~~rst tons~derauons<br >During the last decade， sexual harassment has become a sub-<br >ject of increasing concern for large and small employers alike，<br >as well as for all levels of employees， the media， and the public.<br >During the fall 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on<br >the sexual harassment allegations Professor Anita Hill lodged<br >against Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas， Americans<br >sat before their television screens transfixed， but not a little<br >confused.<br > Over the course of the hearings， we slowly learned what<br >employers have known for some time: that sexual harassment<br >situations are fraught with pitfalls， that the truth can be elusive<br >as claims and counterclaims compete for credibility. Employers<br >have long faced the need to elicit details， attempt to verify them<br >through corroborating witnesses and workplace documenta-<br >tion， assess the facts and credibility of those involved， and<br >make decisions on how best to resolve the situation.<br > In the course of handling sexual harassment situations，<br >employers have come to understand that this very sensitive<br >area can be difficult to deal with， disruptive to the workplace，<br >and disagreeable to all concerned. And the stakes are high and<br >getting higher. In an increasingly litigious society and in an era<br >of ever-increasing employee rights and employer responsibili-<br >ties， sexual harassment allegations are particularly hazardous.<br >Everyone involved has rights， and frequently these rights con-<br >flict.<br > Employers face the possibility both of administrative action<br >through f~overnment oversight agencies and of civil suits where<br >