Sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual behavior and comes in two forms: quid pro quo harassment and hostile environment harassment. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when submission to the harassment is a condition for employment or a basis for employment decisions. A hostile work environment is created when the behavior of other people in the organizational context interferes with a person’s job performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment. The effects of four personal characteristics (gender, race, age, and political affiliation) on judicial decisions were examined in cases of hostile environment sexual harassment. The hypotheses for this study were that in cases of hostile environment sexual harassment female judges, non-white judges, younger judges, and Democratic judges would be more likely to make decisions favoring the plaintiff. The cases examined were part of a larger database used in previous research on sexual harassment case outcomes in Federal courts. Results indicated that there were no effects of judge gender or race. Men and women, whites and non-whites, were equally likely to decide cases of sexual harassment in favor of the plaintiff. The age and political affiliation of the judge significantly affected case outcomes. Younger judges and judges appointed by Democratic presidents were more likely to decide cases in favor of the plaintiff than older judges and judges appointed by Republican presidents. Future research using a scenario methodology might determine the accuracy or the biases of the judgements on hostile environment sexual harassment. 2 tables, 55 references