What You’re Up Against When You Claim: Sexual Harassment

The psychiatric community “explains away” accusations of sexual harassment. How so? 

Harassment claims are explained away, sometimes, by exposing the plaintiff’s psychological defense mechanisms. Most mental health professionals, no matter their particular discipline — psychology, counseling, social work, psychiatry, etc., have been introduced, if not buried, in psychodynamic theory. The theory is based upon Freud’s brilliant observations about the human psyche.

We’re all familiar with some of it. When we don’t want to see something about ourselves (or someone we love), because it hurts too much, most of us have the ability to simply not see it — classic denial. A supervisor tells us that our work isn’t what it should be, and we immediately reject the assessment, think it as biased or to his benefit. It might be, but it might not. Pretty normal denial.

Displacement is another defense. If we have been treated poorly in the past, either as a child or an adult, but were powerless at the time to do anything about it, we might want to unleash that unresolved trauma to another available target, at a more opportune time, under safer, more socially accepting circumstances. Children do this when they are bullied. They can’t push back against an older sibling or a parent, but they can displace anger to a more vulnerable peer.

Denial (not me) and misattribution or displacement (you) are said to be primitive psychological defenses, and yet we all have them, we’re all children at times. But most of us won’t push back to the degree that we’ll deliberately retaliate with a claim of sexual harassment.

If we do, we better be ready to defend our very lives, our histories. Somehow they will be transparent.

When allegations are driven by a plaintiff’s unresolved psychological history, they are referred to as “factitious claims,” a psychiatric forensic phrase coined in 1996 by Sara Feldman-Schorrig. Factitious claims serve as a means of gaining validation and recognition for being in a sick role, playing the victim. Psychiatrists Alicia Bales and James Spar see factitious claims as a means of seeking social support, but also a way to express anger for a previous victimization. The gain is all psychological; it isn’t about making money.

Bales and Spar refer to other defenses, beyond denial and displacement. A “repetition compulsion,” for example, is a psychological need to attribute the features of someone from the past to someone in the present in order to “master” old trauma. A pattern is established in relationships to work out earlier abuse or neglect by finding other people with similar qualities. If my father is a stern, distant fellow, and my boss is as well, then I might perceive my boss to be something of a monster. Rational or not, I feel compelled to bring him down. The defendant’s counsel will be sure to seek that out, the father projection, and bring it forward. Another win for forensic psychiatry and for the employer, most likely.

“Reaction formation” is the tendency to have an exaggerated response to an insult or a rejection. A person might respond to a flirtation initially, might even like the flattery, and the co-worker or boss who flatters her. If it is cut off, however, for whatever reason, the abandonment could hit hard, become a psychological trigger. An abandoned, enraged, scorned employee may choose to file a suit. This makes a very good case to discourage romance in the workplace. People don’t like rejection, and some will respond vengefully.

Bales and Spar call for a fair look at all sexual harassment claims, never an assumption that reports are based upon the plaintiffs fantasies, but a close examination of the context. Nevertheless, to ignore the plaintiff’s motives is short-sighted. Each false allegation has the potential to harm an innocent defendant financially, socially, and psychologically.

It is hard to hear all of this, for in the end it comes across as victim-blaming, the patriarchal profession of psychiatry wielding the same anti-feminist sword about neuroses, traditionally female neuroses. But the authors of these psychiatric opinions are gender neutral, cite references to males who have filed suit, too, and lost.

The coming avalanche of sexual harassment claims will be vetted, to be sure, for psychological issues, and they may be won or lost based upon the plaintiff’s past, among other things. A deep-seated motivation driving a need for justice may provide grounds to dismiss the case.

With each case, too, both the defense and the plaintiff have exhausted considerable emotional and financial reserves. The plaintiff suffers yet another blow, hasn’t resolved the repeated compulsion, hasn’t worked out any of the past. The defendant, who should walk away happy, is likely to have suffered social and economic consequences in the waiting, perhaps demotion, dismissal, social ostracism, or marital discord.

These cases are good for no one. The company should either prevent these cases (optimal solution) or bring in a professional team to work with both plaintiff and defendant. Will everyone need therapy, otherwise, in the end?

Guaranteed.