Si usted tiene una demanda de acoso sexual laboral, lo que usted reporta inicialmente a la Comisión de Igualdad de Oportunidades de Empleo (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission en inglés), y cómo lo reporta, puede afectar su demanda legal en las cortes.

Antes de interponer una demanda de acoso sexual laboral en contra de su empleador bajo el Título VII de las leyes de Estados Unidos, la vícitma debe de primero presentar cargos con el EEOC (siglas en Inglés para la Comisión de Igualdad de Oportunidades de Empleo). El EEOC entonces emite una notificación llamada “derecho a demandar,” la cual le permite a la víctima interponer su demanda en las cortes.

En la reciente opinión en el caso Little v. CRSA emitida el 15 de Agosto del 2018 por el Décimo Primer Circuito de la Corte Federal de los Estados Unidos, la Corte decidió que la demanda de acoso sexual de Sybil Little estaría limitada sólo a los cargos que ella presentó anteriormente con el EEOC, y afirmó la decisión de la corte del distrito, la cual desestimó la demanda federal de Sybil Little en su totalidad.

Sybil Little estuvo empleada desde el 2006 como Técnica y Coordinadora de Seguridad de la compañía CRSA en Fort Rucker, Alabama. En su demanda en la corte federal, Sybil Little alegó que ella había sido víctima de continuos acosos sexuales de parte de Jason Patrick, el Director de Operaciones de CRSA, y de Ricky Norris, Jefe de Técnincos de CRSA. Ella alegó que Patrick le propuso tener relaciones sexuales y que Norris le hizo comentarios sobre su cuerpo y apariencia personal, y la motivó a que usara vestidos y tacones para que él puediera verla trepar por la escalera.

El principal error de Sybil Little al presentar su demanda en la corte federal fue que ella sólo incluyo en su cargo con el EEOC la alegada discriminación sexual de parte de Norris, y no la de Patrick, y tampoco incluyó en su demanda con el EEOC ningún alegato de discriminación sexual en contra de su empleador, CRSA.

La decisión del Décimo Primer Circuito detalla lo siguiente:

Las demandas ante el EEOC no se interpretan de manera estricta, y la demandas judiciales son permitidas sólo si las mismas amplian, aclaran, o se enfocan con más detalles en las alegaciones presentadas antes el EEOC. En el caso de Sybil Little, las alegaciones de su demada federal no podían aclarar alegatos que ella no incluyó en su demanda ante el EEOC.”

Bajo el Título VII de las leyes de los Estados Unidos, un reclamo de acoso sexual no se puede mantener en contra de personas naturales como Norris y Patrick, sólo en contra de empleadores como CRSA. Basado en el único alegato de conducta indebida de parte de Norris, CRSA pudiera haber sido responsable bajo el Título VII si Norris hubiera sido un supervisor inmediato de Little, lo cual haría a CRSA responsable subsidiaria por la conducta de su empleado. CRSA también pudiera haber sido responsable subsidiaria si hubiese sabido o debía de haber sabido sobre la conducta de acoso sexual de su empleado, y no hubiese tomado medidas correctivas con relación a ésta conducta. Little, sin embargo, no inluyó en su demanda ningún alegato estableciendo que Norris era su superior, ni tampoco incluyó alegaciones de que ella reportó la conducta indebida de Norris a sus directores o al departamento de Recusos Humanos. Las meras alegaciones de Little de que Norris le hizo comentarios ofensivos no son suficientes para demostrar que la dirección de CRSA sabía o debió de haber sabido del acoso sexual.

Si usted ha sido víctima de acoso sexual en su lugar de empledo, usted debe de hablar de éste asunto con un abogado especializado en este tipo de leyes, él cual lo puede guiar en todos los aspectos necesarios para poder reclamar sus derechos, desde el presentar un cargo con el EEOC hasta radicar la demanda en las cortes estatales o federales.

A Florida appellate court reversed a lower trial court’s decision to summarily dispose of a guidance counselor’s workplace sexual harassment claim against the Broward County School Board for the conduct of the principal of the school where she worked. The lower court had ruled that Cherellda Branch-McKenzie, the guidance counselor, did not provide evidence to support her claim sufficient for proceeding to trial.

The Fourth District disagreed with the lower court in Branch-McKenzie v. Broward County School Board, released on September 12, 2018.

Cherellda Branch-McKenzie worked as a guidance counselor at Riverland Elementary where Oslay Gil was the principal. Among the inappropriate conduct alleged to have happened, Mr. Gil placed his fingers on Ms. Branch-McKenzie’s lips if he thought she was talking too loud and told her “Girl, you look good. I sure would like to see what that’s like. I know I can have THAT!” Another incident involved him touching her on the neck and saying, “come on, let me kiss you right there.” When Ms. Branch-McKenzie said “no,” he said next time he would not ask, he would just do it. Mr. Gil also inappropriately touched her buttocks on multiple occasions, and on one occasion stated, “oh, I’m sorry, but it felt good.” These incidents would sometimes happen in front of co-workers, like the time when Mr. Gil touched her back and hair, and then told a co-worker who saw the exchange that Ms. Branch-McKenzie was “like a mango…you can’t have just one.” It came to a point where Ms. Branch-McKenzie would ask a co-worker not to leave her alone with Mr. Gil. Several other co-workers provided testimony of other incidents where they observed Mr. Gil’s inappropriate conduct and comments towards Ms. Branch-McKenzie.

One of the elements of a hostile work environment claim is that “the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment.” Despite Ms. Branch-McKenzie’s testimony and the testimony of co-workers corroborating her claims, the lower court ruled that the evidence did not show that Mr. Gil’s conduct was pervasive enough to support a hostile work environment claim because after Ms. Branch-McKenzie reported the conduct to the School Board’s Equal Employment Opportunity office, Mr. Gil’s conduct stopped, although she testified it was because she made a point of avoiding him.

In order to determine whether offensive conduct is pervasive enough, four factors are considered: “(1) the frequency of the conduct; (2) the severity of the conduct; (3) whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating; and (4) whether the conduct unreasonably interfered with the employee’s job performance.”

The Fourth District Court of Appeal engaged in a fact-intensive analysis of these factors and held that Ms. Branch-McKenzie came forward with sufficient evidence as to all four factors to support a hostile work environment sexual harassment claim. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s order disposing of her claim, thereby allowing the claim against the School Board for the conduct of Mr. Gil to proceed to trial.

If you have been the victim of workplace sexual harassment, you should discuss your story with an attorney who can guide you at the lower court level and appellate court level. Please let us know if we can help.

On Sunday night, the New Yorker published a piece by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer regarding sexual assault allegations against U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, from his freshman year at Yale. The article was published on the heels of the first victim, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, agreeing to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her allegations that Judge Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were high school students. A third unidentified woman is offering to meet with the FBI to disclose how she was victimized and has implicated Judge Kavanaugh and others in the targeting of women for gang rape through the use of drugs and alcohol. Even with the number of victims adding up, the U.S. Senate is showing us how little the culture has shifted over the last 3 decades when it comes to victims stepping forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against powerful men.

1991 vs. 2018: Have We Evolved?

The response to these allegations has ranged from outright denial and support for Judge Kavanaugh to demands for the FBI to re-open its background investigation into Kavanaugh, protests, and the new hashtag #WhyIdidntReportIt. It is a pivotal moment because the Senate Judiciary Committee has the opportunity to handle the allegations differently from the 1991 Anita Hill sexual harassment allegations against Clarence Thomas. In 1991, Professor Hill was asked if she was a “scorned woman” and why she didn’t come forward with her allegations sooner. The Senators also told her that discussing “large breasts” in the workplace was common behavior and they didn’t understand why she thought such talk was embarrassing. As we all know, Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed and has been serving on the U.S. Supreme Court since 1991.

In light of the #MeToo movement taking off over the past year, women are hoping not to relive the humiliation, hostility, and condescension when Dr. Blasey Ford, and possibly others, testify before the Senate. As Tarana Burke said,

It’s been 27 years since Anita Hill. We need to see that there is a different understanding about sexual violence. We need to see that they know how to approach and handle issues of sexual violence in a very different way.”

Unfortunately, we are hearing echoes of the same attempts to discredit Anita Hill in 1991. The power structure from 1991 remains roughly intact – there are no female Republican Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senators Chuck Grassley (R – IA), Orrin Hatch (R – UT), and Patrick Leahy (D – VT) were all members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. We are already hearing from many Senators, men, and women, dismissing the allegations against Kavanaugh as fabricated, as something that all male teenagers do, and even making jokes about sexual assault.

Is There a Light at the End of This Tunnel?

Four women made history by becoming U.S. senators in one year shortly after the Thomas confirmation hearings. We now have 23 women in the Senate and 2018 will be a record year for the number of women running for office. Is it all on the women running for office to change the culture in Washington and across the country regarding sexual misconduct? The burden to change cannot be placed solely on female legislators. Sure, it will help to have more women in government and in positions of power. But as we can see, the Senate Judiciary Committee is still mostly men and many male senators in power don’t want an independent investigation of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. The change won’t happen without the men who witness other men behaving badly. The change won’t happen until men and women believe victims when they get past the fear of retaliation to speak up about sexual misconduct.

If you have been the victim of sexual misconduct, you should discuss your story with an attorney who can guide you. Our attorneys can assist you at any stage, including pre-litigation. Please contact us to set up a confidential consultation.

Escuchamos sobre el acoso sexual en las noticias, pero quizás ustedes se preguntan cuál es la definición de acoso sexual? Hay acaso diferencias entre las leyes federales y las leyes de la Florida?

Bajo las leyes federales, el acoso sexual as una forma de discriminación sexual que viola el Título VII de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964. Es illegal el acosar a una persona debido a su sexo. El acoso puede incluir acoso sexual, proposiciones sexuales indeseadas, solicitudes de favores sexuales, y otros acosos verbales o físicos de naturaleza sexual. Bajo las leyes federales, el acoso no necesariamente debe ser de naturaleza sexual, y puede incluir comentarios ofensivos sobre el sexo de la persona. La Asociación Americana de Mujeres Universitarias proporciona en su sitio web una sección dedicada a preguntas y respuestas sobre el acoso sexual bajo el Título VII, e incluye ejemplos y explicaciones de diferentes tipos de acoso sexual.

En la Florida, el acoso sexual también es una forma de discriminación sexual que viola la Ley de Derechos Civiles de la Florida de 1992, la cual cataloga como una práctica de empleo illegal el “despedir, dejar de o rehusar contratar a un individuo, o discriminar en su contra con relación a compensación, términos, condiciones, o beneficios laborales,” basado en el sexo del individuo.

Muchos manuales de empleados incluyen una definición o política del empledor con relación al acoso, incluyendo el acoso sexual. Por ejemplo, La Oficina de Derechos Humanos y Prácticas de Empleo Justas del condado de Miami-Dade ha publicado un folleto disponible en línea con relación al acoso sexual de los empleados del condado, el cual define al acoso sexual como “conducta de naturaleza sexual indeseada, que puede consistir en avances sexuales, solicitudes de favores sexuales, y otra conducta verbal o física. La conducta puede constituir acoso sexual cuando la misma explícita o implicitamente afecta el empleo de un individuo, interfiere indebidamente con el desempeño laboral del empleado, o crea un ambiente de trabajo intimidatorio, hostil, u ofensivo.”

Un abogado puede ayudarlo a determinar si usted está experimentando acoso sexual en su lugar de empleo y sus derechos bajo las leyes federales y estatales. Nuestros abogados pueden asistirlo en cualquier etapa del problema, incluyendo antes de iniciar una acción legal. Por favor no dude en ponerse en contacto con nostros para programar una consulta confidencial con nuestros abogados.

If you have a claim for workplace sexual harassment, what is initially reported to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and how it’s reported, may affect your legal claim in court.

Before filing a lawsuit based on workplace sexual harassment against an employer under Title VII, a victim is required to file a charge with the EEOC. The EEOC then issues a “right to sue” notice, which allows the victim to file his/her claim in court.

In the recent case of Little v. CRSA, released by the Eleventh Circuit on August 15, 2018, the Court held that Sybil Little’s sexual harassment claim was limited by the scope of her EEOC charge, and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of her complaint.

Since 2006, Sybil Little had been employed as a technician and safety coordinator at CRSA in Fort Rucker, Alabama. She alleged in her federal court action that she was the victim of continuing sexual harassment by Jason Patrick, CRSA’s Operations Manager, and Ricky Norris, CRSA’s Lead Technician. She alleged that Patrick propositioned her for sex and that Norris commented on her body and appearance and encouraged her to wear dresses and heels so that he could watch her climb a ladder.

Sybil Little’s mistake was to only include in her EEOC charge the alleged discrimination carried out by Norris, but not by Patrick and, more importantly, she failed to include any allegations about her employer, CRSA.

The Eleventh Circuit opinion pointed out that

EEOC complaints are not strictly interpreted, and judicial claims are allowed if they amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus the allegations in the EEOC charge. But, Little’s allegations could not clarify what was not in her EEOC charge.”

Under Title VII, a claim cannot be maintained against individuals like Norris and Patrick, only against employers like CRSA. Based on the only alleged misconduct by Norris, CRSA would be held liable if Norris was alleged to be a supervisor with immediate or successively higher authority over Little, which then would make CRSA vicariously liable. CRSA could be also held directly liable if it knew or should have known of the harassing conduct but failed to take prompt remedial action. Little, however, plead no facts that Norris was anything other than a co-employee, and Little did not set forth any allegations that she told management about Norris’s misconduct. Her mere allegations that Norris made offensive comments were not enough to show that CRSA management should have known of the harassment.

If you have been the victim of workplace sexual harassment, you should discuss your story with an attorney who can guide you in all the steps necessary to properly assert your legal claim, from filing a EEOC charge through handling litigation in court.

The world’s third largest airline has been accused of failing to protect a female flight attendant from years of harassment by a male pilot. The Washington Post reports that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed a lawsuit in federal court in Texas last week, alleging that the airline refused to take action against a pilot who posted compromising photos of the attendant online, even after she complained to her superiors and the pilot was arrested for stalking (here is a PDF of the Complaint). The EEOC issued a statement on the lawsuit.

Consensual Relationship, Photos, and an Injunction

The Post reports that the woman, who is not identified in the complaint, began a consensual relationship with United pilot Mark Uhlenbrock in 2002, and allowed him to take pictures and record video of her in provocative poses.  She ended the relationship in 2006 when she discovered that Uhlenbrock had posted the pictures on a website for swingers without her knowledge and refused to stop.  The harassment, however, was just beginning.  Over the next decade, Uhlenbrock continued to post the pictures and videos on the internet, including partially nude images of the woman in her uniform, and listing her name, occupation, and home airport.  The Post reports that she filed at least three lawsuits against Uhlenbrock, obtaining a $100,000 damages award and a permanent injunction barring Uhlenbrock from posting the images.  The FBI became involved when he continued to post the images, ultimately arresting Uhlenbrock in 2015 for stalking. He later pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 41 months in federal prison.

No Action from United Airlines

The EEOC’s complaint focuses on United’s response, or lack thereof.  According to the suit, the woman reported the harassment to United’s human resources department and general counsel on several occasions, but the company refused to take action.  Amazingly, the airline allegedly told the woman the Uhlenbrock’s conduct did not constitute workplace sexual harassment and did not warrant intervention or action by the company.  The EEOC alleges that this to prevent and correct Uhlenbrock’s conduct violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, which includes sexual harassment.  The complaint notes that Uhlenbrock had supervisory authority over flight attendants, and that the airline had rules of conduct, disciplinary mechanisms, applicable policies and procedures, and the authority to prevent and correct Uhlenbrock’s harassment.  Perhaps most disturbingly, United allegedly granted Uhlenbrock long-term disability following his arrest, and allowed him to retire with full benefits following his guilty plea.

The complaint, which was filed after the EEOC attempted to reach a voluntary settlement through its conciliation process, asks the court to order United to pay compensatory and punitive damages to the flight attendant, and permanently enjoin the airline from engaging in further gender-discriminatory practices.  The EEOC also asks the court to order the company to create and carry out policies and practices that eliminate and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

In the EEOC statement, Supervisory Trial Attorney Eduardo Juarez notes that “United was aware of the intimate details of how its pilot was harassing its flight attendant, but took no responsibility to put a stop to it. As a result, over a period of many years, the flight attendant had to work every day in fear of humiliation if a co-worker or customer recognized her from the pilot’s postings. This is unacceptable, and the EEOC is here to fight such misconduct.” According to the Post’s report, a United spokesman disputed the EEOC’s allegations, and claimed that “United does not tolerate sexual harassment in the workplace and will vigorously defend itself against this case.”

We will continue to follow this story as it develops.

Beyonce, as usual, is making headlines with her September issue of Vogue and a candid interview with her thoughts on all sorts of topics, including, the legacy she wants to pass on to her kids. She wants her daughters to see themselves in books, films, as CEOs, and knowing that they don’t have to fit a certain mold. When it comes to her son, she says:

I hope to teach my son not to fall victim to what the internet says he should be or how he should love. I want to create better representations for him so he is allowed to reach his full potential as a man, and to teach him that the real magic he possesses in the world is the power to affirm his own existence.”

This quote led me to think about how toxic masculinity (and femininity) influences our lives and our roles at work, home, school, and in our communities. I certainly can’t answer what it’s like to be a man, but I don’t think men and women should feel confined to play certain roles and fulfill stereotypes to be “quiet and nice” or “strong and stoic.”

How do men and women work together to turn things around?

There is a treasure trove of answers and thought-provoking questions in the Man Enough online series that is the start of a very important dialogue. In the series, a group of men openly discuss what it means to be a man, be vulnerable, and #metoo. The men in the series recognize that the concepts of masculinity in American media ingrain misogyny in boys and girls from an early age. So much so that almost all the men in the series have witnessed harassment or assault and failed to intervene even though they consider themselves good guys. In the #metoo episode, Tony Porter, the CEO of A Call to Men says that he thinks “It’s really rooted in how the law is defined. You could do some crazy s—- and be on the side of the law, right?” Yes, he’s right in the sense that employers and harassers got away with sexual harassment and retaliation against women for coming forward for a long time (and still do sometimes), mostly because there weren’t any real legal consequences until Title VII came along, but sexual harassment continues despite the legal remedies that exist at the state and federal level. Legal remedies by themselves are insufficient to effect change in the absence of a shift in culture. If women aren’t comfortable coming forward, there won’t be any cases against harassers and/or their employers.

Social consequences

#Metoo is the dawn of social consequences for bad behavior. Will #metoo lead to legal consequences? We will have to wait and see. If we give boys the space to ignore what the internet says boys and men should be and allow them to affirm their own existence, will misogyny begin to disappear? This won’t be my last post on this complicated topic, so stay tuned!

 

It occurs to me that a more positive, not-everything-is-bad post is in order. My past posts have addressed the employee-employer imbalance of power, advocated an end to mandatory arbitration, and criticized the Senate version of the proposed, revised Congressional Accountability Act. However, progress has nonetheless been made these past months (at least I think so) and so it makes sense we take stock.

Jodi Kantor, of the (failing) New York Times [yes, that is a joke: relax!] attempted to do just that, take stock, back in March. Her article highlights a variety of actions taken by companies, cities, states and the federal government in response to the #metoo movement and society’s possible awakening. While Ms. Kantor’s assessment was certainly not all positive – much (most) work remains, much of it at a societal level – she nonetheless pointed to some bright spots. One success was Microsoft’s announcement, late last year, to get rid of forced arbitration in its employment agreements. Another was the Screen Actor’s Guild (“SAG”) publishing an updated Code of Conduct. Even if you are not a waiter/actor in LA, this is an interesting read, especially for newbies. SAG’s Code defines some basic terms (e.g., quid pro quo, hostile work environment, retaliation) and educates actors and employers on what to expect when a complaint is filed, as well as provides resources to employees.

But I am singling out Facebook for further analysis and some praise (God knows, it needs it). In December 2017, Facebook took the somewhat unusual step and put its internal policy online for all to see. In the announcement post COO Sheryl Sandberg declared Facebook’s “philosophy” was to go beyond what was legally required – not too hard, unfortunately- and to enforce a zero-tolerance approach. Undergirding the policy are the following six principles: 1) mandatory sexual harassment and unconscious bias training; 2) treating all claims with “seriousness, urgency, and respect”; 3) investigating claims in a way that protects employees from stigma or retaliations; 4) applying the process consistently; 5) taking “swift and decisive action” when wrongdoing is identified; and 6) involving all employees in making the workplace safe by encouraging people to report unacceptable behaviors, even if it does not involve them.

The Facebook policy is a real treasure-trove for commentary and analysis and over the next few posts, I aim to highlight some of the encouraging parts, compare it against the company’s stated philosophy and principles, and give you my two-cents on what (if anything) might be problematic or objectionable.

If you have time, read over the Facebook policy and stay tuned.

We hear about sexual harassment in the news, but you might be wondering how is sexual harassment defined? Is there a difference between federal law and Florida law?

Under federal law, sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is unlawful to harass a person because of that person’s sex. Harassment can include sexual harassment, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Under federal law, the harassment does not have to be sexual in nature and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. The American Association of University Women provides a comprehensive FAQ section on sexual harassment under Title VII that provides examples and explanations of different types of sexual harassment.

In Florida, sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates The Florida Civil Rights Act (“FCRA”) of 1992. The FCRA makes it an unlawful employment practice to

discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,”

because of a person’s sex.

Many employee handbooks include the employer’s own definition or policy regarding harassment, including sexual harassment. For example, The Miami-Dade County Office of Human Rights and Fair Employment Practices published a brochure available online regarding sexual harassment of county employees and defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature and may consist of sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct. Conduct may constitute sexual harassment when it explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”

An attorney can help you determine whether you are experiencing sexual harassment at work and your rights under the law. Our attorneys can assist you at any stage, including pre-litigation. Please contact us to set up a confidential consultation.

Entrevista con la Doctora Cristal Glangchai

Las mujeres ocupan casi el 52% de todos los trabajos a nivel profesional, pero en el campo de los negocios, sólo un 25% es ocupado por mujeres en cargos ejecutivos o de nivel senior, y sólo el 6% de ellas ocupan cargos de Director General. En otras profesiones, las estadísticas no son mejores – en las leyes, sólo un 22% de mujeres son socias de firmas, y en el ámbito académico, sólo un 31% de ellas son catedráticas a tiempo completo. En el 2013, sólo un 6% de mujeres eran socias de compañías de capital de riesgo. Es acaso éste imbalance de poder la respuesta al por qué el acoso sexual es tan desenfrenado en los lugares de trabajo?   Si más mujeres ocuparan cargos de poder, acaso el acoso sexual o la discriminación de género se reducirían significativamente? Cómo aumentamos el número de mujeres que ocupen cargos de Director General, socias en firmas de abogados, o catedráticas universitarias?  Exploré varios de éstos temas y soluciones con la Doctora Cristal Glangchai, autora del libro publicado recientemente VentureGirls: Raising Girls to be Tomorrow’s Leaders, Directora General de VentureLab, profesora, y experta en empresariado.

La Discriminación de Género y el Acoso Sexual Ocurren Sin Importar tus Credenciales

Dr. Cristal Glangchai

La Dr. Glangchai posee una formación académica impresionante en tecnología, ciencias, e ingeniería que emergió de una educación igualitaria que su padre ideó para ella y sus hermanas.  A pesar de ésto, ella se ha tropezado con su buena parte de discriminación de género y acoso sexual. Dr. Glangchai creció frustada y molesta con lo que veía: peticiones estereotípicas para que trajera café o tomara notas por ser la única mujer ingeniero en la firma; las inseguridades y la intimidación que ella veía en sus estudiantes universitarias femeninas comparadas con sus estudiantes masculinos; la ausencia de Directores Generales femeninas en el campo de la teconología, y que le dijeran “tú no tienes suficientes canas y en realidad no creemos que una muchacha jóven como tú pueda con esto,” cuando Dr. Glangchai comenzó a mercadear su idea de investigación para su tésis de grado, la cual consistía en emprender una compañía de nanotecnología.

Habilidades Empresariales Como Una Solución

A pesar de que estamos en el siglo 21, nada parecía cambiar en este ámbito. Es por esto que Dr. Glangchai inició su propia solución en su hogar con sus hijas de 4 años.  Dr. Glangchai comenzó a enseñarle a sus hijas conceptos empresariales, los cuales resultaron en un aumento en la participación en clase de las niñas y en una mayor dispocisión de parte de ellas para explicar lecciones a otros niños, lo cual las maestras de las niñas notaron inmediatamente.  Cuando Dr. Glangchai vió lo efectivo que eran sus conceptos empresariales en sus hijas, ella decidió fundar VentureLab y comenzó a escribir el libro VentureGirls con el fin de enseñar éstas habilidades a otras niñas y darles la confianza de perseguir sus sueños y pasiones. “Se trata de darle a las niñas la confianza de creer en ellas mismas y en su habilidad de ignorar las presiones sociales.” Dr. Glangchai cree que “necesitamos enseñarle a nuestras niñas a ser más aventureras cómo se le enseña a los niños. Necesitamos enseñarle a las niñas a presumir de ellas mismas. A pesar de que éstos son pequeños conceptos,” recalca Dr. Glangchai, “los mismos forjan fortaleza y confianza en nuestras niñas para perseguir cualquier cosa que ellas desean hacer, pero al mismo tiempo enseñan a nuestros niños que todos pueden hacer ésto, y que no se trata de niños o niñas.”

Concientización, Cambios Culturales, y Empoderamiento de Mujeres y Niñas

Si el resultado de enseñar éstos conceptos empresariales a las nuevas generaciones de niñas resulta en un mayor liderazgo femenino en el ámbito de los negocios, que significa ésto para nuestros ambientes de trabajo del futuro? Las investigaciones demuestran que las organizaciones que son dominadas por hombres, super jerárquicas, e indulgentes ante malos comportamientos en general, están más propensas a tener acoso sexual y abusos. Es impotante tener líderes femeninas, pues las mismas balancean el poder dentro de la organización y previenen que la masculinidad se adueñe de la cultura de la organización.

Dr. Glangchai dice que el incremento en la concientización del acoso sexual y el no dudar de las mujeres que deciden hablar del problema está comenzando a cambiar la filosofía de lo que las organizaciones están dispuestas a tolerar, con muchas de ellas sobrecorrigiendo. Sin embargo, Dr. Glangchai piensa que “vamos a llegar a un punto de nivelación” y cree que ésto deberá ser un cambio cultural. “No vamos a solucionar éste problema sólo con la concientización, pues las personas que ya tienen su forma de ser no van a cambiar la misma.  Para mí, es una revolución cultural y la misma comienza con nuestros hijos.  Y parte de la meta de VentureGirls es darle a las niñas la confianza de transformarse en líderes, pero a la misma vez enseñar a los niños que la niñas con igualmente capaces.”

 

Si usted ha sido acosada sexualmente o discriminada por su género, el primer paso y el más importante es sentirse cómoda hablando al respecto, decirle al ofensor que detenga su comportamiento, y reportar lo que le ha sucedido. Si la compañía para la cual usted trabaja tiene un manual de empleados, el mismo debe de informarle a quién debe de dirigirse para reportar el acoso sexual o la discriminación.  Si used ha experimentado acoso sexual en su lugar de trabajo, usted puede informarse sobre sus derechos legales consultando a un abogado.