A hostile work environment can be understood as one where unwelcome advances, sexual innuendos, or offensive gender-related language are sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to interfere with an employee’s ability to perform their professional duties. Such behaviour need not always be overt or physical — even subtle remarks, gestures, or repeated comments can contribute to an atmosphere of discomfort or intimidation.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines workplace harassment as unwelcome conduct that becomes a condition of continued employment or creates an intimidating, hostile, or abusive work environment. It further categorises harassment as including demands for sexual favours or creating a hostile environment when such demands are not met. This framework highlights that the impact of the act, rather than its physicality, determines whether a workplace can be considered hostile.
Definition of sexual harassment
In the Indian context, the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (PoSH) Act, 2013 defines sexual harassment through specific behaviours and circumstances that may amount to such conduct. The Act recognises that harassment can occur through physical contact, verbal remarks, gestures, or any other form of behaviour with sexual undertones that make the recipient uncomfortable.
Indian courts have consistently adopted a broad and liberal interpretation of sexual harassment. This ensures that the law captures a wide range of actions, including those that might appear subtle or non-physical, yet still create an oppressive or hostile work environment.
Hostile work environments often emerge within hierarchical structures, where power dynamics play a crucial role. Junior employees may feel compelled to comply with inappropriate requests from superiors or may hesitate to report objectionable behaviour due to fear of professional retaliation. Such dynamics make the workplace unsafe and hinder employees’ ability to perform without distress or coercion.
The PoSH Act, therefore, does not merely address explicit acts of harassment but also acknowledges the psychological and professional consequences of sustained hostility or intimidation.
Case Law
In this case, the Delhi High Court dealt with a situation where a senior officer required a woman employee to accompany him on an unnecessary official trip. The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) found the officer guilty of sexual harassment, noting that the complainant, being a junior employee, had no real choice but to comply; refusal could have reflected poorly on her performance or career prospects.
The court upheld the ICC’s findings and categorised this as a hostile and oppressive work environment, stating that:
“Sexual harassment at the workplace can also mean a hostile and oppressive work environment for a woman employee when power and authority from a male member of the organisation are being used to force her to accompany him on his outstation travels and late-night meetings.”
The judgment further clarified that:
“Sexual harassment covers myriad inappropriate behaviour, ranging from smoking in a female colleague’s presence to forcing her to stay in a male colleague’s hotel room for a work trip.”
This case underscored the principle that sexual harassment is not limited to physical acts. The misuse of power, coercion, and persistent discomfort created by authority figures also fall within its ambit. It expanded the understanding of workplace harassment to include environments where gender and power intersect to create undue pressure or psychological distress.
Case Law
In another landmark case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that:
“Sexual harassment is not just restricted to physical contact but is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether directly or by implication, particularly when submission to or rejection of such conduct by the female employee was capable of being used for effecting the employment of the female employee.”
This judgment broadened the scope of the term sexual harassment, recognising that it includes verbal, emotional, and professional coercion that stems from gender-based discrimination. It established that sexual harassment is fundamentally about violation of dignity, not just physical boundaries.
By equating sexual harassment with sex-based discrimination, the court connected it to the constitutional right to equality and dignity under Articles 14, 15, and 21, reaffirming that such conduct undermines a woman’s ability to work in a safe, respectful environment.
Takeaways for the internal committee
Sexual harassment extends beyond physical contact.
The IC must recognise that sexual harassment includes any unwelcome act, verbal, visual, or behavioural, with sexual undertones. These acts may not always appear severe in isolation but can cumulatively create a hostile work environment.
Focus on the impact, not the intent.
The committee should evaluate the effect of the alleged behaviour on the complainant rather than the intent of the respondent. If the conduct made the complainant feel unsafe, uncomfortable, or demeaned, it can qualify as harassment under the PoSH framework.
Adopt a liberal and inclusive interpretation.
The courts have repeatedly urged ICs to adopt a broad, contextual, and liberal approach when assessing complaints. Narrow technical interpretations can defeat the purpose of the Act. The focus must remain on maintaining workplace dignity and equality.
Recognise power dynamics.
Hostile work environments often arise when authority is misused, for example, when a senior employee leverages their position to demand personal attention or compliance. The IC must be sensitive to these dynamics and assess whether consent or participation was truly voluntary.
Assess the environment as a whole.
The IC must consider whether repeated behaviour, suggestive remarks, or gender-based jokes collectively contribute to a culture of discomfort or hostility. The environment’s cumulative effect is as important as individual incidents.
Ensure confidentiality and fairness.
Maintaining discretion throughout the inquiry process is essential to protect both parties’ rights and to encourage reporting without fear of retaliation or reputational harm.
Reach out to us at hello@serein.inc to know more.