Although almost two-thirds of harassment complaints are brought against either a woman's immediate supervisor or another person with greater power, only ten to fifteen percent of women either respond assertively to or report their harasser. Imposing liability on employers would appropriately shift the risk and burdens associated with sexual harassment from the employee to the employer. Effective policies and procedures will decrease the incidence of sexual harassment, enabling women to achieve their full potential in the workplace. On behalf of several women's organizations, Equal Rights Advocates authored an amicus brief in this case. We argued that when a plaintiff employee makes a claim of sexual harassment, an employer should be held liable for the acts of its supervisor regardless of whether the employee acquiesced to the threats or suffered adverse employment consequences.
Harassment occurs regardless of whether the plaintiff actually submits to the harasser.
Even if a plaintiff does not comply, threats by a supervisor impact the terms and conditions of employment. A plaintiff should not be required to prove economic injury to state a claim of quid pro quo harassment, i.e., the conditioning of job benefits upon a victim's acquiescence. In many instances an employee may suffer harm even if she suffers no adverse employment or economic consequences. She may suffer from stress, emotional distress and loss of productivity. ERA also argued that an employer's liability should not hinge on the plaintiff's characterization of the sexual harassment or on the often blurred distinction between quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment.