Sexual Harassment Case
- Submitted by: fmoslmos
- Views: 1278
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 04/25/2010 11:32 AM
- Pages: 5
- Report this Essay
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson 477 U.S. 57 (1986)
INTRODUCTION
In 1974, after being fired from her job at a Meritor Savings Bank, Mechelle Vinson sued Sidney Taylor, the Vice President of the bank. Vinson charged that Taylor had coerced her to have sexual relations with him and made demands for sexual favors while at work. Vinson stated that she had intercourse with Taylor 40 or 50 times. Additionally she testified that Taylor had touched her in public, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her multiple times.
She argued such harassment created a hostile working environment and a form of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1]. Vinson sought injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages against Taylor and the bank.
The primary question presented was: "Is a hostile work environment a form of unlawful discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1], or is the Act limited to "tangible economic discrimination" in the workplace?"
Issue
Instead of she doing the right thing at the beginning of the indecorous proposition, she accepted and not only that she started an affair with him for more than a year.
Ruling
Rule: Violation of Title VII when one of the following occur:
1. harassment that involves the conditioning of the employment benefits on sexual favors
2. harassment that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment
EEOC as Amici Curiae 26
“If the employer has an expressed policy against sexual harassment and has implemented a procedure specifically designed to resolve sexual harassment claims, and if the victim does not take advantage of that procedure, the employer should be shielded from liability absent actual knowledge of the sexually hostile environment.”
The court determined that QUID PRO QUO was not the only type of sexual harassment. For the first time, the U.S. supreme court determined that this kind of situation...
INTRODUCTION
In 1974, after being fired from her job at a Meritor Savings Bank, Mechelle Vinson sued Sidney Taylor, the Vice President of the bank. Vinson charged that Taylor had coerced her to have sexual relations with him and made demands for sexual favors while at work. Vinson stated that she had intercourse with Taylor 40 or 50 times. Additionally she testified that Taylor had touched her in public, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her multiple times.
She argued such harassment created a hostile working environment and a form of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1]. Vinson sought injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages against Taylor and the bank.
The primary question presented was: "Is a hostile work environment a form of unlawful discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1], or is the Act limited to "tangible economic discrimination" in the workplace?"
Issue
Instead of she doing the right thing at the beginning of the indecorous proposition, she accepted and not only that she started an affair with him for more than a year.
Ruling
Rule: Violation of Title VII when one of the following occur:
1. harassment that involves the conditioning of the employment benefits on sexual favors
2. harassment that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment
EEOC as Amici Curiae 26
“If the employer has an expressed policy against sexual harassment and has implemented a procedure specifically designed to resolve sexual harassment claims, and if the victim does not take advantage of that procedure, the employer should be shielded from liability absent actual knowledge of the sexually hostile environment.”
The court determined that QUID PRO QUO was not the only type of sexual harassment. For the first time, the U.S. supreme court determined that this kind of situation...