Who posted #MeToo, why, and what happened: A mixed methods examination.

Objectives: The #MeToo social media campaign raised awareness about sexual harassment. The purpose of the current study was to address three unexplored research questions. First, what factors influenced whether a person posted #MeToo? Second, how did posting (or not) influence participants' wellbeing? Finally, what motivated participants' posting (or not) #MeToo? Method: This mixed-methods study explores how #MeToo was experienced by full-time employees (N = 395) who could have posted #MeToo (i.e., experienced a sexual harassment event), whether or not they did so. Participants completed surveys in July of 2018 assessing social media use, sexual harassment history, relational variables such as relative power and social support, and job and life satisfaction. Participants also responded to open-ended survey questions about the context of and decisions about #MeToo posting. Results: Quantitative results indicated that sexual harassment history was the most powerful predictor of #MeToo posting, while power and interpersonal contact also contributed. Qualitative analyses (N = 74) using a grounded theory approach indicated themes associated with decisions to disclose, including feeling a responsibility to post, need for support, and affective benefits. Decisions not to disclose were event-related negative affect, posting-related negative affect, timing of the event, fit with the #MeToo movement, privacy concerns, and fear of consequences. Conclusion: This study contributes to the literature on sexual harassment disclosure by focusing on informal means of disclosure and drawing on comparisons to formal reporting and implications for workplaces. Online sexual harassment disclosure, in many ways, reflects the impediments to formal reporting procedures. Given the increased use of social media for purposes of disclosure, these findings suggests that organizations should recognize the legitimacy of sexual harassment reports made online and consider the possible failings of their formal reporting systems as reasons for online disclosure.

The Dobbs Decision and the Future of Occupational Health in the US.

Access to abortion care has a profound impact on women's ability to participate in the workforce. In the US, restrictions on abortion care have waxed and waned over the years, including periods when abortion was broadly permitted across the nation for most pregnant people for a substantial proportion of pregnancy and times when restrictions varied across states, including states where abortion is banned for nearly all reasons. Additionally, access to abortion care has always been a reproductive justice issue, with some people more able to access this care than others even when it is structurally available. In June 2022, the US Supreme Court handed down the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, returning to states the ability to determine restrictions on abortion, including near-total bans on abortion. In this anthology, ten experts share their perspectives on what the Dobbs decision means for the future, how it will exacerbate existing, well-researched issues, and likely also create new challenges needing investigation. Some contributions are focused on research directions, some focus on implications for organizations, and most include both. All contributions share relevant occupational health literature and describe the effects of the Dobbs decision in context.