The MeToo movement has shaken corporate America in recent months, leading to the departures of several high-profile executives as well as sharp stock price declines at a number of firms. Additional suits are likely in the coming months. This Article examines the role of corporate and securities law in regulating and remedying workplace sexual misconduct. We specify the conditions under which corporate fiduciaries can be held liable under state law for perpetrating sexual misconduct or allowing it to occur. We also discuss the circumstances under which federal securities law requires issuers to disclose allegations against top executives and to reveal settlements of sexual misconduct claims. But we also address the potential discursive and distributional implications of using laws designed to protect shareholders as tools to regulate sexual harassment.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND CORPORATE LAW
Sex discrimination: the current state of play
Sargent on Sunday posted a screen-grab to Twitter of an exchange she says she had with McGrory about story writing. Sargent did not initially identify the person as McGrory, but did later, writing that it was an example of powerful men sending inappropriate and unsolicited sexual messages to women over whom they have control. The Globe says they asked Sargent on Monday to give them the full text, which she had cropped to hide the name of the sender and the date of the exchange. The paper is citing what appears to be standard language for separation agreements.
I conceptualize sex-based harassment as behavior that derogates an individual based on sex. I propose that sex-based harassment is fundamentally motivated by the harasser's desire to protect or enhance his or her own sex-based status, a desire that stems from the fact that social status is stratified by a system of gender hierarchy. This theory explains currently identified forms of sexual harassment and predicts others, including nonsexual harassment between women. Learn About the New eReader.
Diana DiZoglio of Methuen, who sponsored the amendment. The win may be short-lived unless the House, which did not include a similar provision in its version of the economic development bill, decides to accept the Senate provision when the two bills go to a conference committee of the two branches to resolve differences. The two branches have been at odds on this issue in the past. In January the Senate, at the prodding of DiZoglio, voted to change its rules to ban non-disclosure agreements by that chamber; at the same time, the House voted to retain non-disclosure agreements but only if requested by the victim or survivor of sexual assault. Non-disclosure agreements are typically used as part of a settlement or severance package.