A broader definition of harassment

EDITORIAL: The National Assembly’s resolution reaffirming that workplace harassment extends beyond conduct of a sexual nature is a welcome reminder that the right to dignity at work cannot be confined to a narrow definition of sexual misconduct.

Intimidation, humiliation, degrading treatment, hostile behaviour and gender-based discrimination can be equally damaging, particularly when enabled by unequal power dynamics within an organisation.

Moved by MNA Dr Shahida Rehmani, the resolution calls on the federal government and relevant institutions to implement existing legislation in its full scope, ensuring non-sexual harassment does not become grounds for denying statutory protection.

The resolution assumes added significance following a recent Federal Constitutional Court ruling that set aside an Islamabad High Court judgment in a workplace harassment case involving a bank employee. The case, filed in 2012, had prompted concern after the FCC, while interpreting the definition of harassment under the original 2010 law, observed that the conduct must be sexual in nature to fall within its ambit.

The ruling has consequently raised questions about the scope of protections available under the amended legislation. There is an important temporal dimension here. The complaint predates the 2022 amendment, which expressly brought sexual and non-sexual gender-based discrimination within the Act’s Code of Conduct. It is possible the court relied on the original 2010 provision because the case preceded the amendment. If so, how the amended law applies to older complaints needs clarification.

The resulting uncertainty also places a responsibility on parliament to make its intent completely unambiguous through further amendments or transitional provisions if necessary, so that protections introduced in 2022 are not lost to questions of interpretation or timing.

The responsibility, however, does not rest with parliament alone. Public and private sector organisations must take ownership of their workplace environments. The law requires employers to establish internal inquiry committees and provide mechanisms through which complaints can be addressed. Organisations must ensure that these are independent, accessible, and capable of acting without fear or favour, particularly when allegations involve senior management or influential officials.

Employees should not have to spend years pursuing justice through successive forums while continuing to work in hostile environments or leave their jobs because their institutions failed to protect them. Accountability must begin within organisations.

Equally important is a shift in societal attitudes towards what constitutes harassment and who can be its target. There remains a tendency to trivialise humiliation, verbal abuse, intimidation and discriminatory treatment, particularly when these are directed at women.

However, it must also be recognised that men, too, can be subjected to workplace harassment, whether sexual or non-sexual. The issue is ultimately one of dignity and the abuse of power, irrespective of gender.

Such mind-sets are not confined to employers, and can also shape how complaints are understood and adjudicated. The judiciary, too, must remain cognisant of the evolving legislative framework and the distinction parliament has sought to establish between sexual misconduct and non-sexual gender-based discrimination.

Greater representation of women in positions of authority, including in parliament, the judiciary and institutional leadership is also essential. Their participation can bring overlooked experiences into policy discussions, challenge entrenched assumptions and make institutions more responsive. While representation alone cannot guarantee change, women’s meaningful participation in decision-making is essential to challenging existing power structures.

A workplace free from harassment and discrimination is not an unreasonable expectation or a privilege granted by employers. It is a matter of dignity and equality.

Parliament has reaffirmed this principle. It must now ensure that the law gives it unmistakable effect, while institutions must demonstrate through their actions that no employee should have to endure humiliation, intimidation, or discrimination as the price of earning a living.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026