Madras High Court: Any Workplace Misconduct Constitutes Sexual Harassment, Regardless of Harasser’s Intent
The Madras High Court recently emphasized that any act or words that make a woman feel uncomfortable or are perceived as unwelcome at the workplace constitute sexual harassment under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, regardless of the harasser’s intent. In a judgment dated January 22, Justice RN Manjula highlighted the ‘reasonable woman standard,’ underscoring that the PoSH Act prioritizes how the victim perceives the behavior rather than the harasser’s intentions. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court case Joseph Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998), the Court reiterated that the standard of reasonableness is assessed from the perspective of a reasonable woman, not a reasonable man.
1/26/20251 min read
The Court further noted that employees are expected to maintain decency in their interactions, which should be assessed through the lens of how their actions make others, particularly women, feel. It observed that the definition of sexual harassment under the PoSH Act focuses on the act itself, rather than the intention behind it. The judgment came while quashing a labor court order that had overturned the findings of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) at HCL Technologies, which had held a senior employee guilty of sexual harassment based on complaints from three women employees.
The complaints alleged that the employee, who held a supervisory position, often stood behind them while they worked, touched their shoulders, insisted on handshakes, and asked one complainant to remove her jacket for measurements, despite already being informed of the required size. The accused claimed his actions were part of his duties and denied any intent of harassment. However, the High Court rejected his defense, stating that the focus must remain on how the complainants perceived his behavior, not his justification.
The Court upheld the ICC’s findings, noting that the inquiry was conducted in compliance with the PoSH Act and principles of natural justice. It ruled that the labor court had erred in setting aside the ICC’s decision based on technicalities, such as the denial of access to CCTV footage, which the High Court deemed irrelevant to the findings. Consequently, the labor court’s order was set aside, reaffirming the ICC’s conclusion of sexual harassment.