Sexual Harassment Flashcards
EEOC definition of sexual harassment
Unwelcome sexual advances when either:
. An employment decision affecting that individual is made bc they submitted to or rejected the unwelcome conduct (quid pro quo condition)
. The unwelcome conduct unreasonably interferes with work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or abusive work environment (hostile work environment condition)
Title VII of civil rights act
Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
Courts held in 1970 that sexual harassment is prohibited under title VII
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES ACT (EEO) of 1972
Strengthened and extended the title VII ruling by allowing the EEOC to bring federal suits against employment discrimination
Meritor v Vinson
USSC. Vinson dismissed from Meritor bank for excessive use of sick leave. Claimed VP sidney taylor had coerced her into sexual relations and made demands for sexual interactions at work. Did not report the conduct nor use the company complaint system. She argued that his conduct created a HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT. The test is not whether she cooperated but whether the advances were UNWELCOME.
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Made it possible to sue for psychological damages. Allowed jurors to consider the extent of the harm, which would lead to compensatory damages, as well as whether the severity if the conduct should lead to punitive damages.
Ellison v Brady
1991, same year as civil rights act. (Not a landmark case.)
Established REASONABLE WOMAN standard (vs reasonable person) as means to determine welcomeness and hostile work environment
Harrison v Forklift Systems
Ms Harris working at equipment rental system. Her boss Mr Hardy made numerous sexist comments in public. She told him to stop, he said he would, and he didn’t. She quit and sued, claiming Hardy’s conduct created a hostile work environment. Question before the Court was must an environment seriously negatively effect a person’s psychological well-being in order to qualify as hostile? Ie, how much psychological damage is necessary before you can make a claim? USSC held that psychological damages are not necessary for abusive work environment claims to be successful. Title VII comes into play before the conduct leads to a nervous breakdown. Garden variety damages (humiliation, family stress, inability to sleep), which don’t require a psych dx or psych testimony, are enough. USSC did NOT adopt the reasonable woman standard (Ellison v Brady) but decided court must look at TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES including OBJECTIVE (REASONABLE PERSON) perception as well as the SUBJECTIVE PERSON’S perception.
Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Services
SAME-SEX SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS ACTIONABLE.
Mr Encall worked as a roustabout on an oil rig. His supervisor Mr Lyons did a lot of sexual horseplaying. Encalle went to supervisor, but supervisor was also being harassed. Encalle requested termination. After leaving, he sued claiming it was a hostile work env. Issue: is same-sex harassment actionable? USSC said yes.
Evaluating psychological damages in sexual harassment
- Did the action cause the symptoms? (Don’t assume that just bc there are sx after an incident, that the incident caused the symptoms.)
- Were there preexisting vulnerabilities, alternative causes (simultaneous marital problems or substance use, or litigation stress causing the sx)?
- Once liability is proven, the damages will hinge on the emotional injury and its effects on the plaintiff. (Sole cause vs major factor vs aggravating/accelerating factor vs minor factor vs totally unrelated.)
- Fact finder will look at severity, prognosis, how much time and cost of tx, has individual attempted to obtain tx, effects of retaliation.
Vance v Ball State University
USSC 2013
Ms Vance alleged her supervisor subjected her to racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.
USSC held employer is liable for harassment perpetrated by a supervisor if the harassment resulted in TANGIBLE EMPLOYMENT ACTION.
Pricewater v Hopkins
Gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination.
Once the plaintiff proves gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant can only avoid liability by proving by a preponderance if the evidence that it would have made the same decision regardless of the plaintiff’s gender.
Faragher-Ellerth defense
An employer may avoid liability by exercising reasonable care to prevent and correct harassing behavior and showing that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities.
Hively v Ivy Tech Community College
Kimberly Ively fired for being a lesbian. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is highest court so far to find that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
