phenomenon of "workplace bullying" and the need for status-blind hostile work environment protection, The

CONCLUSION

Typical contemporary attitudes toward workplace bullying are better understood by looking at the historical evolution of attitudes toward, and policies in response to, sexual harassment. Twenty-five years ago, the term "sexual harassment" was not commonly used. While sexually harassing behavior had long been a staple of many workplaces, in its typical form it was seen as an annoyance that was best handled through a mix of reluctant toleration and, where appropriate, a slap an the face. But the nation that someone had a right to be free of sexual harassment was not widely accepted.

Similarly, workplace bullying has long been viewed as an unfortunate part of being employed. Jerks at work, it can be said, often tend to be kept on the job. The current state of the law reflects this assumption: Unless an employee can show that she has been either emotionally destroyed by severe and outrageous conduct or subjected to status-based harassment or discrimination, she has little legal recourse in combating workplace bullying.

This should change. We now have an already ample and still growing body of research demonstrating the very harmful effects of workplace bullying on targets and employers alike. The existing potential legal protections are clearly inadequate, and probable conditions in the workplace of the next century provide little hope that market mechanisms will play a corrective role, A statute providing status-blind protection against a hostile work environment would not completely solve the problem, but it certainly would be a useful step in the right direction.

1. See Stephanie Armour, Running of the Bullies, LISA TGt)AY, Sept. 9. 1998. at 1B ("Shaken up and stressed out, workplaces are increasingly susceptible to bullying and browbeating behavior."); Kirstin Downey Grimsley, Slings and Arrows on the Job. Wash. PosT, July 12, 1998, at HI (describing how rudeness and bullying are thriving in a "leaner, meaner workplace"); Diane E. Lewis, Beating with Bullies, BOSTON GLOBE, Jan. 24. 1999, at L7.4 ("In an era of job insecurity, wage stagnation, and layoffs, bullying has become a serious workplace problem . . . ."1; Katherine Sopranos, Who's Afraid of the Box Bud Boss?, CMt. TRm.. June 21, 1998, at CI ("Bosses who treat their employees like punching bags rather than assets are not uncommon in the workplace."). See generally GARY NAMIE & RUTH NAMIE, BULLYPROFF YOURSELF AT WORK! (1999) (explaining the dynamics of workplace bullying and proposing personal strategies to cope with bullying behaviors); NOA DAVENPORT, ET AL. THE MOBBING SYNDROME: EMOTIONAL ABUSE IN THE AMERICAN WORKPLACE (1999) (exploring emotionally abusive work situations and offering advice to victims). For commentary more specifically addressing abusive supervision, see generally HARVEY A. HORNSTEIN, BRUTAL BOSSES AND THEIR PREY (1996); and STANLEY BING, CRAZY BOSSES (1992).

2. See HORNSTEIN. supra note 1, at 40-44 (describing how notions of organizational hierarchy have supported abusive treatment of subordinates as a "divine right"' ); see also BING, supra note l, at 100-01 ("Management by terror is a time-honored technique, because it works.. . . American management is replete with admiration of classic bullies who, as long as they flourish, are left to operate pretty