Reports concerning New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s conduct — alleging sexual harassment of two young women, both New York State employees — are disturbing on several levels. Historically, they suggest that we have not moved far beyond the 1960s, when women, entering a hostile work world, often had little choice but to conform to the sexist belief that acceptance of unwanted behavior, anywhere on the continuum from flirtation to penetration, was consensual, constituting fair trade on the road to female professional advancement.
I had hoped such practices would become faded memories. But here we are, six decades later, post-Batali, post-Cosby, post-Keillor, post-R. Kelly, post-Lauer, post-Moonves, post-Rose, post-Simmons, post-Weinstein, and so many other powerful men. During this time, some abusers’ PR memes of angry denial became interspersed with apologies for “inadvertent” and “unintended” behavior. Then they were further distorted into denigrations of the victim’s “misunderstanding.”
Governor Cuomo is drawing on all three playbooks, underscoring his unfamiliarity and/or lack of concern about the impact of unwanted sexualized conduct upon subordinates. Although he is an attorney, he seems oblivious to the content of New York law, which protects employees from workplace sexual harassment. His reactions are variations on the sexist theme that deflects personal responsibility by shifting blame to those with the courage to speak out.
As the governor of a state with approximately 340,000 employees, he seems unaware that workplace sexual harassment can cause disabling anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and other long-term health problems, including the impairment or loss of the ability to trust others. Perhaps he does not understand that psychological injuries often take longer to heal than physical wounds, to which victims of even severe domestic violence can attest.
Some have remarked that at least Cuomo was not accused of unwanted touching. Although such was later included in the allegations of one of the women, it is worthwhile noting that the absence of touching does not vindicate employers who personally participate in, or permit others to engage in, solely verbal sexual harassment. As victims of racial, ethnic, and religious discrimination know, touching is not an essential element of harassment. Words alone can and do create legally impermissible hostile workplace environments.
Once a full and impartial investigation of the facts in this matter goes forward, we will learn more about what occurred and if the governor’s conduct is deemed legally actionable. However, he already knows the truth. If he has acknowledged, if only to himself, that the accusations are supported by the facts, his prompt and voluntary offer to make compensatory amends would be inspirational. But, sadly, such would not seem to be in his nature.
_____________________________
Betty Levinson practiced law for almost four decades, specializing in the representation of domestic violence survivors, about which she frequently lectured law students, lawyers and judges.
