Discrimination (ADA) & Educational Access (IDEA)

Question 1

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) *

Answer 1

“Hostile work environment” sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act)

• The correct inquiry is whether or not the sexual advances were UNWELCOME (as opposed to voluntary). Doesn’t require that the employee be subject to a quid pro quo.
• Furthermore, employers are always automatically liable for sexual harassment by their supervisors
  mnemonic: One should get promoted on the basis of merit(or), not quid pro quo; or else the employer is liable.

Question 2

Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993)

Answer 2

Sexual harassment DOES NOT have to “seriously affect [an employee’s] psychological well being” in order to create an abusive work environment in violation of Title VII

Question 3

Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel Zimring (1999)*

Answer 3

Continued confinement of individual with mental disabilities in hospitals beyond their clinical need for that level of care constitutes discrimination under the ADA.

States must provide community programs only when the State’s treatment professional determine that such placement is appropriate, the affected persons do not oppose such tx, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the States and the needs of others with mental disabilities.

Mnemonic: “LOC” like LRA. Lake-Olmstead-Cameron.

Question 4

Burlington Industries Inc v. Ellerth (1998)

Answer 4

1) Quid pro quo conditions of employment are not necessary to prove sexual harassment.
2) Employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those whom they have authority.
3) Employers may defend themselves against liability by showing (a) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, or (b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative/corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.

Question 5

Ellison v. Brady (1991)

Answer 5

1) A female employee states a prima facie case of hostile environment sexual harassment when she alleges conduct which a reasonable woman would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive workplace environment.
2) If an employee can prove that the sexual harasser knew or should have known that hs conduct was unlawful and that the employer failed to take even the mildest form of action, the employer should be held liable for sexual harassment under Title VII.

Question 6

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc (1998)

Answer 6

Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII, as it protects against discrimination due to sex/gender for both men and women.

Question 7

Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)

Answer 7

Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.
2) Because New Haven failed to demonstrate such strong basis in evidence, its action in discarding the tests violated Title VII.