For example, employers usually should not be liable for the sexual harassment torts of their employees, as recent law has held. The frolic doctrine should relieve employers when their employees' acts exceed the scope of their employment, but ideological sexual harassment law has altered this old and well-accepted doctrine. Yet under common law, hostile environment cases still could extend to the employer if the offending practices were accepted and routine. Under the doctrines of consent and vicarious liability, all victims have a remedy. Modern sexual harassment law is redundant and unnecessary and may be creating unintended side effects like the chilling of healthy and psychologically necessary speech, friendships, and social relations between the sexes in the workplace.
Common law is better because it has been tested and refined over the ages.
Further, the law of contracts and torts focuses on the pain of the victim, rather than on the motivations of the perpetrator. Being victim-centered is better. New-fangled sexual harassment laws only complicate matters by upsetting settled law and wrongfully focusing on the subjective intent of the perpetrator. Let contract law and tort law rule as they have for centuries. Freedom of contract is always better than government regulations.