Aexual Harassment
- Submitted by: jimball2112
- Views: 1553
- Category: Politics: Moral Issues
- Date Submitted: 04/10/2010 02:54 PM
- Pages: 3
- Report this Essay
1. Define / History
a. “Mad Men” Clip
b. Present Cases in Historical Context (Pre-1974 Cases)
c. Present Landmark Case - Barnes v. Train (1974)
2. 1980’s / 1990’s
a. 1980’s
i. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces Title VII, issues guidelines interpreting the law to forbid sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination. 29 C.F.R. §1604.11
ii. Addressing the sexual harassment issue for the first time, U.S. Supreme Court rules that a women who allegedly had sex with her boss a number of times, because she feared losing her job if she did not, could sue for sexual harassment. The question is not whether the employee’s conduct was voluntary but whether the boss’s conduct was unwelcome, the Court explains. An employer can be held liable for sexual harassment committed by supervisors if it knew or should have known about the conduct and did nothing to correct it, the Court adds. Meritor Savings Banks v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 40FEP Cases 1822
iii. When male construction workers hazed three female colleagues, even if the conduct was not specifically sexual in nature, it was gender-based harassment prohibited by the law, a U.S. appeals court finds. Hall v. Gus Construction Co., 842 F.2d 1010, 46 FEP Cases 57 (8th Cir.)
b. 1990’s
i. A sexually hostile environment violating Title VII is found where women were a small minority of the work force and crude language, sexual graffiti, and pornography pervaded the workplace. Title VII is “a sword to battle such conditions,” not a shield to protect preexisting abusive environments, the court declares. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 760 F. Supp. 1486, 57 FEP Cases 971 (M.D. Fla.)...
a. “Mad Men” Clip
b. Present Cases in Historical Context (Pre-1974 Cases)
c. Present Landmark Case - Barnes v. Train (1974)
2. 1980’s / 1990’s
a. 1980’s
i. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces Title VII, issues guidelines interpreting the law to forbid sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination. 29 C.F.R. §1604.11
ii. Addressing the sexual harassment issue for the first time, U.S. Supreme Court rules that a women who allegedly had sex with her boss a number of times, because she feared losing her job if she did not, could sue for sexual harassment. The question is not whether the employee’s conduct was voluntary but whether the boss’s conduct was unwelcome, the Court explains. An employer can be held liable for sexual harassment committed by supervisors if it knew or should have known about the conduct and did nothing to correct it, the Court adds. Meritor Savings Banks v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 40FEP Cases 1822
iii. When male construction workers hazed three female colleagues, even if the conduct was not specifically sexual in nature, it was gender-based harassment prohibited by the law, a U.S. appeals court finds. Hall v. Gus Construction Co., 842 F.2d 1010, 46 FEP Cases 57 (8th Cir.)
b. 1990’s
i. A sexually hostile environment violating Title VII is found where women were a small minority of the work force and crude language, sexual graffiti, and pornography pervaded the workplace. Title VII is “a sword to battle such conditions,” not a shield to protect preexisting abusive environments, the court declares. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, 760 F. Supp. 1486, 57 FEP Cases 971 (M.D. Fla.)...