Title vii liability for sexual harassment, 17 golden gate u. United states of america usa 3 federal supreme court meritor savings bank, fsb v. Vinson in 1974, mechelle vinson met sidney taylor, a branch manager and assistant vice president for meritor savings bank. Assignment continued case study 5 read meritor savings. The united states district court for the district of columbia entered judg. Certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit no. A hostileenvironment constructive discharge claim entails something more. It established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful. Sexual harassment found to be a form of sex discrimination under 1964 civil rights act. A summary and case brief of meritor savings bank v. The case involved a female employee at a bank who alleged she was forced to have sex by her supervisor, fearing the loss of her job if she refused. It established, for the first time, hostile work environment sexual harassment as a cause of action under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964. Chapter 3 sexual harassment civil rights act of 1964. Lexis 108 brought to you by free law project, a nonprofit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information.
After the longest trial in eeocs history, the trial court rejects eeocs allegation that sears roebuck engaged in a nationwide practice against. The case was the first of its kind to reach the supreme court and would redefine sexual harassment in the workplace. What links here related changes upload file special pages permanent link page. In 1974, respondent mechelle vinson met sidney taylor, a vicepresident of what is now petitioner meritor savings bank bank and manager of one of its branch offices. It established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful and when an employer would be liable.
In this case, the 5th circuit pointed out that the supreme court in meritor savings bank relied heavily on title vii language prohibiting discrimination with respect to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Since that decision, case law has continued to evolve, with courts. Mechelle vinsons tangled trials the washington post. Overview of the law on harassment lehigh university. Female bank employee brought sexual harassment suit against bank and supervisor under employment discrimination statute. Vinson, decided in 1986, marked the first time the supreme court considered a sexual harassment case under title vii. Title vii may be predicated on two types of harassment. Meritor savings bank v vinson sexual harassment case summary sexual harassment and the law william rehnquist chief justice of united states britannica com supreme court cases the 10 corporate counsel need to know robert 16 meritor savings bank v vinson 477 u s 57 1986 university solved iil case significance identify the significance o. Did the behavior of taylor the manager violate title vii of the civil rights act of 1965. The burger court opinion writing database meritor savings bank, fsb v. In 1974, respondent mechelle vinson met sidney taylor, a vicepresident of what is now petitioner meritor savings bank 106 s.
Meritor savings bank v vinson first sexual harassment case to reach u. Audio transcription for oral argument march 25, 1986 in meritor savings bank, fsb v. Supreme court on june 19, 1986, ruled 90 that sexual harassment that results in a hostile work environment is a violation of title vii of the civil rights act of 1964, which bans sex discrimination by employers. Vinson is exactly the kind of case that is troublesome because it embodies the problematic nature of the subjective definition of sexual harassment.
Supreme court ruled title vii is not limited to discrimination with only economic or tangible effects 2008 by prentice hall 372 harris v forklift systems, inc. Supreme court of the united states meritor savings bank, fsb. It also held that to be actionable under title vii, sexual advances must be 1 unwelcome and 2 sufficiently severe or pervasive to. Clarence thomas, anita hill, and sexual harassment law in. Suders claim is of the same genre as the claims analyzed in. Which of the following statements is true of the case of meritor savings bank, fsb v. Quid pro quo harassment exists when an employee must submit to a supervisors request for sexual favors in exchange for a job benefit or to avoid a job detriment. As a manager, i would have taken the claim seriously and began looking further into it. United states supreme court this case presents important questions concerning claims of workplace sexual united states supreme court this case presents important questions concerning claims of workplace sexual.
The trial court held that vinson was not a victim of sexual harassment because of the voluntariness of her participation in the repeated sexual incidents. Allison can file a claim with the equal employment opportunity commission on behalf of kay for. If he files a sexual orientation discrimination claim, it could be based on. Oid brief of respondent mechelle vinson, meritor savings bank v. The court, for the first time, made sexual harassment an. Vinson, in which the court determined that title viis prohibition against sex discrimination in employment encompassed sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment theory. In the pure hostile environment case, where an employee files an eeoc complaint alleging sexual harassment in the workplace, the. This case presents important questions concerning claims of workplace sexual harassment brought under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 78 stat. Vinson, the supreme court recognized for the first time that both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment violate title vii of the civil rights act of 1964.
Vinson respondent former employee of petitioner bank brought an action against the bank and her supervisor at the bank, claiming that during her employment at the bank she had been subjected to sexual harassment by the supervisor in violation of title vii of the civil rights act of 1964, and seeking injunctive relief and. When respondent asked whether she might obtain employment at the bank, taylor gave her an application, which she completed and returned the next day. Because i do not see any inconsistency between the two opinions, and because i believe the question of statutory construction that justice marshall has answered is fairly presented by the record, i join both the courts opinion and justice marshalls opinion. Supreme court ruled 90 that sexual harassment that results in a hostile work environment is a. Vinson, the supreme court for the first time recognizes that sexual harassment is a violation of title vii.
Pdf files within firefox on mac os and if you are using a modern intel mac, there is no official plugin for viewing pdf files within the browser window. Did the civil rights act prohibit the creation of a hostile environment or was it limited to tangible economic discrimination in the workplace. Study 20 terms employment law chapter 910 flashcards. Meritor savings bank v vinson law case britannicacom mandegar info supreme court cases the 10 corporate counsel need to know robert firact meritor sb v vinson bus 157 legal issues in hrm erika womens rights sexual harassment and the law 16 meritor savings bank v vinson. In 1974, respondent mechelle vinson met sidney taylor, a vice president of what is now petitioner meritor savings bank bank and manager of one of its branch offices. Vinson claimed that she had had sexual intercourse with taylor on multiple occasions, out of fear of losing her job, and that. The court in formulating its opinion, favorably cites eeocs policy guidance on sexual harassment.
168 762 1453 562 941 966 354 951 383 1051 3 375 1307 144 1648 811 1548 246 1654 821 435 759 398 272 1017 1291 1415 1153 539 1263