Sexual harassment in the workplace has existed ever since women entered the workplace in the 19th century. In those days, it was ignored and dismissed as part of working life but recently, it is becoming globally recognized as a problem for working women. There are increasingly more incidents reported concerning this issue. According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1980), they received one sexual harassment complaint; by 1989 nearly 6,000 new cases had been filed and between 1990 and 1999 the reports increased to 37,725. Currently under the public eye in India is the ‘Tehelka case’. Famous editor-in-chief of Tehelka magazine, Tarun Tejpal sexually assaults a female journalist. The issue at hand is how workplaces can be equipped to eliminate or diminish sexual harassment. The topics I will be using to further explore this issue are gender, sexuality and ethics. Knowing the exact nature of harassment enables organisations and individuals to identify and deal with the issue appropriately. According to Michael Rubenstein (1992: 2), sexual harassment is “unwanted conduct of sexual nature or conduct based on sex, which is offensive to the recipient. "The determining of this act is extremely challenging as sexual harassment based on perception. On the whole, women describe a wider range of behaviours as potential harassment than men do" (Gutek, 1985), this is due to gender differences between the two sexes. Men usually do not find certain situations as offensive as women do. For example, teasing, sexual remarks or catcalling could be perceived as harassment by women whereas in most cases to men, it is banter or harmless fun. So in these situations, “harassment is only harassment if it is felt to be so by the recipient woman” (Collier, 1995:3). The complexity of defining exactly what sexual harassment is has made it difficult for organisations and individuals to properly address the matter. Most of the time, the issue is ignored, not taken seriously or believed. Although, there are certain noticeable behaviours that can clearly be regarded as sexual harassment. Hadjifotiou (1983) describes some of these as “suggestive looks and gestures." In the ‘Tehelka case,' Tejpal "held [her arm] and pulled [her] back into the lift." Hadjifotiou (1983:15) argues that the harasser uses this approach as a way of demanding for attention and that acting ignorant of the situation will not solve the problem at hand as the harasser will only get more interested. This suggests that Tejpal was aware of his actions and his desire to be involved sexually with the journalist escalated leading him to drag her into the lift to attempt to kiss her again. Other more obvious behaviours include, "persistent demands for dates and sexual favours and touching, pinching, caressing and hugging" (Hadjifotiou 1983:16). Tejpal did not only attempt to molest the journalist again, he threatened that she would lose her job is she refused his advances. According to Hadjifotiou (1983), it is difficult for the male harassers to accept rejection as they believe women are meant to be flattered by their advances; they do not see their actions as "unwanted." Especially in this situation where there is an imbalance of power between Tejpal and the journalist; rejection of any sort is emasculating. Harassment has been taken for granted for so long because it is so prevalent in a woman’s everyday life. Women are mistreated, hooted at on the streets or chatted up in clubs and pubs or even molested in their own homes. Hadjifotiou (1983:24) states the behaviors are deeply rooted in our society that it is not about sexual attraction rather the power inequality between the sexes. Supporting Hadjifotiou is Farley’s" (1978:207) argument that “female oppression at work is the result of nearly universal male power to hire and fire. Men control the means of economic survival. This control, however, is used to coerce working women sexually. Institutionalized male power has thus created its own means of maintaining its s