Skip to main content

Here Comes the Judge: The Influence of Judge Personal Characteristics on Federal Sexual Harassment Case Outcomes

Abstract

This study explored the effects of judges' personal characteristics (gender, race, age, and political affiliation) and case characteristics on the outcomes of federal cases of hostile environment sexual harassment. Results revealed that even after controlling for the effects of relevant case characteristics (e.g., severity of the harassment), judges' personal characteristics influenced case outcomes. Specifically, younger judges and Democrat judges were more likely to find for the plaintiff (the alleged victim of harassment). The probability that the decision would favor the plaintiff was only 16% when the case was heard by an older judge but 45% when heard by a younger judge. The probability that the decision would favor the plaintiff was only 18% when the case was heard by a judge who had been appointed by a Republican president but 46% when the judge had been appointed by a Democrat president.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  1. Adler, R. S., & Peirce, E. R. (1993). The legal, ethical, and social implications of the "reasonable woman" standard in sexual harassment cases. Fordham Law Review, 61, 773–827.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. The Journal of Psychology, 124, 409–416.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Batson, C. D., Sympson, S. C., Hindman, J. L., Decruz, P., Todd, R., Weeks, J., et al. (1996). "I've been there, too": Effect on empathy of prior experience with a need. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 474–482.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bowes-Sperry, L., & Tata, J. (1999). A multiperspective framework of sexual harassment. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 263–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33–87.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

  7. Carp, R. A., & Rowland, C. K. (1983). Policy making and politics in the federal district courts. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Federal Magistrate Judges Association. (2000). The FMJA is a professional organization exclusively for U.S. Magistrate Judge. The Bulletin: The Newsletter of the FMJA, 26 [On-line]. Available from http://www.fedjudge.org/

  9. Ford, C. A., & Donis, F. J. (1996). The relationship between age and gender in workers' attitudes toward sexual harassment. Journal of Psychology, 130, 627–633.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Foulis, D., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and perceptions. Sex Roles, 37, 773–798.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Frazier, P. A., Cochran, C. C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Frazier, P. A., & Hunt, J. S. (1998). Research on gender and the law: Where are we going, where have we been? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goldman, S. (1979). Should there be affirmative action for the judiciary? Judicature, 62, 488–494.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goldman, S. (1987). The age of judges: Reagan's second-term appointees. ABA Journal, 73, 94–98.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Goldman, S., & Saronson, M. D. (1994). Clinton's nontraditional judges: Creating a more representative bench. Judicature, 78(2), 68–73.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gottschall, J. (1983). Carter's judicial appointments: The influence of affirmative action and merit selection on voting on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Judicature, 67(4), 164–173.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gowan, M. A., & Zimmermann, R. A. (1996). Impact of ethnicity, gender, and previous experience on juror judgments in sexual harassment cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 596–617.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gruhl, J., Spohn, C., & Welch, S. (1981). Women as policymakers: The case of trial judges. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 308–322.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gryski, G. S., Main, E. C., & Dixon, W. J. (1986). Models of state high court decision making in sex discrimination cases. Journal of Politics, 48, 143–155.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gutek, B. A. (1995). How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 447–467.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hastie, R., & Viscusi, W. K. (1998). What juries can't do well: The jury's performance as a risk manager. Arizona Law Review, 40, 901–921.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hendrix, W. H., Rueb, J. D., & Steel, R. P. (1998). Sexual harassment and gender differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hurt, J. L., Maver, J. A., & Hofmann, D. (1999). Situational and individual influences on judgments of hostile environment sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1395–1415.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Knapp, D. E., & Heshizer, B. P. (1999). Outcomes of requests for summary judgments in federal sexual harassment cases: Policy-capturing revisited. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Chicago.

  25. Kretser, R. (1992). Women and minorities on the judiciary. New York State Bar Journal, 64, 8–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kritzer, H. M. (1978). Political correlates of the behavior of federal district judges: A 'best case' analysis. Journal of Politics, 40, 25–58.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kritzer, H. M., & Uhlman, T. M. (1977). Sisterhood in the courtroom: Sex of judge and defendant in criminal case disposition. The Social Science Journal, 14, 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kulik, C. T., & Perry, E. L. (1994). Heuristic processing in organizational judgments. In L. Heath, F. Bryant, J. Edwards, E. Henderson, J. Myers, E. Posavac, et al. (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (Vol. 3, pp. 185–204). New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Lamb, C. M. (1976). Exploring the conservatism of federal appeals court judges. Indiana Law Journal, 51, 257–279.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8(2), 296–319.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Martin, E. (1990). Men and women on the bench: Vive la difference? Judicature, 73(4), 204–208.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Marvell, T. B. (1978). Appellate courts and lawyers: Information gathering in the adversary system. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Murrell, A. J. (1996). Sexual harassment and women of color: Issues, challenges, and future directions. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 51–66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Bourhis, A. C. (2000). The reasonable woman standard: Effects on sexual harassment court decisions. In R. Done (Chair), Sexual harassment policy effects: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Symposium conducted at Academy of Management meetings, Toronto, August, 2000.

  35. Plater, M. A., & Thomas, R. E. (1998). The impact of job performance, gender, and ethnicity on the managerial review of sexual harassment allegations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 52–70.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pryor, J. B., & Day, J. D. (1988). Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis. Sex Roles, 18, 405–417.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Quinn, J. R. (1996). "Attitudinal" decision making in the federal courts: A study of constitutional self-representation claims. San Diego Law Review, 33, 701–754.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Robinson, R. K., Reithel, B. J., & Franklin, G. M. (1995–96). An exploratory study of the reasonable woman standard: Gender-bias in interpreting actionable sexual harassment. Journal of Individual Employment Rights, 4, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Roehling, M. V. (1993). "Extracting" policy from judicial opinions: The dangers of policy capturing in a field setting. Personnel Psychology, 46, 477–502.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D. & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Rowland, C. K., & Carp, R. A. (1996). Politics and judgment in federal district courts. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Smith, S. M. (1993). Diversifying the judiciary: The influence of gender and race on judging. University of Richmond Law Review, 28, 179–204.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Summers, R. J. (1991). Determinants of judgments of and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 25, 379–392.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1988). Outcomes of sexual harassment charges. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1992). Outcomes of federal court decisions on sexual harassment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 181–190.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Uhlman, T. M. (1978). Black elite decision making: The case of trial judges. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 884–895.

    Google Scholar 

  47. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1980). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex, 29 CFR Part 1604.11.

  48. Valentine-French, S., & Radtke, H. L. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles, 21, 545–555.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Walker, T. G., & Barrow, D. J. (1985). The diversification of the federal bench: Policy and process ramifications. The Journal of Politics, 47, 596–617.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wegner, D. M. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 34–52.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900–912.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Wright, B. M. (1973). A black brood on black judges. Judicature, 57(1), 22–23.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Kulik, C.T., Perry, E.L. & Pepper, M.B. Here Comes the Judge: The Influence of Judge Personal Characteristics on Federal Sexual Harassment Case Outcomes. Law Hum Behav 27, 69–86 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021678912133

Download citation

  • sexual harassment
  • hostile environment
  • demographics