liable for 

sexual harassment committed by a supervisor, finding sexbased hostile work environment violates the law, and holding 

voluntary does not necessarily mean unwelcome.

1989 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,

490 U.S. 228 (1989)

Landmark sex stereotyping case finding sex discrimination 

on the basis of not conforming with social and/or gender 

expectations.

1991

Testimony of Anita Hill before the 

U.S. Senate Judiciary committee on 

the nomination of Clarence Thomas 

to the Supreme Court.

Increased public discussion of the types of behaviors that 

could constitute sexual harassment.

1991 Ellison v. Brady, 924 F. 2d 872 (1991) Established the reasonable person standard.

1993 Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 

510 U.S. 17 (1993)

Held that sexual harassment is not necessarily based in 

sexual desire, but may be targeted at a person’s gender 

or nonconformity to gender roles, and that targets of 

harassment did not have to prove that they were harmed.

1997 Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.,

130 F.3d 1287 (8th Circ. 1997) First class action sexual harassment lawsuit in U.S.

1998

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 

Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)

Ruled that sexual harassment could occur between people of 

the same sex.

1998

Burlington Industries Inc., v. Ellerth,

524 U.S. 742 (1998) and 

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 

524 U.S. 775 (1998)

Discussed responsibilities of the employer and the employee 

and their implications for the employer’s liability for sexual 

harassment.

2002

Notification and Federal Employee 

Antidiscrimination and Retaliation 

Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act)

The No FEAR Act established new requirements for Federal 

agencies to increase their accountability for discrimination, 

including annual employee notifications and biennial 

employee training.

2003 EEO Management Directive 715 

(MD-715)

MD-715 required Federal agency anti-harassment policies to 

cover all legally protected bases and mandated annual EEO 

reporting.

2017 #MeToo and #TimesUp movements46 Renewed public discussion regarding sexual harassment.

46 For more information, see Langone, A. (2018). #MeToo and Time’s Up founders explain the difference between the 2 movements–and how they’re alike. 

Time, retrieved from https://time.com/5189945/whats-the-difference-between-the-metoo-and-times-up-movements/on May 2, 2019.
8 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

What is Sexual Harassment

Subsequent Supreme Court cases have affirmed and built on the central holding in Meritor v. Vinson (1986) 

and addressed employer liability for sexual harassment. In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) and Oncale 

v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998), the court held that: (1) sexual harassment did not have to be 

driven by sexual desire; (2) psychological harm was not required to determine that harassment occurred;47

and (3) sexual harassment can occur when both the harasser and the target are the same sex.48 In Faragher 

v. City of Boca Raton (1998) and Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (1998), the decisions elucidated steps that 

employers could take to prevent sexual harassment and potentially reduce their liability for subsequent sexual 

harassment. These decisions modified the Supreme Court’s holding in Meritor v. Vinson (1986), finding 

that an employer may avoid liability if no tangible employment action has been taken and the employer 

proves as an affirmative defense (1) that the employer exercised reasonable care to avoid harassment and to 

eliminate it when it might occur, and (2) that the complaining employee failed to act with “reasonable care” 

to take advantage of the employer’s safeguards and otherwise to prevent harm that could have been avoided. 

However, the key is whether the sexual attention is unwelcome. That is, even if the perpetrator engages in 

the behavior for purposes of expressing sexual interest, the inquiry should still be focused on whether the 

behavior was unwelcome by the target. 

Congress crafted the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 

(No FEAR Act)49 to increase agency accountability for discrimination (on all legally protected bases) and 

retaliation against employees, such as those who file discrimination complaints. Specific provisions of the act 

include (1) requiring agencies to pay for judgments and settlement costs from their own funds; (2) mandatory 

annual reporting to Congress, the EEOC, the Department of Justice, and the U.S. Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM); (3) posting of EEO complaint data on agency websites; (4) mandatory annual 

notification to employees of their rights under antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws; and 

(5) mandatory biennial training for employees.50

To provide policy guidance and standards for EEO programs, the EEOC issued Management Directive 

715 (MD-715) in 2003. MD-715 requires agencies to annually assess their EEO program against criteria 

for model EEO programs, to conduct barrier analyses to ensure equal opportunity for groups regardless 

of personal characteristics, such as sex, race or disability, and to prepare plans to address any deficiencies 

discovered.51

MSPB’s Research on Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace

Since 1980, MSPB research has sought to both identify the behaviors that Federal employees view as sexual 

harassment and to measure the prevalence of those behaviors.52 The 1980, 1987, 1994 and 2016 surveys 

provided the ability to assess changes in prevalence over time.53 Table 2 lists the survey items that appeared on 

our 1994 and 2016 surveys, with an asterisk (*) indicating items that appeared on both surveys (with wording 

updated when necessary).

47 Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). 48 Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). 49 The No FEAR Act (Public Law 107-174) took effect on October 1, 2003.

50 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Question and Answers: No FEAR Act, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/nofear/qanda.cfm, retrieved 

on October 11, 2018.

51 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Instructions to Federal Agencies for MD-715, https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715/ 

section3.cfm, retrieved on October 11, 2018.

52 As noted earlier, this report uses the more inclusive definition of sexual harassment that encompasses both sexual and nonsexual forms. However, the EEO 

community makes a distinction between sexual and nonsexual harassment when processing complaints.

53 Although the survey items specified “workplace,” prohibitions on sexual harassment also apply to interactions at other locations, such as offsite meetings or 

training conferences or during work-related travel. In fact, these situations may introduce greater uncertainty as they may be perceived to be more relaxed and 

social in nature. However, Federal employees should continue to treat their colleagues with respect, regardless of the setting.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

What is Sexual Harassment

Table 2. Types of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Included on 1994 and 2016 Surveys54

Gender Harassment

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

y Derogatory or unprofessional terms related to sex or gender

y Unwelcome sexual teasing jokes, comments or questions*

y Exposure to sexually oriented material (e.g., photos, videos, written materials) y Exposure to sexually oriented conversations

Unwanted Sexual Attention

Unwelcome behaviors of a sexual nature that are directed toward a person

y Unwelcome invasion of personal space (e.g., touching, crowding, leaning over)* y Unwelcome communications (e.g., emails, phone calls, notes, text messages, social media contacts ) of 

a sexual nature* y Unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures*

Sexual Coercion

Pressure or force to engage in sexual behavior

y Offer of preferential treatment in the workplace in exchange for sexual favors (quid pro quo)

y Pressure for sexual favors*

y Pressure for dates*

y Stalking (e.g., unwanted physical or electronic intrusion into your personal life)*

y Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault*

These items are grouped according to the results of a factor analysis55 of items gauging employee experiences 

with each of the sexual harassment behaviors. The three factors were identified as: Gender Harassment (GH), 

Unwanted Sexual Attention (USA), and Sexual Coercion (SC). These results are generally consistent with 

those of other researchers in this field.56,57

Some researchers have suggested that the underlying theme of each of these categories is an expression 

of power that is disguised as sexual attraction or sexual humor.58,59 Perhaps this is most obvious in sexual 

coercion, in which the harasser forces or pressures the target to acquiesce to sexual demands. The harasser’s 

leverage is typically based in formal authority or power at work, but a harasser’s power or influence may 

be informal or social rather than formal authority. Stalking and pressure for dates similarly represent an 

expression of power: the unwillingness to take “no” for an answer.

Unwanted sexual attention likewise represents the exercise of control over the target’s will through unwanted 

intrusions into the target’s physical space, or by communications, or looks. The intrusions may range from 

crowding or leaning over the person to physical touches that may or may not be overtly sexual. Unwanted 

communications and looks may vary in their apparent expression of sexual attraction. Regardless, the 

underlying motivation is typically not to express sexual interest, but to demean the target.60

54 Items followed by an asterisk (*) were included on both the 1994 and 2016 surveys.

55 Factor analysis is a statistical technique that can be used to reduce a set of survey items to a smaller number of dimensions by identifying similarities among 

items. In other words, items that are associated with a particular factor have similar response patterns, and examining those patterns makes it possible to 

identify and label the common characteristic (factor) those items measure.

56 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. 57 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. 58 Williams, M.J., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Guillory, L.E. (2017). Sexual aggression when power is new: effects of acute high power on chronically low-power 

individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 201-223. 59 Berdahl, J.L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641658. 60 Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993).
10 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

What is Sexual Harassment

Finally, gender harassment typically occurs when the harasser conveys (either explicitly or implicitly) to the 

target that they are inferior or unwelcome by insulting or objectifying them. However, gender harassment 

need not target a particular person or persons. For example, sexually-charged material in the workplace or 

public discussions create an atmosphere that denigrates or objectifies members of a certain sex. Such behaviors 

may be an expression of a generalized belief that members of one sex are less capable, or an attempt to 

demean employees who do not conform to the harasser’s stereotypes about how men or women should look 

or act.61,62

Employee Perspectives on Behavior that Constitute Sexual Harassment

Because individuals may hold different views of what sexual harassment entails, MSPB’s surveys have used 

behavioral checklists to assess what employees have experienced or observed in the workplace in the past 

two years, instead of asking employees directly if they have experienced sexual harassment. Analyses of MPS 

2016 data showed that the vast majority of Federal employees agreed that they viewed each of these behaviors 

as sexual harassment (Table 3). Further, men and women were highly similar in how they evaluated each 

behavior.

Table 3. Agree that the Behavior is Sexual Harassment, MPS 2016

Sexual Coercion Total Women Men

Pressure for sexual favors 96% 96% 97%

Offer of preferential treatment for sexual favors 96% 96% 96%

Stalking (unwanted intrusion into your personal life) 95% 94% 95%

Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault 95% 94% 96%

Pressure for dates 94% 94% 94%

Unwanted Sexual Attention Total Women Men

Unwelcome communications of a sexual nature 94% 94% 94%

Unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures 92% 93% 92%

Unwelcome invasion of personal space 90% 90% 90%

Gender Harassment Total Women Men

Unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments or questions 94% 95% 94%

Derogatory or unprofessional terms related to sex or gender 92% 93% 92%

Exposure to sexually oriented material 89% 90% 89%

Exposure to sexually oriented conversations 82% 80% 89%

All of the sexual coercion behaviors were recognized by at least 94% of employees as sexual harassment, with 

little difference between men and women. Employees expressed highest agreement regarding pressure for 

sexual favors (96%) and the quid pro quo offer of preferential treatment in return for sexual favors (96%). 

Forcible intrusion, through stalking or sexual assault, was also recognized by the vast majority (95%) as sexual 

harassment.63 Similarly, although “pressure for dates” may seem less troublesome than “pressure for sexual 

favors,” “pressure” indicates that the behavior is both unwelcome and repeated.

61 Berdahl, J.L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641-658. 62 Leskinen, E.A., Rabelo, V.C., & Cortina, L.M. (2015). Gender stereotyping and harassment: A “catch-22” for women in the workplace. Psychology, Public 

Policy, and Law, 21(2), 192-204. 63 Given the gravity of sexual assault or stalking, we examined why the level of agreement for those behaviors fell short of 100 percent. Written comments 

from some survey respondents provide a useful explanation. Many commenters believed that labeling such behaviors as “sexual harassment” would trivialize 

behavior that was not merely inappropriate, but criminal.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

What is Sexual Harassment

Additionally, 90% or more of employees agreed that various types of unwanted sexual attention, such as 

unwelcome communications, jokes, questions, or gestures of a sexual nature, would be viewed as sexual 

harassment. Unwelcome invasion of personal space may be slightly more ambiguous, depending upon how it 

occurs, but was still typically seen as indicative of sexual harassment.

Employee agreement was most variable (82%–94%) for behaviors associated with gender harassment. 

Agreement was higher for behaviors that have a clear target (such as unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, 

comments or questions) than those that might not, such as exposure to sexually oriented material or sexually 

oriented conversations. This suggests that some employees are unaware that such behaviors are offensive to 

many others, may contribute to a hostile work environment, and that even if they are acceptable in private, 

among family or friends, they may be grossly inappropriate in the workplace.

Trends in Perceptions of Sexual Harassment Behaviors

As discussed above, men and women now hold similar views about what behaviors may constitute sexual 

harassment. Differences are now quite small, especially in comparison to previous survey results. For the six 

behaviors covered in the “Is it harassment?” section of the 1994 and 2016 surveys, Table 4 shows that: 

(1) the gap between men and women has virtually disappeared, and (2) there is much greater understanding 

among Federal employees that these behaviors evidence sexual harassment. The gap has closely largely because 

agreement has increased among men that certain behaviors can indeed be sexual harassment. But there is also 

evidence of greater awareness among both men and women that certain behaviors are incompatible with a 

professional, inclusive work environment. Notably, the greatest increase in agreement was for “unwelcome 

sexual teasing, jokes, comments or questions.”

Table 4. Agree that the Behavior is Sexual Harassment, 1994 and 2016

Behavior

Women Men

1994 2016 1994 2016

Pressure for sexual favors 99% 96% 96% 97%

Pressure for dates 91% 94% 86% 94%

Unwelcome communications of a sexual nature 95% 94% 89% 94%

Unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures 94% 93% 82% 92%

Unwelcome invasion of personal space 98% 90% 94% 90%

Unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments or questions 86% 95% 76% 94%
12 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

What is Sexual Harassment
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment Behaviors

Although Federal employees appear to have a good understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment, as 

shown below, sexual harassment remains all too common. That result suggests that abstract understanding has 

progressed more than actual behavior, posing the question “Do Federal employees know what sexual harassment 

is in concept, but fail to recognize or refrain from it in practice?” Another, more troubling question is “Do some 

employees engage in sexual harassment knowingly, believing that they will not be held accountable?”

As shown in Table 5, across genders, gender harassment was the most common form of sexual harassment. 

Unwanted sexual attention also occurred in the workplace, especially directed at women. Notably, women were 

four times as likely as men to report that they experienced an unwelcome invasion of personal space, and six 

times as likely to have experienced unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures.

Table 5. Types of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Experienced64

Behavior Total Women Men

Ratio

Women : Men

Any Type of Sexual Harassment Behavior (of 12) Experienced 14.3% 20.9% 8.7% 2.4 : 1

Gender Harassment Total Women Men Ratio

Exposure to sexually oriented conversations 7.3% 9.5% 5.4% 1.8 : 1

Unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments, or questions 5.9% 9.4% 2.9% 3.2 : 1

Derogatory or unprofessional terms related to sex or gender 5.0% 7.1% 3.0% 2.4 : 1

Exposure to sexually oriented material 2.8% 3.6% 2.0% 1.8 : 1

Unwanted Sexual Attention Total Women Men Ratio

Unwelcome invasion of personal space 7.2% 12.3% 2.9% 4.3 : 1

Unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures 4.6% 8.5% 1.4% 6.0 : 1

Unwelcome communications of a sexual nature 3.2% 5.4% 1.5% 3.7 : 1

Sexual Coercion Total Women Men Ratio

Pressure for dates 1.7% 2.5% 0.8% 3.1 : 1

Stalking (intrusion into your personal life) 1.7% 2.4% 1.1% 2.1 : 1

Offer of preferential treatment for sexual favors (quid pro quo) 1.1% 1.5% 0.7% 2.1 : 1

Pressure for sexual favors 0.9% 1.4% 0.6% 2.5 : 1

Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault <0.5% <0.5% <0.5% *65

64 Throughout this report, unless otherwise stated, “experienced sexual harassment” means that a survey respondent experienced the described behavior (or one or 

more of a set of behaviors) one or more times during the two-year period preceding the survey. The same frequency and time criteria are used for “observed” sexual 

harassment.

65 Percentages are too small to calculate a ratio.
14 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context

Even though American culture has become more accepting of openly discussing sexuality, explicit discussions 

of sexual activities remain off-limits while on duty.66 Nevertheless, over 7% of Federal employees responded 

that they had been exposed to such a discussion. Although some instances were viewed as unintentional 

intrusions (for example, conversations among coworkers who lacked discretion or volume control), other 

instances were seen as deliberate efforts to embarrass or demean the target.

For the least prevalent sexual harassment experiences, (i.e., those related to sexual coercion), our figures might 

have been reduced by a tendency to under-report highly personal negative experiences, even on a confidential 

survey. We also note that employees might be reluctant to report experiencing or engaging in quid pro quo.

67

In summary, women were more likely than men to report that they had experienced sexual harassment. This 

reflects actual differences in what women and men experience at work. Past research has explored whether 

differences in perceptions of sexual harassment by men and women are due to actual differences in treatment, 

or whether they reflect, at least in part, women being more “sensitive” to sexual harassment.68 The latter is not 

a plausible explanation for differences shown, given their magnitude and the similarity (discussed earlier) in 

men’s and women’s views on whether a particular behavior may constitute sexual harassment. Moreover, as 

shown in Table 6, men and women (who had not personally experienced sexual harassment in the past two 

years) observed sexual harassment at more similar rates—as opposed to what they experienced.

Table 6. Types of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Observed

Behavior Total Women Men

Ratio

Women : Men

Any Type of Sexual Harassment Behavior (of 12) Observed 25.6% 28.9% 22.7% 1.3 : 1

Gender Harassment Total Women Men Ratio

Exposure to sexually oriented conversations 14.5% 15.6% 13.3% 1.2 : 1

Unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments, or questions 11.8% 14.1% 9.7% 1.5 : 1

Derogatory or unprofessional terms related to sex or gender 11.0% 12.0% 9.9% 1.2 : 1

Exposure to sexually oriented material 4.9% 5.7% 4.3% 1.3 : 1

Unwanted Sexual Attention Total Women Men Ratio

Unwelcome invasion of personal space 12.7% 15.7% 10.1% 1.5 : 1

Unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures 9.6% 12.5% 7.1% 1.8 : 1

Unwelcome communications of a sexual nature 7.3% 8.6% 6.0% 1.4 : 1

Sexual Coercion Total Women Men Ratio

Pressure for dates 3.5% 4.0% 2.9% 1.4 : 1

Stalking (intrusion into your personal life) 3.9% 5.3% 2.7% 2.0 : 1

Offer of preferential treatment for sexual favors (quid pro quo) 2.5% 3.2% 2.1% 1.5 : 1

Pressure for sexual favors 1.9% 2.0% 1.8% 1.2 : 1

Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault 1.0% 1.2% 0.9% *69

66 Rare exceptions might include investigators, EEO staff, HR professionals and agency counsel, certain health care providers or law enforcement personnel.

67 Although quid pro quo is typically coercive, survey respondents also described situations that appeared to involve willing parties who engaged in personal 

relationships for mutual benefit. However, voluntary participation does not always mean the behavior was welcome, per Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 

U.S. 57 (1986).

68 Druhan, V.B. (2013). Severe or pervasive: an analysis of who, what, and where matters when determining harassment, Vanderbilt Law Review, https:// www.

vanderbiltlawreview.org/wp/89//Druhan_66_Vand_L_RW_355.pdf.

69 Percentages are too small to calculate a ratio.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context

These figures show that harassment is frequently committed in front of others. This means that there is often 

an opportunity for coworkers to intervene and that agencies may be able to obtain evidence and testimony 

from individuals other than the target and alleged harasser. These coworkers should also keep in mind that 

intervening to assist a colleague who is being harassed and serving as a witness in the EEO complaint process 

are protected activities, making it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against the person for supporting the 

target of harassment.70,71

Trends in Employees’ Experiences of Sexual Harassment

The concept of sexual harassment, both in law and in organizations, has evolved to encompass behaviors 

that can contribute to an unwelcoming or inequitable work environment, beyond those that meet the 

legal definitions of “severe” or “pervasive.” MSPB’s surveys have also evolved, while maintaining sufficient 

continuity to permit comparison across surveys. As discussed in Appendix B, MSPB’s 2016 survey covered 

12 sexual harassment behaviors: eight from prior surveys and four new items. This section discusses change 

over time, and therefore focuses on measures of sexual harassment based only on the eight behaviors included 

on both surveys, as shown in Table 7. The figures reflect both progress and the continuing reality that many 

women and men still experience sexual harassment at work.

Table 7. Percentage of Employees Experiencing Sexual Harassment, 1994 and 2016

Year Measure of Sexual Harassment

Employees

Women Men

1994 Experienced any of 8 behaviors 44.3% 19.1%

2016 Experienced any of 8 behaviors 17.7% 5.5%

Experience any of 12 behaviors 20.9% 8.7%

Table 8 illustrates this pattern of progress made and challenges remaining. For example, although the rate of 

unwelcome invasion of personal space dropped by half among women, it was still experienced by 12%.

Table 8. Types of Sexual Harassment Behaviors Experienced, 1994 and 201672

Behavior

Women Men

1994 2016 1994 2016

Unwelcome invasion of personal space 24% 12% 8% 3%

Unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments or questions 37% 9% 14% 3%

Unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures 29% 9% 9% 1%

Unwelcome communications of a sexual nature 10% 5% 4% 1%

Pressure for dates 13% 3% 4% 1%

Stalking 7% 2% 2% 1%

Pressure for sexual favors 7% 1% 2% 1%

Sexual assault or attempted sexual assault 4% <1% 2% <1%

70 29 CFR 1614.101(b).

71 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Questions and Answers: Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues, https://www. eeoc.

gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-retaliation-and-related-issues, EEOC-NVTA-2016-5, retrieved on May 4, 2022.

72 Unwelcome communications of a sexual nature for men and offer of preferential treatment for sexual favors experienced by women in 2016 was 1.5% in an 

earlier table. These percentages vary slightly due to differences in rounding.
16 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context

Risk Factors for Sexual Harassment

Not surprisingly, consistent with the data shown above, our analyses found that the greatest risk factor for 

experiencing sexual harassment is being female.73 Other risk factors include the gender composition of the 

work unit being heavily skewed74 (especially for women75), and being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender 

(LGBT) (especially for men) and being young. Importantly, we also identified factors under organizational 

control that are associated with reduced risk. For example, knowledge of complaint procedures and perceived 

credibility of preventive policies appeared to reduce risk, which may reflect positively on an organizational 

culture that ensures employees not only know their rights but also have confidence that they can use them. 

Supportive peers and a collegial workplace may also reduce risk as employees may be less likely to harass their 

colleagues under such conditions, particularly when the culture suggests that they will experience negative 

consequences for their actions.

Analyzing patterns in sexual harassment and factors that might be associated with increased risk of sexual 

harassment can help organizations to: (1) identify trends that may call for preventive measures or heightened 

vigilance; (2) identify work environments or segments of the workplace that might benefit from targeted 

training (e.g., on standards of conduct, complaint procedures, and how to intervene); and (3) clarify 

expectations for behavior, backed up by procedures for accountability. In contrast, the goal of such analysis is 

not to assign blame to targets of harassment or to discourage the recruitment and hiring of people in “at risk” 

groups.

Given that various individual and organizational risk factors likely contributed to differences between agencies 

in terms of percentages of employees who experienced sexual harassment, agencies should decisively act upon 

the factors that they can control, such as a commitment to hold employees accountable for sexual harassment 

and consider preventive measures in settings associated with a higher incidence of sexual harassment.

As shown in Figure 2, individual Federal agencies may have higher (or lower) than average prevalence rates 

for men, women, or both.76 Therefore, it is important to assess rates separately for men and women.

73 A statistical technique called logistic regression was used to identify the variables that explained the most variance in terms of experiencing one or more of 

the listed sexual harassment behaviors.

74 In other words, there is a small percentage of women in a majority male workgroup or a small percentage of men in a majority female workgroup.

75 This may be due to the fact that women who work in certain occupations that are majority women, such as nurses, or who work in jobs where they are in 

the minority, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) or blue collar occupations, are more likely to experience sexual harassment. 

However, these patterns could also suggest that having a gender balanced workforce may be more likely to foster a respectful workplace.

76 The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services are not included due to low sample size.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context

Veterans Aairs

Treasury

Transportation

State

Social Security Administration

Securities and Exchange Commission

Oce of Personnel Management

Navy

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Labor

Justice

Interior

Housing and Urban Development

Homeland Security

General Services Administration

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

Environmental Protection Agency

Energy

Defense

Commerce

Army

Air Force

Agriculture

Government-wide

27%

7%

7%

18%

16%

9%

8%

4%

21%

8%

11%

18%

7%

17%

15%

13%

15%

20%

17%

7%

5%

9%

16%

11%

22%

7%

16%

19%

15%

26%

8%

14%

11%

25%

6%

13%

5%

12%

16%

11%

6%

9%

7%

17%

11%

14%

Women Men

21%

21%

Figure 2. Percentage of Employees Experiencing Sexual Harassment, by Agency
18 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context

Characteristics of Harassers

Federal agencies are responsible for protecting all employees from sexual harassment on the job, regardless 

of its source. As stated in 29 CFR § 1604.11(d), the agency can be held “responsible for acts of sexual 

harassment in the workplace where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should 

have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action.” 

Furthermore, under 29 CFR §1604.11(e), the agency may also be held responsible for sexual harassment 

by “non-employees” (such as customers and contractors) in the workspace, which is known as “third-party 

harassment.”77

Information about the perpetrators of sexual harassment can help employers identify risks, target training 

and education, and focus accountability. Accordingly, the MPS 2016 asked those employees who experienced 

sexual harassment to select the one experience that had the greatest impact on them and to provide 

information about the harasser(s), including role, number, and sex. As shown in Table 9, respondents most 

frequently indicated that the harasser was another employee, often someone within the work unit. That is 

unsurprising—but it also indicates that more effective internal education and accountability are needed.

Table 9. Role of the Harasser

Harasser Total

Target

Women Men

Immediate supervisor 11% 11% 11%

Higher level supervisor 12% 13% 11%

Coworker 45% 48% 42%

Other employee 27% 27% 27%

Customer/member of the public 15% 17% 10%

Subordinate 8% 7% 9%

Acquaintance, friend or family member 3% 4% 3%

Criminal 1% 1% 1%

Contractor 5% 6% 2%

Other 9% 5% 16%

Particular attention should be given to supervisors and officials. Harassment by an employee in a position of 

authority is particularly problematic as other employees may infer that the agency tolerates sexual harassment 

by those in leadership roles, and that resisting or complaining is futile or risky.

Among remaining categories, customers or other members of the public were the most likely sources of sexual 

harassment. Harassment by members of the public creates a unique challenge given that these interactions 

are frequently transient, and the agency’s goal is to provide a service to the customer. However, agencies may 

remain liable for protecting employees against sexual harassment in the workplace, even by those it does not 

employ.78 Therefore, agencies need to ensure-not only that they set expectations for how customers will treat 

employees, but also for how employees should respond to any inappropriate behavior. Further, the agency 

should convey to the employees that they will support them should they take the prescribed actions, such as 

providing a verbal warning and/or transferring the customer to a supervisor and, in appropriate cases, barring 

the customer. Notably, women were more likely than men to experience harassment from customers, which 

may reflect the high representation of women in health care provider and customer service positions.

77 Warner, D.S. (1995) Third-party sexual harassment in the workplace: an examination of client control. Hofstra Labor and Employment Law Journal, 12(2), 

Article 6.

78 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity, Harassment, https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment, retrieved on June 10, 2022.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context

In terms of number and sex of the harasser(s), harassment by an individual was most common, and the 

harasser was male in approximately two-thirds of the instances described (Table 10). Harassment by a person 

or persons of the opposite sex than the person being harassed was typical, although harassment by employees 

of the same sex or mixed groups also occurred. For women, harassment by one man was by far the most 

common scenario, occurring in over two-thirds of the examples cited. Men were more likely to be harassed by 

women, though men or mixed groups were responsible for a substantial amount of the harassment.

Table 10. Sex and Number of the Harasser(s)

Harasser Total

Target

Women Men

Male (Individual) 58% 68% 27%

Female (Individual) 16% 7% 41%

Males (Two or More) 10% 12% 7%

Females (Two or More) 2% 1% 7%

Both (Mixed Group) 14% 12% 19%

Finally, as shown in Table 11, women were most likely to be harassed by someone older or similar in age. 

Men were most likely to be harassed by someone similar in age.

Table 11. Age of the Harasser Relative to the Target

Harasser Total

Target

Women Men

Older 33% 37% 24%

Similar in age 33% 33% 32%

Younger 13% 11% 19%

Mixed ages 20% 19% 25%

These findings show that harassment is not limited to the prototypical harassment of a woman by an older 

man. Harassment can involve a variety of harassers and targets. Therefore, agencies cannot be complacent 

about sexual harassment that targets men, sexual harassment committed by women, same-sex sexual 

harassment, or harassment committed by coworkers or members of the public.
20 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Sexual Harassment: Prevalence and Context
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

The Consequences of Sexual Harassment

The full costs of sexual harassment comprise the harm done to (1) the employees who experience harassment;

(2) those who observe the harassment; (3) the organization; and (4) the public, which experiences degraded 

service or efficiency. Some of these costs may be direct effects of the sexual harassment; other costs may be 

indirect and therefore less obvious or measurable.

Comprehensive measurement of the costs of sexual harassment was outside the scope of this study, but past 

studies have examined various monetary costs and found them to be significant. For example, MSPB’s 1995 

study of sexual harassment estimated the two-year costs of sexual harassment that were related to job turnover, 

sick leave, and decreased individual and organizational productivity to exceed $327 million. That estimate 

did not include labor costs, such as those associated with resolving informal and formal complaints, handling 

litigation, and overtime and benefits for employees who fill in for employees who are absent due to harassment.79

It also did not cover costs associated with legal judgments or settlements.

Effects of Sexual Harassment on Employees

The MPS 2016 asked employees who indicated that they had experienced sexual harassment to describe what 

happened as a result of the harassment or their response to it. As seen in Figure 3, those employees were most 

likely to say that no changes occurred (35%). That suggests that the employee did not experience direct harm, 

but also that the employee was unaware of any negative consequences for the harasser. Overall, however, the 

response pattern suggests that repercussions were more likely for the targeted employee than for the harasser. 

For example, only 8% of employees believed that corrective action was taken against the harasser—the same 

percentage who responded that their work assignments or conditions improved. In contrast, approximately 14% 

of target employees thought their work assignments or conditions worsened and 13% said that they were denied 

a promotion, pay increase, good performance rating, or good reference. Further, 5% indicated that they were 

reassigned or transferred against their wishes. In essence, a substantial percentage of harassed employees believed 

that they experienced the prohibited personnel practice (PPP) of retaliation, in addition to the PPP of the initial 

sexual harassment (as a form of sex discrimination).

As a result of the harassment, approximately 22% of harassed employees noted that their productivity was 

reduced. For example, some of these employees indicated that they used annual leave (17%) and/or sick leave 

(17%)—either to avoid further harassment or because of health problems resulting from the initial harassment.

However, some employees find that temporarily avoiding the harasser or the workplace may not be sufficient. In 

fact, 6% transferred or quit.80 Further, employees who experienced harassment more than once were more likely 

to express an intention to leave the organization: 37% of such employees indicated that they were “likely” to leave 

in the next year, compared to 24% among employees who had not experienced or observed harassment. That 

result is consistent with other research into the actions and intentions of employees who experience harassment or 

other forms of unfair treatment.81,82

79 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace; Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges, October 1995, pp. 23-27. 80 This figure is probably a floor for the actual proportion of employees who left after experiencing harassment, as those who had already left the organization would 

not have been reachable via the email address obtained as part of the MPS 2016 survey sample. Therefore, this percentage likely reflects only those who transferred 

within the agency.

81 Fitzgerald, L.F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C.L, Gelfand, M.J., & Magley, V.J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: a test of an 

integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 578-589. 82 Miner-Rubino, K. & Cortina, L.M. (2007). Beyond targets: consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1254-

1269.
22 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

The Consequences of Sexual Harassment

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Reassigned or transferred against my wishes

Transferred or quit

Corrective action was taken 

against the harasser(s)

Work assignments or conditions got better

Denied a promotion, pay increase, good 

performance rating or good reference

Work assignments or conditions got worse

Used sick leave

Used annual leave

Productivity was reduced

No changes occurred

5%

6%

8%

8%

13%

14%

35%

22%

17%

17%

Better

Same

Worse

Figure 3. Employee Perceptions of the Results of the Sexual Harassment or Their Response to It83

As devastating as sexual harassment can be to the target, the harm does not end there. It extends to 

observers.84,85 As shown in Table 12, employees who never personally experienced or witnessed sexual 

harassment were the most positive on these indicators of work satisfaction and engagement. In contrast, those 

who experienced sexual harassment more than once were the least satisfied. Further, those who observed 

repeated harassment also demonstrated notably decreased satisfaction with supervisors, managers, the 

organizational culture, and work stress. They were also less likely to feel inspired to do their best work or to 

recommend their agency as a place to work.

83 Percentages in the table are the combined percentage of respondents replying “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” to the listed result.

84 Miner-Rubino, K. & Cortina, L.M. (2007). Beyond targets: consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 

1254-1269.

85 Dionisi, A.M. & Barling, J. (2018). It hurts me too: examining the relationship between male gender harassment and observers’ well-being, attitudes, and 

behaviors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 23(3), 303-319.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

The Consequences of Sexual Harassment

Table 12. Job and Organizational Satisfaction by Observation or Experience of Sexual Harassment86

None

Observed Experienced

Once

More than 

Once Once

More than 

Once

Satisfaction with supervisor 77% 69% 60% 62% 59%

Satisfaction with managers 60% 52% 44% 44% 40%

Satisfaction with organizational culture 58% 43% 38% 44% 34%

Satisfaction with level of work stress 55% 50% 39% 46% 36%

Inspired to do my best work 71% 60% 51% 63% 52%

Recommend agency as a place to work 69% 66% 51% 56% 46%

It is also possible that sexual harassment and a more general dissatisfaction are the product of deficiencies 

in an organization’s leadership87 and culture. In other words, ineffective leaders enable environments that 

are not only conducive to sexual harassment, but through their actions (or inactions) generate employee 

dissatisfaction with the workplace. Regardless, it is clear that damage to morale and productivity that is linked 

to sexual harassment (or by organizational conditions that tolerate it) may be widespread and long lasting.

Effects of Sexual Harassment on the Organization

Given the relationship between work satisfaction and engagement and performance,88,89 it is logical that 

harassment often damages the productivity of those who were harassed. In this manner, sexual harassment 

does not harm only individuals; it also harms organizations. Other ways that sexual harassment can harm an 

organization include—

y Loss of talent. When employees who have experienced or observed sexual harassment depart in 

search of a more professional and inclusive work environment, the agency loses their expertise, 

forfeits the return on investments in their development, and forgoes the employee’s future 

potential;

y Impaired recruitment. Sexual harassment decreases the likelihood that they will recommend their 

agency as a place to work. In an era of online platforms and social media, the power of an unhappy 

former employee to influence potential applicants is not limited to word-of-mouth;

y Damage to reputation and public trust. Allegations of agency negligence, indifference, or retaliation 

can create a costly and time-consuming public relations problem90 and, more importantly, 

undermine public trust in an agency’s integrity and competence; and

y Liability. When sexual harassment leads to informal or formal complaints or grievances, the 

organization incurs costs to manage and resolve them. These costs can increase exponentially when 

misconduct is not properly or promptly addressed. For example, an agency may be responsible for 

lost pay, compensatory damages, and attorney’s fees.91

86 Percentages in the table are the combined percentage of respondents replying “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” to a positively-worded statement about the listed 

aspect of the workplace.

87 Hart, C., Dahl Crossley, A. and Correll, S.J. Study: When Leaders Take Sexual Harassment Seriously, So Do Employees. Harvard Business Review, December 

14, 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/12/study-when-leaders-take-sexual-harassment-seriously-so-do-employees.

88 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, September 2008, pp. iii-iv. 89 Partnership for Public Service and Boston Consulting Group. A Prescription for Better Performance: Engaging Employees at VA Medical Centers, March 2019, 

https://ourpublicservice.org/publications/a-prescription-for-better-performance-engaging-employees-at-va-medical-centers/ retrieved on May 8, 2019.

90 Does, S., Gundemir, S., & Shih, M. (2011, June). Research: how sexual harassment affects a company’s public image. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from 

https://hbr.org/2018/06/research-how-sexual-harassment-affects-a-companys-public-image?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=hbr&utm_ medium=social 

on October 11, 2018.

91 According to EEOC, in FY 2016, Federal agencies spent nearly $118 million to resolve discrimination complaints across all legally protected bases under its 

purview: “$3.3 million on pre-complaint settlements, $46.6 million on EEO complaint investigations, and $68 million in monetary benefits for findings of 

discrimination and complaint-stage settlements.” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, Fiscal Year 2016, p. 

11.
24 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

The Consequences of Sexual Harassment
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

Actions Taken by Targets of Harassment

An employee who experiences sexual harassment can respond in many ways, in the moment and afterward. The 

MPS 2016 listed nine specific actions that employees may take in response to harassment. These actions can be 

categorized as follows:

1. Actively responding to stop the harassment;

2. Avoiding the harasser; and

3. Tolerating the harassment.

Because each action has distinctive advantages and disadvantages, an employee’s decisions will reflect 

considerations such as: the perceived seriousness of the harassment; the employee’s knowledge of the actions and 

associated processes; trust in the organization and its officials; the likelihood of desired outcomes (such as an end 

to the harassment); and the likelihood of undesired outcomes (such as increased harassment or retaliation).

Active response. As seen in Figure 4, about 60% of employees who experienced harassment took a direct approach 

and asked the harasser to stop. That action is important, both to put the harasser on notice that the behaviors are 

not welcome92 and to provide a firmer foundation for complaint if the harassment continues.93

As discussed earlier, a legal determination of sexual harassment requires that the harassing conduct meet stringent 

criteria, such as the degree to which it is unwelcome. Therefore, targets of harassment may have stronger cases 

where their responses were active and documented, which makes it easier for agencies to take action and/or for 

the EEOC or the courts to conclusively determine that discrimination occurred.

Slightly over a third of employees indicated that they reported the harassment to the supervisor or other authority 

(although this may be more problematic when one’s supervisor is the harasser), while a third said they threatened 

to report the harassment. However, only about 11% of those who were harassed actually filed a formal complaint 

(e.g., equal employment opportunity complaint or a grievance).

92 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC Facts About Sexual Harassment, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm, retrieved on 

October 11, 2018.

93 For example, in Skinner v. Department of the Army, (99 FEOR 3314, EEOC No. 01985850 (EEOC 1999)), the complainant initially joined in the sexual banter 

but later notified her superior that his behavior had “crossed the line” and was unwelcome. The EEOC found the agency was liable for the superior’s subsequent 

misconduct because it did not take prompt and appropriate action. However, in other cases, the EEOC found that the complainants did not establish that the 

behaviors were unwelcome (Litofsky v. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 111 LRP 73478, EEOC No. 0120100397 (EEOC OFO 2011) or also engaged 

in ribald behaviors (Taylor v. General Services Administration, 102 FEOR 1221, EEOC No. 01A10206 (EEOC OFO 2002), thereby undermining the argument that 

similar behavior from others was unwelcome.
26 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

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

Went along with the behavior

Made a joke of the behavior

Ignored the behavior or did nothing

Changed jobs or locations

Avoided the harasser(s)

Filed a formal complaint

reatened to tell or told others

Reported the behavior to ocials

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

Active Response

Avoidance

Toleration

61%

12%

35%

10%

9%

59%

36%

35%

11%

Figure 4. Actions Taken in Response to Sexual Harassment 

Reasons not to file a formal complaint can vary widely.94 For example, an employee might consider it 

unnecessary, if informal actions had corrected the problem or the behavior did not (in the employee’s 

mind) warrant further action at that time. In other instances, an employee might believe that filing a formal 

complaint would cause additional problems, such as retaliation, be futile, or not be worth the time and effort.

Avoidance. These beliefs help explain why approximately 61% of respondents said they avoided the harasser—

and why 12% took avoidance even further, by changing jobs or locations. First, although it might provide 

relief from harassment, it does nothing to stop the harasser(s) from harassing others. Second, it may needlessly 

disrupt an employee’s life and limit their career prospects. Finally, as discussed previously, the agency loses 

an employee’s skills and commitment. Therefore, agencies should bolster efforts to educate about the 

prohibitions on retaliation, not only to discourage retaliation from occurring but also to encourage employees 

to feel safer coming forward to report sexual harassment.

Toleration. The least productive response to sexual harassment, from either the target or an observer, is 

to simply tolerate it because this can embolden the harasser who may interpret silence as condoning the 

behavior.95 Although an active response is more common, the survey results show that many employees elect 

to tolerate sexual harassment, at least initially. Approximately one-third of respondents said they ignored the 

behavior or did nothing.

94 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace; Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges, October 1995, p. 35. 95 Durana, A, Lenhart, A., Miller, R., Schulte, B. and Weingarten, E. Sexual Harassment: A Severe and Pervasive Problem, September 26, 2018. https://www.

newamerica.org/better-life-lab/reports/sexual-harassment-severe-and-pervasive-problem/
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

The survey results indicate that both men and women have become less likely to tolerate sexual harassment, 

and more likely to respond actively, as shown in Table 13. This is a positive development, both as a 

response to specific instances of harassment and as progress toward an organizational culture in which sexual 

harassment is not tolerated.

Yet avoidance has also become more common, suggesting that formal means of addressing harassment may 

be insufficiently communicated by agencies, distrusted by employees, or both. Therefore, frequent use of 

avoidance signals that Federal agencies could do more to educate employees about anti-harassment policies 

and actions and to increase employee confidence in established procedures for reporting and responding to 

harassment, as well as protections from retaliation.

Table 13. Actions Taken by Employees in Response to Sexual Harassment, 1994 and 2016

Action

Women Men

1994 2016 1994 2016

Active Response

Asked the harasser(s) to stop 53% 65% 34% 48%

Reported the behavior to officials 17% 40% 12% 28%

Threatened to tell or told others 16% 40% 7% 26%

Filed a formal complaint96 7% 12% 5% 8%

Avoidance

Avoided the harasser(s) 42% 65% 29% 51%

Changed jobs or locations 4% 14% 2% 7%

Toleration

Ignored the behavior or did nothing 57% 34% 64% 39%

Made a joke of the behavior 18% 9% 22% 12%

Went along with the behavior 8% 8% 10% 13%

Another pattern illustrated in Table 13 is a continuing difference in how women and men respond to 

harassment. Women remain more likely than men to take an active or avoidant response, while men remain 

more likely than women to tolerate the behavior. This pattern may reflect the differences across gender in 

the type or severity of sexual harassment experienced, as previously shown in Table 5. However, it may also 

suggest that some men are conforming to social norms that discourage them from speaking up when they 

observe or experience harassment.

Perceived Outcome of Actions Taken by Target

As mentioned previously, an employee’s decisions on how to respond to sexual harassment are affected by 

their assessment of whether a particular action will improve or worsen the situation. As shown in Figure 5,

employee experience suggests that some actions are more likely to be effective than others. The data also 

indicate that employees may have good reasons to consider the possible risks of any response to sexual 

harassment, such as retaliation by the harasser or others within the organization, given that some employees 

reported that the actions they took made their situations worse, rather than better.

96 For a comparable 1994 item, we used the item “Did you take any formal action?”
28 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

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

Went along with the behavior

Ignored the behavior

 or did nothing

Filed a formal complaint

Reported the behavior to the

supervisor or other ocials

reatened to tell or told others

Made a joke of the behavior

Avoided the harasser(s)

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

Changed jobs or location 16% 3%

33%

51%

55%

49%

13%

8%

32%

16%

11%

8%

8%

14%

81%

56%

42%

37%

37%

36%

36%

13% 74%

62%

32%

48%

30%

Better Same Worse

Figure 5. Employee Perceptions of the Effect of Their Responses to Sexual Harassment

Employees who experience harassment may take several actions, starting with the least official and least 

assertive, then proceeding to stronger actions if necessary. For example, an employee may initially acquiesce to 

the behavior because of uncertainty about the harasser’s intent or ignore the behavior in hope that the lack of 

a response will discourage further harassment. However, employees who took such actions rarely found them 

effective.

More active response actions such as asking the harasser(s) to stop, threatening to tell or actually telling 

others, reporting the behavior to the supervisor or other officials, and filing a formal complaint, were more 

likely to be effective. Yet such actions were not without risk: some employees believed these actions made their 

situation worse. For example, although 36% stated that filing a formal complaint improved their situation, 

almost as many (32%) thought that it made the situation worse. That result suggests that some employees 

may not feel safe using formal channels.

Changing jobs or locations was the action that employees considered most effective in stopping (or at least 

escaping) harassment, perhaps because they feared retribution for taking more direct action or that their 

situation would worsen if they tolerated the behavior. Avoiding the harasser was also frequently viewed 

as effective. These perceptions are not surprising, but they are not reassuring. First, as noted previously, 

avoidance does nothing to stop the harasser. Second, avoidance is not a vote of confidence in the willingness 

or capacity of Federal agencies to respond constructively when employees bring harassment to their attention.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

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

Went along with the behavior

Filed a formal complaint

Made a joke of the behavior

Ignored the behavior

or did nothing

Reported the behavior to the

supervisor or other ocials

reatened to tell 

or told others 

Avoided the harasser(s)

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

Changed jobs or locations 84%

66%

56%

50%

40%

46%

37%

35%

35%

30%

32%

22%

50%

30%

33%

33%

16%

11%

Women

Men

Men and women were in general agreement about the effectiveness of various actions taken in response to 

sexual harassment. However, there were a few notable exceptions. As shown in Figure 6, women perceived 

more benefit from changing jobs or locations, while men were more likely than women to think that making 

a joke of the behavior improved the situation. In contrast, men were more likely than women to believe that 

filing a formal complaint worsened their situation (Figure 7). As noted earlier, these reactions may reflect 

societal norms that encourage men to tolerate harassment and ridicule or even penalize them when they 

object.

Figure 6. Actions Viewed as Improving the Situation after Sexual Harassment
30 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Changed jobs or locations

Avoided the harasser(s)

Ignored the behavior or did nothing

Made a joke of the behavior

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

reatened to tell or told others

Went along with the behavior

Reported the behavior to the

supervisor or other ocials

Filed a formal complaint

9%

1%

6%

9%

6%

10%

10%

4%

9%

12%

11%

16%

15%

10%

16%

16%

31%

40%

Women

Men

Figure 7. Actions Viewed as Worsening the Situation after Sexual Harassment

Role of Observers of Harassment

The target should not be viewed as the only person responsible for taking action in response to harassment. 

One quarter of employees said that they had observed (but not directly experienced) at least one instance of 

sexual harassment. That means that many people had an opportunity to aid a coworker by intervening or 

speaking up, reporting harassment, or serving as a witness.97 Acting in the moment, by expressing disapproval 

to the harasser or offering support to the target, can be instrumental in stopping harassment, because harassers 

often interpret silence as acceptance or approval of their misconduct. Such action may also make the target of 

harassment more willing to assert their rights, confident in the support of others. However, coworkers should 

also be aware of the importance of not undermining the autonomy of the person they are trying to help. In 

other words, the most effective allies clarify with the target when they should take a supportive vs. more active 

role.98

97 Bowes-Sperry, L. & O’Leary-Kelly, A.M. (2005). To act or not to act: the dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 

30(2), pp. 288-306. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.16387866. 98 Cheng, S.K., Ng, L.C., Traylor, A.M., and King, E.B. (2019). Helping or hurting?: understanding women’s perceptions of male allies. Personnel Assessment 

and Decisions 5(2), Article 6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25035/ pad.2019.02.006 Available at: https://scholarworks.bgsu.edu/pad/vol5/iss2/6.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Experienced 

Twice or More

Experienced 

Once

Observed 

Twice or More

Observed 

Once

None 

Experienced or 

Observed

88%

79%

72%

75%

58%

In response to a question on the MPS 2016, 82% of all employees agreed that their coworkers would stand 

up for someone experiencing sexual harassment. However, as shown in Figure 8, that agreement was much 

lower among employees who had actually experienced or observed sexual harassment. This suggests that some 

employees who experienced harassment believed their coworkers had a chance to make a difference—and 

were disappointed that they did not do so. One barrier to intervention may be uncertainty about the nature 

of the behavior and uncertainty that action would be appropriate, effective, or welcome.99 Training for those 

who observe harassment (frequently known as “bystander intervention training” or “ally training”) can make 

employees better able to assess workplace interactions and more confident in their responsibility and ability 

to help stop harassment.100 As a result, these potential allies can better ensure that the target of harassment 

feels supported by their actions, as opposed to further disempowered by their intervention, if the target would 

prefer to handle the situation differently.

Figure 8. Agreement that Coworkers Would Stand Up for Someone Experiencing Sexual Harassment, by 

Experience or Observation of Sexual Harassment

99 Ibid, p. 47. 100 See https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-4-17.cfm for information about two courses that EEOC has developed, “Leading for Respect” 

and “Respect in the Workplace,” to educate supervisors, managers and employees regarding how to actively assist a target of harassment.
32 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

Employee Perceptions and Use of Formal Reporting and Resolution Processes

In order to meet legal requirements and treat employees fairly, Federal agencies must successfully complete 

numerous responsibilities. These include: (1) establishing means (e.g., formal EEO complaint process) to 

resolve discrimination, including harassment, (2) informing employees about the processes, (3) making these 

processes accessible, (4) resolving complaints timely and objectively, and (5) refraining from retaliation against 

employees who use or participate in a complaint or grievance process. However, agencies vary in terms of how 

well they are viewed as fulfilling these obligations.

Therefore, in addition to asking employees who experienced sexual harassment how they responded to it and 

their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of these actions, the MPS asked all respondents to estimate the 

effectiveness of these actions in response to a hypothetical sexual harassment experience. As shown in 

Figure 9, there are notable differences between expectations of the broader population of employees when 

compared with those who had experienced sexual harassment. Federal employees are clearly aware of official 

channels for reporting sexual harassment and seeking corrective action for it. Further, among the responses 

listed on the survey, the majority of employees considered the formal, official actions likely to be the most 

effective. Fully 61% of respondents agreed that filing a formal complaint (e.g., EEO or grievance) would be 

“very effective.” “Report the behavior to the supervisor or other officials” was expected to be very effective by 

54%. Those percentages are far higher than for the remaining actions, which are all “unofficial” in the sense of 

not involving management action or agency processes.

However, the actions and perceived outcomes of employees who actually experienced sexual harassment 

do not appear to reflect this apparent level of confidence in official channels. Table 14 shows, for selected 

response actions, the percentage of employees who considered the action “very effective” (in the abstract), the 

percentage of employees who experienced harassment who took the action, and the percentage of employees 

(among those taking the action) who believed it improved their situation. 

Table 14. Perceived Effectiveness and Outcomes of Actions

Action

All Employees Employees Who Experienced Harassment

Very Effective? Action Taken?

Made Situation 

Better?

File a formal complaint 61% 11% 36%

Report the behavior to officials 54% 36% 36%

Ask the harasser(s) to stop 20% 59% 56%

Avoid the harasser(s) 4% 61% 42%

Ignore the behavior 2% 35% 30%

As shown in Table 14, only 11% of our survey respondents who actually experienced sexual harassment 

said that they filed a formal complaint. That is far lower than the percentage of employees who took other 

actions, such as asking the harasser to stop or ignoring the behavior, that employees considered less likely to be 

effective. This pattern poses a question: Why are employees who experience sexual harassment comparatively 

unlikely to address it through established, formal processes? Survey data101 and complaint processing data 

provide some possible reasons. 

101 MSPB’s 1994 sexual harassment survey addressed this subject more fully than the MPS 2016. For more details, see U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 

Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace; Trends, Progress, Continuing Challenges, October 1995, p. 35.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

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

Went along with the behavior

Ignored the behavior or did nothing

Made a joke of the behavior

Avoided the harasser(s)

Changed jobs or locations

reatened to tell or told others

Asked the harasser(s) to stop

Reported the behavior to the 

supervisor or other ocials

Filed a formal complaint 61%

36%

54%

36%

56%

20%

19%

37%

16%

81%

42%

1%

13%

30%

37%

Expected to be Very Eective Improved Situation After Harassment

2%

2%

4%

Figure 9. Actions Respondents View as Effective in Response to Hypothetical or Experienced Sexual 

Harassment102

One possible reason is that an employee considered a formal report or complaint unnecessary, because the 

harassment did not, in their view, warrant such action. For example, they might have viewed the behavior 

as unintentional, a one-time occurrence, or not troubling (though inappropriate). Another possible reason 

is that informal actions, such as asking the harasser to stop, succeeded. (Survey results show that this direct 

approach was taken, and succeeded, much more often in practice than employees expected.) However, the 

data also suggest other, more troubling reasons. 

y Fear of retaliation. As noted above, retaliating against an employee for filing a grievance or an EEO 

complaint is illegal. But that prohibition cannot, alone, make employees willing to do so. First, 

a legal prohibition does not automatically remove the fear of retaliation from every employee’s 

mind. Second, as shown in Figure 5 and Figure 7, the prohibition is not always effective. Finally, 

a prohibition on retaliation does not preclude other undesired outcomes that do not necessarily 

constitute reprisal, such as strained relations with coworkers or an (even more) unpleasant work 

environment.

102 Figure 9 compares the responses of two different groups to two similar items. The blue bar shows responses of those who said they had not experienced 

any of the 12 sexual harassment behaviors and their expectation that the response would be “very effective.” The gray bar shows the responses of those who 

experienced one or more of the sexual harassment behaviors and rated these actions as making their situation “better.”
34 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

y Complaint process timeframes, complexity, and outcomes. An employee who experiences sexual 

harassment presumably wants the problem solved quickly. However, EEO complaints usually 

take considerable time to resolve. The process is unavoidably complex, as a final decision rests on 

a determination of whether the employing agency engaged in prohibited discrimination. Finally, 

EEO complaints only infrequently lead to a finding of discrimination. Below, we present and 

discuss some statistics on EEO complaint processing times and outcomes.103

For Fiscal Year 2018,104 Government wide average length of time from filing a formal complaint to selected 

milestones were as follows: 

y Filing to completed investigation—189 days;105

y Filing to closure—592 days;106

y Filing to final orders fully implementing decisions by an EEOC Administrative Judge—1,336 

days.107

The implication is that an employee who experiences discrimination may continue to experience 

discrimination (with the possible addition of retaliation) for over three and a half years, on average before 

relief is ordered.108 The end result appears to be at odds with the goals of the EEO process as it discourages 

some employees from filing formal complaints because they believe that justice would be, at best, significantly 

delayed. Therefore, the average processing time, in and of itself, can serve as a barrier to filing formal 

complaints when employees have suffered discrimination, including sexual harassment. These lengthy 

processing times are often attributed to limited agency and EEOC resources.109 EEOC’s adjudicatory 

resources should better correspond to the volume and difficulty level of incoming complaints. Similarly, 

agencies should devote appropriate resources, in terms of in-house expertise and/or contracted support, to 

expedite management investigations into harassment, rather than relying upon the formal EEO complaint 

process before initiating management investigations or taking appropriate remedial actions.

Employees may be further deterred by the low odds of obtaining relief through an EEO complaint. As 

illustrated on the next page in Figure 10, approximately 42% of EEO counselings concluded with a formal 

EEO complaint, while a similar percentage (43%) concluded with withdrawal or a decision not to file a 

complaint.110 About 13% concluded with a settlement agreement between the employee and agency. For 

an agency, settlements can arrive at an anticipated outcome more quickly (as when an agency settles a case 

when counsel concludes that the agency would be found liable) or to avoid the cost and conflict of continued 

litigation. For an employee, settlement may seem preferable to spending the time and money (e.g., attorney’s 

fees) needed to challenge the agency’s legal defense.

103 This data covers complaints on all bases, as presented in EEOC’s Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, Fiscal Year 2018. This is the most current report 

available from https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/reports as of May 12, 2022. 

104 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Annual Report on the Federal Workforce, Fiscal Year 2018, https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/ 

files/2021-06/2018%20Federal%20Sector%20Report.pdf as downloaded 5/6/2022.

105 Ibid, p. 41. 106 Ibid, p. 44. 107 Ibid, p. 49. 108 The agency and/or the employee may have taken other actions in the interim. For example, the agency may have taken interim action to separate the 

harasser from the target or the target may have moved but is continuing their case.

109 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Equal Employment Opportunity: Pilot Projects Could Help Test Solutions to Long-standing Concerns with the EEO Complaint 

Process, GAO-09-712, August 2009, pp. 19-21. 110 Ibid, p. 34-35. The figure shows outcomes for 37,042 completed counselings.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

Filed Complaint

42%

No Complaint

Filed/Withdrawal

43%

Settlement 13%

Decision to File 

Complaint Pending

2%

Figure 10. EEO Counseling Outcomes, FY 2018

The substantial proportion of counselings that end with no complaint filed or withdrawal from the EEO 

process suggests that agencies (and their employees) may benefit from identifying possible causes for this. 

Their findings could steer them to provide more training to employees on prohibited and inappropriate 

behaviors to prevent the underlying conflicts or to more effectively resolve conflicts (such as educating 

employees on complaint and dispute resolution options and processes).

The final outcomes for the complaints that were not resolved at the counseling stage show that complaints 

only infrequently end with the employee prevailing or obtaining a settlement. Among the 14,852 complaints 

closed in FY 2018,111 only 139 (.9%) resulted in findings of discrimination.112 Another 422 ended with 

settlement under alternative dispute resolution (ADR).113 If one assumes that settlement is a “win” for the 

employee, 3.8% closed complaints ended with a favorable outcome for the employee who filed the complaint.

However, a low rate of findings of discrimination does not equate to a high rate of “false allegations.”114 It 

means only that the high standard of proof (e.g., “severe” or “pervasive”) was not achieved. In turn, failure 

to meet the standard of proof does not equate to “no harassment occurred” or “no evidence could be found.” 

For example, witnesses may be nonexistent or unwilling to testify for fear of retaliation. Also, when the 

investigation is delayed or protracted, witnesses may become unreachable or their recollections unreliable.

111 Ibid, p. 44. 112 Ibid, p. 44. As noted earlier, these complaints are based on all legally protected bases as reported by agencies on the Form 462 to EEOC in FY 2018. 113 Ibid, p. 47. 114 Burr, C. (2011). False allegations of sexual harassment: Misunderstandings and realities, Academic Matters, October/November 2011. Retrieved from 

https://academicmatters.ca/false-allegations-of-sexual-harassment-misunderstandings-and-realities/ on June 11, 2019.
36 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Employee Responses to Sexual Harassment

More broadly, the data suggest that employees may not fully understand what matters the EEO process 

can effectively address, or how to successfully navigate the process. For example, it is possible that some 

counselings conclude with “no complaint filed/withdrawn” because the employee did not fully understand 

what a filing would entail. Similarly, a case might be lost at the latter stage because the employee did 

not effectively describe their experiences in terms of the relevant criteria. The data may also indicate that 

employees are more knowledgeable about the EEO process (noting that such knowledge is an explicit goal of 

the No FEAR Act and its training and communication requirements) than they are about other options that 

might stop harassment—before it warrants invoking the EEO process.

The data and discussion above do not mean that the EEO complaint process is operating improperly, or 

that employees should be discouraged from using it. However, it does suggest that agencies and employees 

are not well served by sole reliance on the formal process (and the underlying criterion of a violation of Title 

VII) to resolve all instances of sexual harassment. Alternatives to the formal process (integrated into that 

process or apart from it) could facilitate more timely and flexible resolution of many workplace conflicts. As 

discussed more fully in the recommendations, this will require agencies to establish those alternatives, educate 

employees about both formal processes and alternatives, and take steps to make employees confident in using 

the mechanism(s) of their choice.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

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

Management would act on a supervisor found

to have engaged in sexual harassment

Condent that a charge of sexual harassment

would be resolved fairly and justly

Agency takes sucient steps to

prevent sexual harassment

Familiar with formal complaint

channels for discrimination

Agency has a policy prohibiting

sexual harassment 96% 

81% 

79%

60% 

63% 

Employee Perceptions of Agency Success Combating 

Sexual Harassment

To prevent and address sexual harassment, agencies must: (1) create effective policies and procedures; (2) educate 

employees regarding them; and (3) hold all employees accountable for adhering to them. Failure at any step can 

undermine achievement of a workplace free of harassment. Our research suggests that agencies have had varying 

degrees of success at each of these steps.

Agency success appears greatest in the area of policies. For example, as shown in Figure 11, the vast majority 

(96%) of Federal employees responded that their agency has a policy prohibiting sexual harassment, while only 

1% disagreed and 3% said they did not know.115 This result corresponds with the No FEAR Act116 requirements 

that Federal agencies notify all employees regarding “the rights and protections available to them under the 

Federal Antidiscrimination Laws and Whistleblower Protection Laws.” Specifically, agencies must provide 

initial notice and training to new employees within 90 calendar days of entering on duty; re-issue notice to all 

employees annually; and provide refresher training at least every two years. Similarly, EEOC’s Management 

Directive 715 (MD-715) requires agency heads to “issue a written policy statement expressing their commitment 

to equal employment opportunity (EEO) and a workplace free of discriminatory harassment” upon each 

employee’s arrival and on an annual basis thereafter.117 Agencies have apparently succeeded in notifying nearly all 

employees regarding their sexual harassment policies—but “nearly all” is not “all.”

Figure 11. Employee Agreement with Agency Sexual Harassment Prevention and Response Efforts

115 Generally, we excluded responses of “Don’t Know/Not Applicable” from analysis and reporting because that response usually indicates that the employee does 

not have an opinion. However, for the two items on familiarity with agency policy and complaint procedures, lack of knowledge is relevant.

116 Under the authority of Public Law 107-174, 5 C.F.R. §724.202 describes the annual notice requirements and §724.203 summarizes the biannual training 

requirements.

117 See https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/directives/md715.cfm, retrieved on November 29, 2018.
38 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Employee Perceptions of Agency Success Combating Sexual Harassment

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

Management would act on a supervisor found

 to have engaged in sexual harassment

Condent that a charge of sexual harassment

would be resolved fairly and justly

Agency takes sucient steps to prevent

prevent sexual harassment

Familiar with formal complaint channels

for discrimination

Agency has a policy prohibiting

 sexual harassment

94%

96%

77%

82%

57%

83%

35%

64%

39%

67%

Yes (Experienced harassment) No (Did NOT experience harassment)

Despite the requirements that all Federal agencies have a formal complaint process and provide regular 

training to employees regarding how to use it, a somewhat lower percentage of employees (81%) responded 

that they are familiar with the formal complaint channels for prohibited discrimination. Moreover, 

establishing a policy and formal complaint channels and informing employees of them remains insufficient 

if it fails to actually deter sexual harassment. Additionally, only 60% of employees expressed confidence 

in a fair and just outcome if they were to file a sexual harassment complaint. Similarly, about 60% of 

employees agreed that management would take appropriate action against a supervisor who engaged in 

sexual harassment—meaning that a substantial minority lacked confidence in their agency’s ability and/or 

willingness to respond in accord with their policies to hold harassers accountable. 

Further, there were striking differences between perceptions of employees who had experienced sexual 

harassment and those who had not. As seen in Figure 12, although responses were very similar about the 

presence of agency sexual harassment prevention policies, there were substantial disparities in views of the 

agency’s efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment. Those who had experienced sexual harassment 

were much less likely to agree that their agency successfully prevents sexual harassment or resolves sexual 

harassment complaints fairly, including when the harasser was a supervisor. 

Figure 12. Employee Perceptions of Agency Efforts to Combat Sexual Harassment by Experience of 

Harassment 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 39

Employee Perceptions of Agency Success Combating Sexual Harassment

In summary, these results indicate that agencies have had widespread success in creating and publicizing 

policies that prohibit sexual harassment and have notified most employees of formal complaint channels for 

discrimination. However, creating policies and formal procedures and educating employees regarding them 

is relatively easy. The challenge remains in implementation and gaining employees’ confidence that agencies 

will choose to do what is right—even if it is difficult—when sexual harassment occurs. That confidence 

remains lacking as evidenced by continued employee skepticism that agencies will resolve a charge of sexual 

harassment fairly or take action on a supervisor found to have engaged in sexual harassment, which indicates 

that some employees, particularly those who have experienced sexual harassment, see a gap between the 

professed policies and how they are operating. Practical steps to close that gap and achieve the broader 

goal of a workplace free of discrimination are discussed in the “Supplement to the Recommendations: 

Implementing Practices and Issues,” which follows the “Conclusions and Recommendations” section.
40 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Employee Perceptions of Agency Success Combating Sexual Harassment
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 41

Conclusions and Recommendations

Four decades have passed since MSPB administered its first sexual harassment survey. During that time, society’s

understanding of what behaviors constitute sexual harassment has broadened, from sexual coercion and 

unwanted sexual attention to include gender harassment—those unwelcome behaviors (which may or may not 

be overtly sexual) that disparage or objectify others on the basis of sex. MSPB’s 2016 survey on sexual harassment 

was designed to reflect this contemporary understanding, while permitting comparison with data from preceding 

surveys in 1980, 1987, and 1994. Additional perspectives were gathered from the research literature as well as 

experts in the EEO community to provide background regarding the current status of the process for responding 

to harassment, as well as possible improvements.

While this study was in progress, MSPB experienced an unprecedented period of lack of a quorum which 

prevented this report from being released. During that time, there were significant changes to how and where 

work was performed by many Federal employees. This was driven in large part by the pandemic leading to greatly 

increased telework among many Federal employees. Nevertheless, MSPB continued conducting research on the 

prevalence and types of sexual harassment experienced by Federal employees, as well as actions taken by Federal 

agencies to address it. These efforts included new, as well as recurring survey items related to sexual harassment on 

the 2021 Merit Principles Survey. Results from this research will be released in an upcoming publication.

Conclusions

Understanding of Sexual Harassment

Federal employees are increasingly likely to correctly identify behaviors that might be considered sexual 

harassment in the workplace. Further, opinions of men and women about behaviors that may be sexual 

harassment have converged, primarily because men are now more likely to agree that a behavior is or may be 

viewed as sexual harassment. That approaching consensus means that there is less room for misunderstanding and 

less opportunity for employees to inadvertently engage in behaviors that others interpret as sexual harassment.

Federal employees are most likely to recognize the following behaviors as sexual harassment: pressure for sexual 

favors or dates, offers of preferential treatment for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments or 

questions or other communications of a sexual nature, stalking, and sexual assault. That recognition may reflect 

familiarity with high-profile litigation involving these blatant forms of sexual harassment. However, employees 

increasingly realize that certain behaviors (e.g., exposing coworkers or customers to sexually-oriented talk or 

material or disparaging others based on their sex) may also constitute sexual harassment.

Prevalence of Sexual Harassment

Based on the survey, approximately 14% of Federal employees experienced one or more sexual harassment 

behaviors between 2014 and 2016. That average masks a continuing and clear difference by gender: women were 

more than twice as likely as men to experience sexual harassment, with a rate of 21% for women compared to 9% 

for men. Although these rates are substantially lower than the comparable rates from the 1994 survey, they still 

represent an unacceptable amount of sexual harassment in the Federal workplace.

To uphold the expectations of the merit system principles (MSPs), Federal employees—at all levels—must 

treat each other fairly and conduct themselves with integrity. The standards described in the MSPs preclude 

any type of sexual harassment, including the most prevalent ones, such as exposing others to sexually oriented 

conversations; unwelcome invasion of personal space; unwelcome sexual teasing, jokes, comments, or questions; 

derogatory or unprofessional terms related to sex or gender, and unwelcome sexually suggestive looks or gestures. 

Rates of sexual harassment for men and women vary across agencies. For women, the rate of sexual harassment 
42 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Conclusions and Recommendations

ranged from approximately 9% to 27%; for men, the rate was as low as 4% or as high as 15%. Various 

factors, including workforce demographics and policies, practices, and culture, likely influence each 

organization’s rate of sexual harassment. This indicates both that constructive organizational practices and 

actions may reduce the incidence of sexual harassment, and that analyzing workforce data (and measures 

of sexual harassment) along demographic lines may help organizations identify risk factors and target 

interventions accordingly. 

Perpetrators of Sexual Harassment

The survey data show sexual harassment can be committed by anyone present in the workplace—but also 

that it is (unsurprisingly) typically committed by an agency employee, often one in a position of power or 

authority. For example, 45% of those who experience sexual harassment attributed it to a coworker, 11% 

to an immediate supervisor, 12% to a higher level managers, and 15% to a customer or other member of 

the public. As with workforce demographics, careful collection and analysis of data can help organizations 

identify patterns or risk factors that can be addressed through targeted and tailored actions.

Employee Response to Sexual Harassment

An employee can respond to sexual harassment in three general ways:

1. Active response (e.g., asking the harasser(s) to stop or reporting the harassment);

2. Avoidance (e.g., avoiding the harasser—either temporarily in the workplace or long-term by leaving 

the organization); and

3. Toleration (e.g., ignoring the behavior or going along with it).

An employee may respond in more than one way, either in the moment or as the situation evolves or 

escalates. Although each type of response has a variety of possible advantages and disadvantages, active 

response tends to be more effective to actually stop harassment, for both the target and others. In contrast, 

avoiding the harasser may solve the problem for the initial target—but pass the problem on to the next target. 

Similarly, toleration may embolden the harasser to continue or escalate misconduct, because it provides no 

feedback that the behavior is unwelcome or wrong.

Employees in 2016 were more likely to take an active response, and less likely to tolerate sexual harassment, 

than those in prior survey administrations. Yet they were also more likely to resort to avoidance strategies, 

such as avoiding the harasser or even changing jobs. This implies that some organizations have failed to create 

a culture where employees feel safe to stand up to a harasser.

Further, although asking the harasser to stop and avoiding the harasser are different in important respects, 

they share a common characteristic: an attempt to resolve the situation without involving the organization 

or its officials. Although such an attempt can be a reasonable first step, targeted employees should not believe 

that they must shoulder the entire burden of stopping sexual harassment. Other survey results indicate that 

many employees believe that the costs of pursuing a formal complaint would exceed the benefits. This pattern 

suggests that organizations could provide more options to respond to sexual harassment and better support 

employees who choose an active response. It also suggests that many organizations need to strengthen existing 

channels and work to earn trust that harassment will be addressed. Increasing the likelihood that employees 

will speak up, rather than remain silent, could strengthen accountability and lead to better outcomes for all.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 43

Conclusions and Recommendations

Effects of Sexual Harassment

Employees who experienced or observed sexual harassment noted that it harmed them and impaired mission 

accomplishment. Such employees may experience reduced productivity and may have to use annual leave 

or sick leave, either to avoid their harasser or to address illness resulting from the stress of being harassed. 

Ultimately, they may choose to leave or may be involuntarily reassigned or relocated. Additionally, sexual 

harassment in the workplace reduces satisfaction with numerous aspects of the workplace—not only for the 

target of the harassment, but also for observers.

Employee Perceptions of Agency Efforts to Combat Sexual Harassment

The survey revealed some positive results. Almost all Federal employees believed their agencies succeeded in 

creating policies prohibiting sexual harassment (96%) and most (over 80%) were familiar with the formal 

complaint channels for discrimination. Therefore, it is not surprising that nearly 80% of employees also 

thought their agencies took sufficient steps to prevent sexual harassment.

However, employees were less confident about the implementation and effectiveness of these policies and 

practices. Although the majority expressed confidence that a charge of sexual harassment would be resolved 

fairly and justly (60%) and that management would act on a supervisor who committed sexual harassment 

(63%), that is not good enough. Further, employees who had experienced sexual harassment were less likely 

(than those who had not) to believe their agencies would handle sexual harassment appropriately. Therefore, 

agencies should take the steps necessary to ensure that all employees are confident that they need not tolerate 

sexual harassment in their workplaces.

Recommendations

Although the survey results reflect progress towards a greater understanding and avoidance of sexual 

harassment in most Federal workplaces, agencies should continue to strive to develop and implement effective 

strategies to prevent sexual harassment. Additionally, they can establish procedures for how to better respond 

to harassment when it occurs, despite their best efforts. These strategies, procedures, and actions fall into three 

categories, as follows:

1. Policies and practices;

2. Education, and

3. Accountability.

MSPB’s general recommendations are summarized below. The subsequent chapter, “Supplement to the 

Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues” discusses specific recommendations and issues in 

greater detail. We note that these categories (“prongs”) are interrelated and interdependent. For example, for 

agency policy to be effective, it must be clear and comprehensive—then communicated (through education) 

and enforced and evaluated (through accountability). 

Policies and Practices

For agency leaders—

y Communicate through policy, and prompt individual action, that sexual harassment and 

other misconduct will not be tolerated nor will retaliation against employees who report sexual 

harassment or other retaliatory behavior. Agency leaders do not only exercise formal authority; 

they are also role models for expected behavior in their organizations.

y Hold accountable those found to engage in any form of retaliation against employees for their 

actions related to addressing sexual harassment.
44 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Conclusions and Recommendations

For agencies—

y Ensure that policies on sexual harassment clearly and concisely summarize critical information, 

which includes: (1) the types of behaviors that are prohibited; (2) employee rights and 

responsibilities should harassment occur; and (3) where to find additional guidance.

y Distribute policies on a regular basis and make the policies and associated materials accessible, 

so they are prominent in employees’ minds and readily available should the need arise. This 

information should be available to employees as soon as they enter the workforce and whenever 

they are promoted to new roles. Agency policy and guidance should also describe expected 

behaviors—what is optimal, in addition to what is appropriate—and not focus exclusively on 

prohibited or negative behaviors. 

y Establish multiple channels for handling harassment, and ensure that employees are knowledgeable 

regarding those options, as well as the requirements of each, such as 45 days from the date of the 

alleged discriminatory act to initiate contact with an EEO counselor to preserve one’s rights to file 

a formal EEO complaint, even after pursuing alternative methods of resolution.118 Ideally, those 

channels will collectively cover a full range of issues, and provide differing levels of formality and 

means of resolution. Once aware of harassment, agencies should promptly start the management 

investigation process. However, they should simultaneously notify employees of the 45-day 

deadline to seek EEO counseling through the agency’s EEO program since these two processes 

may take place concurrently.119

y Ensure through policies and procedures that prompt and remedial action is taken when sexual 

harassment is reported. Agencies should not rely on the formal EEO complaint process before 

initiating management investigations or taking appropriate remedial actions.

y Provide appropriate training for those undertaking sexual harassment investigations.

y Encourage targets of harassment to report these behaviors and provide the support that they need 

throughout the process.

y Communicate cultural support for employees serving as allies in maintaining a healthy work 

environment and taking actions to report and stop sexual harassment.

Education

For agency leaders— 

y Establish expectations for employee conduct through mandatory training as well as via direct 

communications regarding the intended work culture.

For Federal agencies—

y Provide timely training to all Federal employees (including interns and contract employees) on 

their rights and their responsibilities to foster a productive and professional workplace for all—one 

that is free of discrimination, harassment, and misconduct.

y Provide notice of basic policies and rights to employees on or immediately following entry on 

duty (EOD)—“first day of the job.” That notice should outline what to do if sexual harassment is 

observed or experienced.

y Provide basic information about agency policy (e.g., non-tolerance of sexual harassment and 

discrimination) and standards of conduct (e.g., expectations for behavior) to other individuals 

present in the workplace, such as contractors and visitors, to the extent practicable.

118 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal EEO Complaint Processing Procedures, https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/federal-eeocomplaint-processing-procedures.

119 EEOC, Federal EEO Complaint Processing Procedures, https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/federal-eeo-complaint-processing-procedures
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 45

Conclusions and Recommendations

y Develop training materials and requirements that address the responsibility of Federal supervisors, 

managers, and executives to prevent and address any form of harassment. Whenever possible, basic 

information, such as agency policy, should be provided before an employee assumes supervisory 

authority.

y Provide employees with training that prepares them to act or speak to stop potential sexual 

harassment. Such training should address employees as both potential targets of harassment and 

as potential observers of harassment. Prompt action from observers (“bystanders”) can be highly 

effective in stopping harassment and preventing escalation.120,121

y Tailor training content, frequency, and delivery to an organization’s particular circumstances, 

including evidence and indicators about the prevalence and nature of sexual harassment. 

For example, an agency with a higher rate of sexual harassment may need greater investment 

in training, and more frequent and forceful messages about agency policy and employee 

accountability.

y Evaluate the effectiveness of sexual harassment prevention training—not only in terms of 

increasing employee knowledge, but also in terms of organizational outcomes, such as the 

prevalence of sexual harassment.

Because sexual harassment is a sensitive topic, and because changing behavior is harder than merely conveying 

knowledge, all agencies should be thoughtful about training methods, tone, and training sources and 

instructors. Finally, training requirements in this area mandate training that is both frequent and widespread. 

That may encourage agencies to reuse prior training material or courses to avoid investing additional time 

in developing refreshed training. However, this may have undesired consequences, which can include dated 

or inaccurate content, employee inattention, and employee belief that the organization does not take sexual 

harassment seriously.

Accountability

To foster a workplace free of harassment, anti-harassment programs and education initiatives must be 

supported and reinforced by accountability. As discussed, the results of this study indicate that the vast 

majority of Federal employees know that their agencies have policies prohibiting sexual harassment and offer 

formal procedures for reporting it. However, this knowledge has not translated into universal confidence that 

their employer will actually hold harassers accountable. From a broader perspective, employee uncertainty also 

suggests that agencies have not truly held themselves accountable for living up to their professed standards 

and policies. Actions to strengthen organizational and individual accountability include the following:

For Federal leaders—

y Serve as a role model for respectful treatment of others.

y Promptly address inappropriate behavior rather than waiting for harassment to escalate.

y Respond swiftly and appropriately to substantiated allegations of misconduct—even if they do 

not meet the stringent legal standards that are required to support a formal charge of sexual 

harassment.

y Acquire and evaluate data on the scope and nature of sexual harassment within the agency, to 

make informed choices about how to best prevent and address harassment.

120 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. 121 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Federal #MeToo: Examining Sexual Harassment in Government Workplaces, Briefing Report, April 2020, pp. 139-141.
46 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Conclusions and Recommendations

For Federal agencies—

y Hire, promote, and reward or discipline supervisors, managers, and other agency leaders on the 

basis of criteria that evaluate the ability to (1) manage people fairly and effectively and (2) foster a 

positive workplace that is free of harassment and discrimination.

y Demand that supervisors and managers serve as role models, in both their personal conduct and 

holding others accountable. The obligations of supervisors and managers include taking action 

when harassment is observed or reported, and refraining from retaliation (or the appearance of 

retaliation) against any employee who raises concerns about harassment or participates in a formal 

complaint process.

y Investigate and address allegations of sexual harassment fairly and promptly. Timely investigations 

are important to (1) prevent further harm; (2) provide a foundation for corrective action; 

(3) communicate that the agency is taking the matter seriously; and (4) deter future misconduct. 

Therefore, agencies should expeditiously initiate management investigations and take appropriate 

corrective actions rather than rely on the formal EEO complaint process to address sexual 

harassment.

y Base corrective action, including discipline for harassers, on the seriousness of the misconduct and 

the interests of the target(s) and the agency. Although there is a high legal standard (e.g., severe 

or pervasive) for the finding of sexual harassment through the EEO process, an agency is not 

constrained to this legal criterion in order to take action. Using a different criterion (for example, 

“inappropriate conduct”) allows an agency to quickly and forcefully address less serious sexual 

harassment behaviors before they become unlawful.122 It also empowers managers to act and stop 

behaviors that are inappropriate.

y Exercise transparency through their timely reporting and posting of accurate agency statistics.

For Federal employees—

y Ensure that all behavior is appropriate for the workplace.

y Consider options to stop any harassment that is experienced or observed.

Pursuing a multi-pronged strategy, as outlined above, will help agencies eliminate (or at least greatly 

reduce) sexual harassment in the Federal workplace. The result will be a more positive and productive work 

environment for all employees, and one that is better able to accomplish the organization’s vital missions.

122 However, agencies should exercise caution and avoid using a lesser charge for behavior that meets the definition of sexual harassment because this may: 

(1) mask problems with sexual harassment within an agency, (2) dilute a potential penalty by proposing a charge that carries a lesser range of penalties than a 

“sexual harassment” charge might, and (3) prevent agencies from providing appropriate remedial action to the target of the harassment. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 47

Supplement to the Recommendations: 

Implementing Practices and Issues

As discussed previously, eradicating sexual harassment requires agencies to address three broad areas: policy and 

practice, education, and accountability. This section discusses the aspects listed below in greater depth, outlining 

approaches that may be particularly effective and implementation issues to consider.123

Policy and Practice

y Multiple Channels for Reporting and Addressing Harassment

y Content of Agency Policies

y Distribution of Agency Policies—Timing

y Distribution of Agency Policies—Channels and Media

Education

y Who Should Receive Information and/or Training?

y Timing—When Should Training be Provided?

y Content—What Training Should be Provided?

Accountability

y Leadership and Culture

y Investigation, Employee Protection, and Corrective Action

y Measuring Prevalence—Assessing the Level of Sexual Harassment

y Practicing Transparency

Policies and Practices: Multiple Channels for Reporting and Addressing Harassment

Sexual harassment encompasses a wide range of behaviors and experiences. Both employees and agencies are best 

served if there are ways to report and stop these behaviors, including those that might not meet the high legal 

standard for sexual harassment, before they escalate. Informal or mediated processes can be utilized to resolve 

workplace conflicts more quickly and flexibly than a formal, adversarial process.124 Also, employees’ levels of 

trust and comfort may differ across processes and offices or officials. For these reasons, agencies should provide 

multiple channels for employees to report harassment, which have varying levels of formality, anonymity, 

and confidentiality. The most appropriate channel(s) may vary according to the nature of the harassment, but 

include—

y Direct reporting to the supervisor or a higher-level manager; 

y Anonymous reporting (e.g., through a hotline); 

123 For EEOC’s perspective on recommendations for preventing and correcting harassment, readers may also want to review 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-preventingharassment. 124 Nevertheless, agencies must ensure that all employees are aware of the necessity to contact an EEO counselor “within 45 days of the matter alleged 

to be discriminatory” even if they plan to pursue an alternative to the formal EEO complaint process. https://www.eeoc.gov/publications/federal-eeocomplaintprocessing-procedures.
48 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

y Alternative dispute resolution (e.g., an ombuds program);

y An anti-harassment program; and 

y The EEO complaint process.

Next, we discuss selected issues and implementing practices for some of these channels.

Direct Reporting—Issues and Limitations

Direct reporting can be convenient and comfortable for the employee (assuming they trust the supervisor 

or manager) and can empower the people closest to the problem to assess and solve it. However, the EEOC 

requires an alternative to the supervisor as the recipient of complaints of harassment125 since this could 

compromise the perceived or actual thoroughness or objectivity of the investigation, for reasons such as—

y Potential for conflict of interest. First, when the alleged harasser is in the employee’s chain of 

command, requiring the employee to report through their supervisor clearly presents an untenable 

situation.126 Second, if the alleged harasser is a supervisor elsewhere in the organization, employees 

may assume that people in the supervisory chain will support each other, regardless of the facts or 

the nature of the misconduct. Third, even when the alleged harasser is an employee of the same 

organization, the supervisor may have (or be seen as having) a vested interest in protecting or 

supporting that person.

y Capacity to conduct an investigation. Even if there is no apparent conflict of interest, a supervisor 

may lack the time, authority, or skills (such as interpersonal skills and conflict resolution) needed 

to conduct a thorough and objective investigation.

y Confidentiality and trust. An employee who knows that the allegation will be discussed within the 

chain of command may elect to remain silent or leave, rather than report the harassment and risk 

inaction or retaliation, unless the employee trusts that the issue will be handled fairly and with an 

appropriate level of sensitivity.127

For these reasons, EEOC policy requires that agencies provide (and permit employees to use) a channel other 

than direct reporting. A few alternatives, which offer differing levels of confidentiality and intended paths 

of resolution, are outlined below. Generally, an employee remains free to elevate the problem (e.g., pursue 

a formal complaint) if the issue is not resolved informally. However, as discussed earlier in this report, the 

formal EEO complaint process can be lengthy and screen out all but the most egregious cases. As a result, 

agencies should ensure that employees have—and are aware of—intermediate options for ending harassment.

Alternatives for Direct Reporting and Formal Complaints

Table 15 describes the typical design features of some channels that agencies utilize to resolve harassment.

125 EEOC, Enforcement Guidance on Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors. EEOC Notice 

915-002. June 18, 1999. Section V(C)(1)(c)(1).

126 EEOC, Model EEO Programs Must Have an Effective Anti-Harassment Program, https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/model_eeo_programs.cfm, retrieved 

August 3, 2017.

127 Trust may be a particular concern among women. Women are more likely than men to be targets of sexual harassment, but in most organizations, they are 

underrepresented in supervisory positions. In practice, then, a man will often be charged with investigating the alleged harassment of a woman by a man—and 

women might question whether the complaint will be taken seriously.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 49

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Table 15. Purpose and Features of Selected Channels to Resolve Harassment

Channel/Program Purpose Typical Features and Considerations

Hotline

Allow employees to 

report harassment 

anonymously or 

confidentially

y May allow reporting information without divulging 

identity y May be staffed by agency employees or contractor (for 

efficiency or confidentiality)

Ombuds

Enable employees 

to raise and resolve 

workplace issues 

before they escalate 

or lead to a formal 

complaint

y Part of an agency alternative dispute resolution (ADR) 

program

y Less formal and more flexible than compliant or grievance 

processes

y Separate from the EEO office/function, to preserve 

independence and confidentiality

y Ombuds staff objectively review circumstances and issues 

and attempt to mediate a solution

Anti-harassment 

Program

Stop harassing 

behaviors without 

engaging the formal 

EEO complaint 

process and the 

corresponding 

stringent criteria

y Identified by EEOC as a critical component of a model 

workplace program

y Intended to eliminate harassing conduct on all legally 

protected bases (not just sex) and before it can become 

“severe or pervasive”

y Location and structure vary; may be managed inside or 

outside the EEO office, but if within EEO needs to be 

walled off from the formal complaint process y Can support accountability (e.g., investigation could 

recommend or provide a basis for disciplinary action for 

the harasser)

Policies and Practices: Content of Agency Policies

As discussed in the report, employee awareness of the existence of agency policies and procedures appears 

greater than their specific knowledge and their comfort with using formal mechanisms. Such shortfalls in 

specific knowledge and comfort contribute to the avoidable escalation of workplace conflicts arising from 

harassment. Selected measures to expand the reach and utilization of formal policies are presented below.

y Establish a model anti-harassment program that provides for early intervention and informal 

resolution of problems, such as an impartial ombuds, to complement more formal processes. Also, 

EEOC guidance128 states that “anti-harassment policy and complaint procedures should contain, 

at a minimum, the following elements:

— A clear explanation of prohibited conduct;

— Assurance that employees who make claims of harassment or provide information related to 

such claims will be protected against retaliation;

— A clearly described complaint process that provides accessible avenues for complainants;

— Assurance that (the) employer will protect the confidentiality of the individuals bringing 

harassment claims to the extent possible;

— A complaint process that provides a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation; and

— Assurance that the employer will take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it 

determines that harassment has occurred.”

128 EEOC, Model EEO Programs Must Have an Effective Anti-Harassment Program, https://www.eeoc.gov/federal/model_eeo_programs.cfm, retrieved August 3, 

2017. 
50 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

y If the agency sexual harassment policy is long and complex, consider developing a primary 

policy document that provides essential information concisely, complemented by more detailed 

documents for reference and further reading.

y Ensure that agency policy documents provide comprehensive information addressing both 

workplace behavior (e.g., what constitutes sexual harassment) and selected response actions, such 

as how to file a complaint and how to be an ally to support the target of harassment.

y A general, compliance-oriented anti-harassment policy may provide insufficient information on 

sexual harassment prevention. Agencies with high rates of sexual harassment, or other challenges, 

may benefit from more focused attention to sexual harassment in policy documents—and in 

employee education, both general (e.g., orientation) and focused (e.g., antidiscrimination).

Policies and Practices: Distribution of Agency Policies—Timing

The baseline practice required to comply with the No FEAR Act is annual distribution of applicable antiharassment policies, as well as notice to new employees within 90 days of entry on duty. Supplementing 

that schedule with distribution at additional times, to specific populations, can promote more timely and 

thorough understanding of the policy, set the tone for employee behavior and the broader work environment, 

reinforce agency and leadership expectations for professional conduct and a harassment-free workplace, and 

improve employee recall of (and ability to locate) agency policies and their content. Some possible practices to 

consider along these lines are listed below.

Distribution from Leadership

y Distribute the annual notice through a personal communication from the head of the agency, local 

director, and/or other leader(s).

y Redistribute the policy immediately following a change in leadership, to emphasize both 

continuity (e.g., for high standards of conduct) and the personal commitment of the new leader.

Distribution to Agency Employees

y Distribute the policy at entry on duty and upon any major change in role or responsibility.

y Distribute and discuss the policy during onboarding or orientation, assuring that those activities 

are conducted timely. If this orientation process is frequently delayed, communicate essential 

information immediately through other means.

y Phase the distribution and discussion of agency policies, covering “essential to know” basics 

immediately and providing more detailed information later.

y Establish and enforce deadlines for when employees receive (and acknowledge) policies and other 

important documents, communications or training.

y Make policies and supporting material accessible through other means (e.g., website, portal or 

document repository) so that information is available on demand.

Distribution to New Supervisors

Because supervisors exercise personnel authority and have heightened responsibility for preventing and 

responding to harassment and other forms of discrimination, they should receive particular attention. 

y Require newly-selected supervisors to review agency policies before assuming supervisory 

responsibilities.

y Require supervisors and managers to acknowledge receipt and understanding of agency policies at 

entry on duty.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 51

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

y Discuss agency policies and associated supervisory responsibilities in appropriate depth during 

supervisory orientation and training.

Policies and Practices: Distribution of Agency Policies—Channels and Media

As noted previously, an annual distribution of policies and materials does not guarantee that employees 

have sufficient information or understanding to guide their day-to-day conduct, or to respond (as a target 

or observer) to an instance of harassment. Below are some ways to reinforce agency policy, refresh employee 

knowledge, and make information available when an employee is most ready for it, or most needs it.

y Demonstrate top level commitment as the agency head distributes an annual message in support 

of expectations for behavior, as well as methods for resolving harassment. This message may be 

communicated through the means which is most suited to the speaker, such as email, memo or 

speech, but the critical point is to demonstrate personal buy in.

y Send email messages periodically or as linked with other events. Agency program offices or 

experts, such as EEO/Civil Rights Offices and Human Resources Offices, should distribute 

periodic or event-driven messages. For example, the EEO Director could send an all-employee 

email that provides additional information regarding rights and remedies for harassment. These 

communications can also remind employees of the location of reference materials and other 

resources.

y Utilize training opportunities for transitions (e.g., training provided to newly promoted 

supervisors) and incorporate information regarding increased responsibilities for preventing and 

addressing harassment.

y Provide policies, guidelines, and reference materials in multiple formats, through multiple media 

(e.g., paper memorandum, bulletin boards, agency portal or intranet) to ensure widespread access 

in a timely manner.

Education: Who Should Receive Information and/or Training?

As illustrated by results from the MPS 2016, anyone in the workplace may be a target—or perpetrator—of 

harassment. Therefore, agencies should provide information and training to all individuals who are in the 

workplace.129 Education should be keyed to roles and risks. Table 16 provides an example of this approach, 

illustrating how the scope and depth of information and training should increase as presence in the workplace 

and responsibilities increase.

129 However, agencies should keep in mind that those who have experienced sexual harassment (or other forms of abuse) may find this training to be 

triggering. Therefore, accommodations should be made to provide a professional, more individualized alternative in this situation.
52 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Table 16. Trainees and Content of Training

Who (Role and Examples) What

Visitors and customers

Examples: members of the public seeking information, 

employees of other organizations (e.g., delivering goods), 

building staff performing maintenance, individuals 

meeting agency employees, individuals receiving agency 

services.

y Basic expectations for conduct y Federal Government non-tolerance of sexual 

harassment

Interns and contractors

Examples: paid or unpaid interns, contractors who are 

employees of another organization under contract with 

the government.

As above, plus–

y Individual rights and responsibilities

Nonsupervisory employees

As above, plus–

y Agency policy

y Specific expectations for conduct y Complaint processes y Expectations and actions as observer of sexual 

harassment

Supervisors and officials

As above, plus–

y Responsibility for preventing harassment and 

communicating and enforcing agency policy

y Responsibility for monitoring employee 

conduct and workplace interactions

y Responsibility to intervene and report when 

harassment is observed

y Responsibility for receiving and acting on 

complaints

y Requirements for constructive response and 

non retaliation

Managers and executives

As above, plus–

y Responsibility for holding subordinate 

supervisors accountable for their actions, and 

to a higher standard, due to the nature of their 

responsibilities y Responsibility for reviewing and acting upon 

analyses regarding the prevalence of harassing 

behaviors and other forms of discrimination

Education: Timing—When Should Training be Provided?

Like communication of agency policies and procedures, it is most effective and efficient to provide training on 

both an event-driven and periodic (recurring) basis. Training schedules and cycles should be informed by both 

the employee’s need and readiness for information and the particular needs and circumstances of the agency 

(e.g., the prevalence or nature of sexual harassment). Table 17 illustrates important stages of employment and 

the type and depth of training that may be appropriate to that stage.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 53

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Event-Driven Training

Table 17. Events and Corresponding Training

Stage/Event Training

Pre-Hire (during 

the recruitment and 

selection process)

EEO Policy states the Federal Government’s stand against discrimination. 

Expectations for employees’ behavior could be added. Further, the selection 

process may consider evidence contrary to these expectations. Notice of a 

harassment-free workplace can serve to attract new hires who are seeking a work 

environment that fosters diversity, equity and inclusion, while also screening out 

potential harassers.

Initial hire (entry on 

duty-EOD)

Basic, integrated into employee orientation or provided shortly after EOD. 

The training provides an introduction to agency policies and procedures and 

provides contacts or resources in the event the employee experiences or observes 

harassment.

Onboarding (weeks 

following EOD)130

Same areas as covered at EOD, with more thorough treatment of— y Agency policy and procedures y Behaviors that constitute sexual harassment y Expectations for behavior and conduct

y Appropriate actions in response to experiencing or observing harassment

Periodic training

Designed to provide more advanced skills and to serve as a refresher for earlier 

training.

Examples might include:

y Bystander training y Respectful workplace

Change in role— 

placement in 

supervisory or 

leadership position

Prior to moving into a role of greater responsibility, the employee should be 

educated on and acknowledge their greater responsibilities as a supervisor, 

manager, or executive. 

Training should be provided for supervisors and other officials, as outlined in the 

prior section, Education: Who Should Be Trained?

If supervisory training is periodic, agencies should take measures to ensure that the 

new supervisor receives policy documents and is “on notice” about expectations for 

personal conduct and preventing and responding to harassment.

However, there are other factors that should drive the timing and frequency of training. As one example, 

a team that has experienced or observed sexual harassment may require immediate attention to provide 

guidance for moving forward. Or at the organizational level, an agency with higher than average sexual 

harassment rates may need more frequent training to recalibrate expectations for behavior.

130 In some organizations, orientation or onboarding is an infrequent event that may occur long after EOD. If that is the case, essential information should be 

provided directly to the employee on or immediately following EOD, rather than waiting for an orientation in the distant or uncertain future.
54 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Recurring Training

As discussed previously, the No FEAR Act (5 C.F.R. §724.202 and §724.203) covers discrimination on all 

legally protected bases, as well as protection for whistleblowers, and requires agencies:

1. To issue a notice regarding their rights and remedies under antidiscrimination laws and whistleblower 

protection laws to all employees

a. within 90 days of EOD and 

b. annually thereafter;

2. To provide training on this topic to employees

a. within 90 days of EOD and

b. at a minimum of every two years.

As compared to the event-driven training discussed in the prior section, the recurring training covered by the 

No FEAR Act serves as a minimum for the training requirement. However, agencies should remember that 

this training serves purposes beyond compliance, and that there may be good reason to provide training with 

greater frequency, or greater depth, than is dictated by law or regulation because the benefits may outweigh 

the costs. For example, an agency may see indications (such as a high or increased incidence of sexual 

harassment, or a particularly serious incident) that an immediate reminder of agency policy (and expected 

behavior) is needed. We also note that reminders or refreshers that are more frequent than required can 

signal leadership seriousness about maintaining an environment free of harassment, and remind employees to 

monitor their own words and actions. Restated, agencies should draw a distinction between “as required” and 

“as needed” and aim for the higher levels to improve the work environment for all.

Education: Content—What Training Should be Provided?

Below are some suggestions regarding how to provide and deliver substantive and effective training on sexual 

harassment. Information provided by agencies suggests that most training related to sexual harassment 

is compliance-driven (e.g., designed to meet the nominal requirements of the No FEAR Act), brief, and 

(consequently) of limited depth, although there were some exceptions.

The general principle is that the depth, format, and length of training should be matched to organizational 

and employee needs related to sexual harassment prevention and response. Those needs will be informed 

by employees’ existing levels of knowledge and their conduct in the workplace. For example, less-intensive 

education may be sufficient in an organization with only very limited sexual harassment, while an 

organization with higher levels (or serious incidents) will need to do much more.

Additionally, although agencies may be inclined to gain efficiencies by repeating the same material with each 

training cycle, they should review the training each time to ensure the content remains current. Failing to do 

this can perpetuate out-of-date information, while also conveying that the organization does not view this as a 

priority. Further, employees are more likely to provide only cursory attention to information that they believe 

they have seen before, even if they do not accurately remember the specific content.

Some agencies provide very realistic content for their training by drawing upon examples of harassment that 

occurred within the agency. These scenarios provide a realistic situation that the employees can relate to and 

better understand what types of behaviors that they should avoid, what they should do if they observe them, 

and perhaps even the consequences for those involved in similar conduct.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 55

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Purposes of Training

Training on sexual harassment can serve one, several, or all of the following purposes:

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

2. 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;

3. Notice—establishing a record, for purposes of compliance or accountability, that an individual has 

been provided with certain materials or information;

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

employee conduct and the work environment;

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

sexual harassment and how to respond to sexual harassment.

As noted above, most training on sexual harassment appears to focus on the first three purposes. Those 

purposes are important, but given that sexual harassment still occurs at an unacceptable frequency, it is clear 

that both culture and behavior also need attention. Similarly, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the training 

should go beyond a “check the box” exercise. As discussed later, measurement should be driven by the training 

objectives, which should include changing outcomes in the workplace.

Topics of Training

Sexual harassment prevention training should likely include topics such as: 

y A personal statement of the agency leader’s commitment to a workplace free of discrimination and 

support for acting to report and respond to harassment;

y An understandable definition of sexual harassment, including examples of behaviors that may 

constitute sexual harassment;

y The rights and responsibilities of an employee who experiences or observes sexual harassment; 

y An overview of the actions and channels that can resolve situations involving sexual harassment, 

both informal and formal, and how to identify those actions that might be most appropriate and 

effective;

y A clear explanation of steps and requirements (e.g., forms and filing deadlines) for formal 

processes, such as the EEO complaint process;

y Assurance that employees who make claims of harassment or provide information related to such 

claims will be protected against retaliation;

y A discussion of the range of consequences for committing sexual harassment, to deter sexual 

harassment.

Below, we discuss one type of training that may warrant attention, and four issues (format and delivery, tone, 

sources and instructors, and evaluation) that can make the difference between training that is effective and 

training that is ineffective or counterproductive.
56 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Bystander Training—Helping Employees Respond to Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment can be addressed more quickly and effectively when employees know what they can 

usefully do when they experience or observe sexual harassment—and when they are confident that their 

actions can make a positive difference and will not lead to retaliation or other repercussions.

In this vein, EEOC has designed two training courses, “Leading for Respect” and “Respect in the Workplace,” 

that are designed to help supervisors and managers (and others) actively assist a target of harassment.131

Training of this type is often described as “bystander” training because it focuses on individuals who observe 

harassment. However, the objective is to encourage those individuals not to stand by, but to act to stop the 

misconduct.

Issue—Training Format and Delivery

The scarcity of funds and employee time may pressure agencies to address mandates, such as No FEAR 

Act training, as quickly and efficiently as possible. That may lead to training material that is standardized 

and delivery mechanisms that are automated. Although that approach is seemingly efficient, it may not be 

effective. Training that is designed (and intended) only to “check the box” is unlikely to change behavior, or 

to materially reduce the incidence and costs of sexual harassment. Below, we discuss some training formats 

that may be more effective in achieving those more ambitious goals, which require training that is designed 

and delivered to engage employees’ full attention—and to make employees active participants in their own 

education.

y Instructor-led seminars. Training led by a knowledgeable and thoughtful instructor has particular 

value for sensitive topics. The instructor can make employees more comfortable with discussing 

difficult issues and asking questions—and can provide answers that are both authoritative 

(“correct”) and responsive. Employees may also be more likely to follow and retain information 

presented in person, compared to reading a written policy or clicking through a slide presentation. 

y Scenarios. Video vignettes or written case studies derived from actual cases or complaints 

(anonymized to protect individual privacy) can help employees connect abstract policies and 

principles to realistic situations. Using scenarios, trainers can diagnose and discuss what went 

wrong and what should have happened. Scenarios can also incorporate consequences. For example, 

concluding with a postscript on “What happened to the harasser?” can reinforce the message that 

employees who engage in harassment will be held accountable. 

y Role-playing exercises. Role-playing provides employees with low-risk opportunities to practice or 

consider how they might respond, either as a target or observer of sexual harassment. Realism is 

key— the situations in such an exercise must be ones that an employee might plausibly encounter. 

This means that exercises should cover subtle forms of harassment, and not be limited to egregious 

and obvious forms. Otherwise, employees might be misled to define sexual harassment too 

narrowly (believing that sexual harassment is limited to the most extreme behaviors) or be illprepared to respond to subtler (but still inappropriate) behaviors.

Issue—Tone of Training

The tone and methods of training should be appropriate to the subject. Because sexual harassment is a serious 

matter—and something that many employees will have personally experienced—agencies should be extremely 

cautious about the use of humor or levity, either to engage employees or lighten the atmosphere. Such use 

may convey the impression that management is insensitive or does not take sexual harassment seriously.

131 See EEOC Launches New Training Program on Respectful Workplaces, EEOC Press Release dated October 4, 2017, https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/ 

eeoc-launches-new-training-program-respectful-workplaces, downloaded 5/12/2022.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 57

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Issue—Sources and Instructors

Greater attention to sexual harassment has resulted in a proliferation of organizations and individuals who 

offer to develop or deliver training. The quality and cost of the training and the instructors can vary widely. 

We recognize that agencies may lack the capacity or funds to develop or deliver high-quality training to 

all employees. That may necessitate reliance on external providers, and it can be difficult for agencies to 

objectively evaluate the quality and cost-effectiveness of the training and trainers. Nevertheless, agencies 

that outsource any aspect of training must be prepared to describe their needs clearly and evaluate proposals 

carefully. An inter-agency collaboration might help the Federal Government develop affordable, high-quality 

training, by pooling resources and expertise and achieving economies of scale. Even then, every Federal 

agency will need to identify its particular needs, ensure that they are fully addressed, and take steps to provide 

employees with important agency-specific information (such as procedures or points of contact).

Issue—Training Evaluation

As discussed, training can have several purposes, and can vary in quality. Evaluation is essential for 

organizations to know how well training is working and consider how it might be improved.

A best practice in the learning and development community is to evaluate training at the most sophisticated 

level possible.132 For sexual harassment training, those levels (in ascending order) can be described, and could 

be implemented, as follows:

1. Do employees like the training (e.g., how do employees rate the training and the instructor’s 

knowledge)?

2. Do employees have greater knowledge after the training (e.g., measured via a pre-test and post-test)?

3. Did workplace behaviors actually change (e.g., was there a decreased incidence of sexual harassment 

behaviors as measured through employee surveys, or indicated by reporting mechanisms)?

4. Did other measures of a positive workplace culture improve (e.g., decreased turnover, more positive 

responses to survey items regarding feeling respected, increased productivity)?

Issue—Reusing Training Content or Courses

Agencies should be cautious about reusing training courses or modules. Efficiency, consistency, and quality 

are important, and those considerations can make it tempting to repeat prior training. However, reuse 

also presents some risks. First, reuse without review can result in employees receiving information that is 

inaccurate or dated. Second, it can convey organizational indifference to both the subject and to employees, 

by implying that the organization does not care if the training is current or compelling. Finally, it can 

compromise learning, because employees are more likely to “tune out” information that they have already 

seen.

Accountability—Leadership and Culture

Senior Leadership Role and Actions

Top leadership sets the tone, for both individual conduct and organizational expectations and norms. 

Leadership actions that promote an inclusive, respectful organizational culture and non-tolerance of 

discrimination and harassment include—

y Sign—and, to the extent practical, personalize—policy statements and official communications to 

indicate personal commitment to agency policy;

132 Kirkpatrick D.L. (1976). Evaluation of training. In R.L. Craig (Ed.), Training and development handbook: A guide to human resource development. New York: 

McGraw Hill.
58 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

y Treat employees at all levels, from direct reports to front-line employees, with courtesy and respect 

(i.e., be a role model);

y Require direct reports to treat their subordinates with respect, and hold them accountable if they 

do not;

y Seek opportunities to personally engage with employees, both one-on-one and in groups (e.g., 

town hall meetings);

y Take prompt action when harassment is observed or reported;

y Seek and review evidence on the incidence of harassment and progress toward an inclusive, 

discrimination-free workplace;

y Respond calmly and constructively to allegations of harassment (e.g., a formal complaint) and 

to information that is possible evidence of harassment or broader problems (e.g., higher attrition 

rates for women);

y Emphasize to subordinate managers that retaliation for reporting harassment, whether formally or 

informally, is both illegal and inappropriate.

Fostering a Culture of Accountability

Supervisors and managers are central to a workplace free of harassment and discrimination, both as officials 

responsible for preventing and responding to instances of harassment and as carriers and examples of the 

organization’s values. Supervisors and managers should be selected, trained, and rewarded or disciplined with 

this in mind. Specific actions that agency leaders can take to implement this general practice include—

y Hiring and promoting supervisors and managers on their demonstrated ability to manage people 

effectively and create a positive work environment;

y Clearly communicate expectations for personal conduct and official responsibility, and provide 

supervisors and managers with the training and support needed to meet their responsibilities; and

y Taking appropriate action, which may range from discipline to removal, on a supervisor or 

manager who commits or fails to act on harassment.

Accountability—Investigation, Employee Protection, and Corrective Action

This section discusses three related aspects of accountability: investigation (determining and documenting 

what has occurred), protecting individuals who report harassment, and corrective action (both to make whole 

individuals who experienced harassment, and to hold accountable individuals who committed harassment or 

failed to respond appropriately).

Issue—Timely, Thorough, and Objective Investigations

Organizations should promptly investigate allegations of sexual harassment—regardless of the position or 

level of the person who alleges harassment, or the position or level of the individual(s) accused of harassment. 

A timely and sound investigation provides a factual foundation for the organization to (1) stop further 

harassment; (2) provide relief to the target; (3) act on any misconduct (e.g., initiate disciplinary action);

(4) deter retaliation and future incidents of harassment.

As discussed previously, EEO complaints can take considerable time to investigate, and findings may be 

framed in terms of Title VII definitions and standards. For those reasons, agencies should not rely on the 

EEO process to initiate or support corrective action, for either complainants or harassers. That may mean 

allowing organizations to propose and take personnel actions on the basis of actions not labeled or framed in 

terms of Title VII.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 59

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Issue—Protecting Employees Against Retaliation

Retaliating against an employee who resists or reports sexual harassment is illegal, both as a violation of

Title VII and a prohibited personnel practice. It is also ill-advised, because it discourages employees from 

raising important issues and contributes to an unproductive and unhealthy work environment. As shown 

earlier in Figure 2, employees believe that retaliation occurs all too often. Moreover, the survey results suggest 

that agency responses to harassment sometimes disadvantage the target, even if that was not intended.

y Measures that can prevent intentional retaliation include the following—

y Educate supervisors and managers about the prohibitions against retaliation.

y Communicate—and enforce—an expectation that supervisors and managers will refrain from 

retaliation.

y Proceed with care in situations that present an increased risk of actual or perceived retaliation.

Two situations that may pose such a risk are discussed below.

y Situation: the alleged harasser is the target’s supervisor or higher-level manager. Here, useful steps 

may include counseling those in the supervisory chain (including the alleged harasser) about 

refraining from retaliation and avoiding actions that might create the appearance of retaliation. 

In some situations, it may be best to insulate the employee from working directly with the alleged 

harasser (if the employee requests or agrees to this measure). That might be accomplished through 

temporary or permanent reassignment to another supervisor. Another option is to reassign the 

alleged harasser, or to remove supervisory duties, during the investigation. Such reassignment 

would both protect the target from retaliation and limit the opportunity to influence or intimidate 

potential witnesses.

y Situation: the alleged harasser is the target’s coworker or peer. Here, one concern is equity—whether 

the supervisor can or will treat the affected employees fairly, particularly the target. Another 

concern is managing relationships and morale within the work unit. Possible actions include 

separating the employees during the investigation. That separation can be accomplished through 

changing work assignments, work sites, or work locations of either the alleged harasser or the 

target, if and only if the target is agreeable to the changes pertaining to them, lest this be viewed as 

retaliation. Some agencies appear to use telework, as an option for the target to consider, both to 

provide this separation as well as a respite from an uncomfortable work environment.

In either situation, the objectives are to provide relief, to avoid disadvantaging the target, and to avoid actual 

or perceived retaliation. The target’s interests and preferences are relevant to all these objectives.

Issue—Responding to Substantiated Harassment

Information from agencies and previous research identifies some issues to consider when determining how the 

agency will respond to harassment, both generally and in specific instances.

y Guidelines for disciplinary action. Some agencies have developed policies regarding how to 

respond to specific types of substantiated harassment. These policies may include a table of 

offenses and penalties, which feature a range of possible actions keyed to particular offenses and/

or situations. Several organizations indicated that they have such a table and believe that it clarifies 

expectations and consequences, and facilitates fair and proportionate discipline for all employees, 

regardless of who they are.133 However, such standardization also has possible disadvantages.134One 

is that the table might be read, by officials or third parties, to limit flexibility and the ability to 

impose appropriate discipline by forbidding any action not specified in the table. 133 A report by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review of the Handling of Sexual Harassment and Misconduct Allegations by the 

Department’s Civil Division, Evaluation and Inspections Division, 17-03, published May 2017, provides a discussion of this on pp. 16-19. 134 U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2018). Federal Employee Misconduct: Actions Needed to Ensure Agencies Have Tools to Effectively Address Misconduct, GAO18-48, https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693133.pdf.
60 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

y “Zero tolerance” policies. Some agency EEO representatives advocate a “zero tolerance” policy and 

an associated tables of offenses and penalties to guide its implementation. Agencies considering 

such a policy should be clear to themselves, and to employees and stakeholders, about what “zero 

tolerance” means. “Zero tolerance” is often interpreted as harsh repercussions, such as removal, 

for any offense. But zero tolerance may describe a broader principle: that a disciplinary action 

(selected from a range of permissible actions) be taken in response to substantiated harassment. 

This form of zero tolerance may encourage a proportionate yet consistent response to incidents 

of harassment, while reinforcing to employees that action will be taken. However, there may be 

an inherent risk in any form of zero tolerance: it may discourage employees from reporting sexual 

harassment if they believe they will be blamed for the harasser’s punishment.

y Selecting and documenting disciplinary action. After receiving the findings of an investigation or 

inquiry, the supervisor (or other deciding official) should exercise careful judgment to determine 

what level of response is warranted. Given that the range can be extensive—from a verbal warning 

to removal, the supervisor should document the reasons for the discipline chosen and ensure that 

the employee who committed the harassment is aware of the consequences of any subsequent 

harassing behaviors.

Accountability: Measuring Prevalence—Assessing the Level of Sexual Harassment

Measurement and analysis are essential components of organizational accountability. Data and measures can 

help agencies gauge progress, identify strengths and vulnerabilities, and take actions to strengthen culture, 

prevention, or response. Use of a variety of data sources can provide a clearer and fuller understanding of 

agency progress in eliminating sexual harassment. Different data sources can provide different perspectives 

and pose distinctive challenges. Below, we discuss two types of data and issues in data collection and use.

Complaint Data

Information from EEO complaints can provide useful information on patterns, trends, and investigation 

and resolution processes. However, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of number of EEO complaints 

and upward or downward changes in that number.135 Consequently, complaint data alone cannot provide a 

reliable measure of the prevalence of sexual harassment.136

Survey Data

Survey data can provide a broad-based and reliable measure of employee experience for which there is no 

good substitute. However, there are several issues that agencies must consider and address when surveying 

employees on a sensitive subject such as sexual harassment.

y Confidentiality, data collection, and data use. Employees will be reluctant to provide truthful 

responses if they fear retaliation or exposure. That reluctance can be heightened when data 

collection or analysis might identify a respondent, such as when an agency collects detailed 

demographic information or “drills down” into results within small organizational components. 

Although “drilling down” might diagnose issues in a particular organization or identify problems 

with particular supervisors, such scrutiny can also make employees less likely to respond 

honestly—if they respond at all. Employee trust that responses will be kept confidential, supported 

by an agency commitment to review responses only in the aggregate, is critical.

135 For example, an increase in complaints could mean an increase in harassment behaviors, but it could also reflect increased education or greater employee 

willingness to file complaints, as a result of increased trust that a complaint will be handled appropriately. 

136 Evaluating only formal EEO complaints excludes concerns and issues resolved through other means, such as an ombuds or anti-harassment program.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 61

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

y Definition and measurement. Because employees have diverse backgrounds and experiences, their 

definition and understanding of sexual harassment may vary widely. Rather than simply asking 

“Have you experienced sexual harassment?” a survey should describe and present specific behaviors 

to provide a more reliable measure and a deeper understanding of employees’ experiences. That 

approach may also help employees overcome a reluctance to label themselves as a “victim” of 

sexual harassment because of embarrassment or biases regarding who could be a target of sexual 

harassment.

y Time boundaries. To better understand the current situation and environment, a survey should 

have clear and reasonable time boundaries. For example, it is more useful to ask about behavior 

that has occurred recently (e.g., within the past year or the past two years) than to ask about 

everything that has happened in the past 10 years, or over an entire career. Recent experience is 

more relevant to current practices and policies, and employees generally have more accurate and 

fuller recall of relatively recent events.

y Analysis across gender and other risk factors. Data should be collected and analyzed by gender 

(i.e., separate measures calculated for women and men) and by other known risk factors, to the 

extent practicable.137 That reduces the likelihood that results are misleading and increases the 

practical value of the data collected. For example, a combined measure that covers both women 

and men would mask substantial differences in the rates at which women and men experience 

harassment. It may also conceal risk factors, such as the gender composition of the organization or 

its components. (For example, women are at a higher risk of being harassed when they are greatly 

outnumbered by men in their agency or work group.)

y Resources and independence. Many organizations lack the staff, expertise, or technology to 

develop and administer a confidential, well-designed survey that will yield usable data. That 

may necessitate outsourcing survey development and administration to an objective third party. 

However, as noted before, confidentiality and employee trust are critical, regardless of who 

conducts the survey.

Accountability—Practicing Transparency

Publicizing information on findings and actions in specific instances of harassment can help agencies 

demonstrate that (1) they take sexual harassment seriously; (2) reporting harassment can, indeed, lead to relief 

rather than retaliation; and (3) accountability for employees who commit, or countenance harassment is real. 

Below, we outline a practice that can promote transparency and note some issues to consider when developing 

or implementing a transparency-oriented practice.

Practice—Publicizing Findings and Outcomes

Some agencies, particularly those with many harassment cases, publicize brief summaries of actual harassment 

cases.138 The cases are generally those where harassment was substantiated, and the summaries are sanitized 

and anonymized. The summary may describe the outcome for the harasser(s) and responsible officials.

In addition to making accountability real, case summaries can reinforce information provided in training 

(such as behaviors that constitute harassment) and serve as a deterrent, by reminding employees that 

misconduct does indeed have consequences. In this way, transparency may make some employees think twice 

and desist or refrain from harassment.

137 One organization noted that they had incorporated the risk factors discussed in EEOC’s June 2016 report from the Select Task Force on the Study of 

Harassment in the Workplace into training for managers. 138 Agencies may want to request permission from the target of the harassment before sharing even anonymized summaries to avoid discouraging employees 

from reporting sexual harassment if they fear they will lose their privacy. 
62 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Supplement to the Recommendations: Implementing Practices and Issues

Issue—Confidentiality and Privacy

Agencies are obliged to preserve confidentiality and to protect individual privacy to the extent possible. Those 

obligations are not limited to the target of harassment (complainant or grievant) but extend to witnesses 

(individuals who testify in a complaint proceeding) and the harasser. Failure to honor those obligations, or 

to treat the individuals involved in a case with due respect, may result in legal challenges (from individuals 

or their representatives)139 or lead people to conclude that the agency cares more about its image than about 

employee privacy or confidentiality.

Issue—Unintended Incentives and Outcomes

Transparency can also create unintended incentives and outcomes. For example, the prospect of a local 

problem being publicized (even in sanitized form) could motivate an official or organization to conduct a 

cursory investigation or close a case too quickly. Similarly, it is reasonable for senior managers to monitor 

complaint filings and their status and resolution. However, that may encourage subordinate managers 

to reduce the number of open complaints by resolving them inappropriately, as outlined above, or by 

discouraging employees from filing complaints in the first instance. The purpose of transparency is to 

acknowledge and deter harassment. But carelessly implemented, transparency may instead create or 

strengthen incentives to silence or separate the person alleging the harassment.

139 Katz, E. (2019). VA faces multi-faceted challenges to its attempts at firing and accountability reform. Government Executive, June 11, 2019.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 63

Appendix A. MSPB Merit Principles Survey 2016 

Methodology

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) has the statutory responsibility to assess the health of Federal 

merit systems and the authority to conduct studies of the Federal civil service [see 5 U.S.C. 1204(a)(3) and 

5 U.S.C. 1204(e)(3)]. MSPB administers a periodic Merit Principles Survey to help carry out those studies. The 

studies, including summaries and analyses of data from the MPS, are officially submitted to the President and 

Congress and shared with Federal policymakers and agencies.

Survey Design and Sampling

Typically, the MPS contains a combination of core items that MSPB tracks over time and special-purpose 

items developed to support a particular study. This survey differs from the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey 

administered by OPM in several respects, including: a focus on merit system principles and Government-wide 

civil service issues; administration every few years instead of annually; and a smaller sample. Agency participation 

in the MPS was mandatory, but individual response to the survey was voluntary. 

Survey Content

The MPS2016 comprised three distinct surveys (“paths”), denoted Path 1, Path 2, and Path L. Path 1 and Path 2 

were directed to both line employees and supervisors; Path L was directed to supervisors only. The major topics 

in each survey path are listed below. All the topics, with one exception, were selected and developed by MSPB. 

One topic (ethics, on Path 2) was included in the MPS at the request of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics 

(OGE). Items for that topic were developed by OGE and adapted by MSPB for integration into the MPS.

Path 1 Path 2

y Employee Engagement y Your Work and Workplace

y Work Environment y Your Supervisor

y Career Entry and Career Interests y Work Behaviors

y Fair Treatment y Employee Engagement

y Preventive Measures and Compliant Resolution y Employee Performance

y Workplace Violence y Work Tasks

y Workplace Aggression/Harassment y Emotional Labor

y Career Interests

y Classification and Pay Factors

y Prohibited Personnel Practices

y Non-Disclosure Agreements and Policies

y Workplace Conflict

y Respondent Demographics

y Ethics

y Sexual Harassment
64 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Appendix A. MSPB Merit Principles Survey 2016 Methodology

Path L (Leadership)

y Respondent Demographics

y Being a Supervisor

y Managing Performance

y Performance Appraisal

y Supervisory Tasks and Skills

y Managing Poor Performance

y Managing Conduct

y Managing Supervisors

y HR Responsibilities and Services

Survey Sampling

MSPB developed a sampling strategy, using a stratified random sample, to provide a reliable measure 

of Government-wide opinion among permanent, full-time civilian Federal employees. The sample was 

stratified by Federal agency (and agency bureau or component for selected agencies) and supervisory status 

(nonsupervisor, supervisor, or executive).

MSPB drew the survey samples from the Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI), a repository of 

information on Federal employees developed and maintained by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. 

The sample was drawn in summer 2015, and included nearly 126,000 employees from 25 Federal agencies, 

representing all major Departments and selected large independent agencies. However, ultimately the 

Department of Health and Human Services could not be surveyed, for technical reasons, reducing the sample 

to 24 agencies:

y Agriculture y Interior

y Air Force y Justice

y Army y Labor

y Commerce y National Aeronautics and Space Administration

y Defense y Navy

y Education y Office of Personnel Management

y Energy y Securities and Exchange Commission

y Environmental Protection Agency y Social Security Administration

y Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation y State

y General Services Administration y Transportation

y Homeland Security y Treasury

y Housing and Urban Development y Veterans Affairs
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 65

Appendix A. MSPB Merit Principles Survey 2016 Methodology

Survey Administration

MSPB notified participating Federal agencies and selected stakeholders (e.g., major Federal employee unions) 

of the survey to request their support. The survey was administered electronically (over the Internet) by a 

support contractor in an environment that complied with Federal Government information security and 

accessibility standards.

Employees were invited to complete the survey via an email message that contained a link unique to the 

individual employee. Invitations were sent to nearly 114,000 of the 126,000 employees initially selected (as 

an invitation was not sent if the employee had left the agency or did not have a valid email address).

Employees were informed, through the invitation and other media, that their participation was voluntary and 

that their responses were confidential. MSPB also assured participants that it would not disclose data that 

could be used to identify an individual employee.

The MPS was launched in July 2016, with periodic reminders to complete the survey, and closed in 

September 2016.

Response Acceptance, Rate, and Weighting

After the survey closed and the support contractor transmitted survey data to MSPB, MSPB reviewed the 

response records to determine whether they would be accepted. For Path L, the initial criterion was holding 

a supervisory position, based on a screening item asking the respondent whether they supervised civilian 

Federal employees. For all paths, the final criterion was completing a minimum number (approximately ten 

percent) of the non-demographic items asked of all respondents in the designated survey path.

MSPB then estimated a response rate (shown in Table 18), calculated by dividing the number of accepted 

responses by the estimated number of invited employees who were eligible to complete the survey.

Table 18. Response Rates for the MPS 2016

Version Eligible Accepted Response Rate

Path 1 37,452 14,515 38.8%

Path 2 37,397 14,473 38.7%

Path L 32,654 13,058 40.0%

(TOTAL) 107,053 42,046 39.1%

To provide useful measures across lines of agency and supervisory status, MSPB oversampled (i.e., surveyed 

a higher proportion of) some groups, including supervisors, executives, and employees in smaller agencies. 

Accordingly, MSPB calculated response weights to produce results that are representative of Governmentwide employee opinions. Generally, tabulations and analysis should use the weighting variable (STRAT_

WEIGHT) included in the survey datasets. Results presented in official reports are weighted unless stated 

otherwise.

Survey Representativeness

For selected dimensions, MSPB compared the proportion of respondents from a particular demographic 

group (based on survey responses) with the estimated proportion of employees in that group in the survey 

population (based on OPM’s EHRI). MSPB concluded that representation of major demographic groups was 

acceptable and that the survey results are reasonably representative of the population from which they were 

drawn. 
66 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Appendix A. MSPB Merit Principles Survey 2016 Methodology

Margin of Error

MSPB estimated margins of error and the confidence levels for each item on each of the three paths. At a 95 

percent confidence level, the margin of error for most items was at or below 1 percentage point (Table 19).

The margin of error varies, based on the structure of the survey item and the number of employees 

responding to the item (some items were asked only of a subset of participants, based on their reported 

experiences or opinions).

Table 19. Estimated Margins of Error for the MPS2016

Version Average Range

Path 1 1.1% 0.30% - 8.80%

Path 2 1.0% 0.50% - 4.40%

Path L 1.2% 0.30% - 3.10%
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 67

Appendix B. Comparison of MSPB Sexual Harassment Survey 

Items

Table 20. Sexual Harassment Behavior Items Included on MSPB Surveys

Factor Item

2016 1994 1987 1980

Unwanted Sexual 

Attention

1. Unwelcome 

communications 

(e.g., emails, phone 

calls, text messages, 

social media 

contacts) of a sexual 

nature

Unwanted letters, 

telephone calls, or 

materials of a sexual 

nature

Unwanted letters, 

telephone calls, or 

materials of a sexual 

nature

Unwanted letters, 

phone calls, or 

materials of a sexual 

nature

Unwanted Sexual 

Attention

2. Unwelcome 

invasion of personal 

space (e.g., touching, 

crowding, leaning 

over)

Unwanted deliberate 

touching, leaning 

over, cornering, or 

pinching

Unwanted deliberate 

touching, leaning 

over, cornering, or 

pinching

Unwanted deliberate 

touching, leaning 

over, cornering, or 

pinching

Unwanted Sexual 

Attention

3. Unwelcome 

sexually suggestive 

looks or gestures

Unwanted sexual 

looks or gestures

Unwanted sexual 

looks or gestures Unwanted sexually suggestive looks or 

gestures

Sexual Coercion 4. Pressure for sexual 

favors Unwanted pressure for sexual favors Unwanted pressure for sexual favors Unwanted pressure for sexual favors

Sexual Coercion 5. Pressure for dates Unwanted pressure 

for dates Unwanted pressure for dates Unwanted pressure for dates

Gender Harassment

6. Unwelcome 

sexual teasing, 

jokes, comments or 

questions

Unwanted sexual 

teasing, jokes, 

comments or 

questions

Unwanted sexual 

teasing, jokes, 

comments or 

questions

Unwanted sexual 

teasing, jokes, 

comments or 

questions

Gender Harassment

7. The presences of 

sexually oriented 

material in any 

format (e.g., photos, 

videos, written 

material)

Gender Harassment

8. People having 

sexually oriented 

conversations in 

front of others

Sexual Coercion

9. Someone 

offering preferential 

treatment in the 

workplace in 

exchange for sexual 

favors
68 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

Appendix B. Comparison of MSPB Sexual Harassment Survey Items

Factor Item

2016 1994 1987 1980

None140

10. Different 

treatment based on 

sex/gender (e.g., 

quality or nature of 

assignments)

Gender Harassment

11. Use of 

derogatory or 

unprofessional terms 

related to a person’s 

sex/gender

Sexual Coercion

12. Stalking 

(unwanted intrusion 

e.g., physically or 

electronically into 

your personal life)

Stalking (unwanted 

following or 

intrusion into your 

personal life)

Sexual Coercion 13. Rape or sexual assault or attempted 

rape or sexual assault

Actual or attempted 

rape or assault Actual or attempted rape or assault Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault

140This item was excluded from the sexual harassment scale; it was used as a measure of sex discrimination.

70 Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces: Understanding and Addressing the Problem

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street NW

Washington, DC 20419

Official Business

Penalty For Private Use $300

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON, DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

Sexual Harassment in Federal Workplaces:

Understanding and Addressing the Problem