I found this paper referenced in the world bank forum (https://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/economics-and-law-sexual-harassment-workplace)
It begins by talking about an intervention by the government in India, where some plots of land were sold at a subsidized price to poor people. The government worried that richer people would buy this land from them and imposed a law prohibiting the owners to sell. Economists would say this law is nonsense and that, if an owner decides to sell, then it would mean that he or she is better off selling.
The author then points out to the laws that prohibit sexual harassment in the workplace and asks the same question: are the people choosing to accept jobs that may subject them to sexual harassment making the same rational decision as in the case of the small plots of land. The answer of course is no.
But I would like to point to one comment in the blog referencing the paper. It compliments the fact that the paper dives straight into some moral issues that many economist apparently void, but criticizes its theoretical assumptions, and robustness, and says that the argument does not hold up iin a neo-classical world and that he is forced to make some behavioral assumptions, in the end, she says, the reason we have these laws is behaioral:
"But of course the real reason we (quite rightly!) have laws against contracts allowing sexual harassment is precisely and fully behavioral: people are present-biased; they can’t accurately predict future utility as a function of outcomes (i.e. they don’t entirely know how it will feel over time); and they simply make mistakes."
I think it is a good question to ask whether the reason we have laws against sexual harassment is “fully behavioral”. In that case, if this was a completely neoclassical world, should sexual harassment be treated the same way as other labor conditions? does sexual harassment have a “price”? Is the answer to this behavioral or is it merely moral?