The Allegations Against Herman Cain–What Would the EEOC Say?

As the media have reported, there were two allegations of sexual harassment against presidential candidate Herman Cain while he was president of the National Restaurant Association.

Leave aside for the moment that the surfacing of these allegations now may be motivated by an effort to dislodge Cain’s front-runner status. Ask yourself this: What would the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission make of these charges?

Is he was just Herman Cain, CEO of Godfather pizza, would his supposed victims have an actionable claim of sexual harassment against him or his employer?

As HR knows well, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bans two types of sexual harassment. One is when the alleged harasser makes submission to sexual advances a condition of employment. The second is when the alleged harasser creates a hostile, intimidating, or offensive work environment. (Here’s an EEOC fact sheet on sexual harassment).

According to a report in today’s Washington Post, Cain repeatedly denies sexually harassing anyone. He acknowledges an encounter with a female employee in his office–in full view of his secretary, he insists–in which he mentioned her height and compared her to his wife.

At some time, a second women apparently complained about Cain, resulting in a second settlement whose terms are confidential.

One conclusion seems clear: Based on these facts, there was no quid pro quo harassment. Cain did not make employment conditional on acquiescing to his demands–if there were any demands.

Putting the worst interpretation on it, it seems at best an outside case of hostile work environment harassment. Maybe, in the minds of the women on the receiving end of his comments, they felt the environment was hostile.

But even that seems to be something of a stretch. The behavior doesn’t have a pervasive ring to it, however. So my hunch is the EEOC would not find Cain’s conduct to be harassment. Boorish perhaps, but not illegal.

What do you think?