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. 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. Lexis 108 brought to you by free law project, a nonprofit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information. As a manager, i would have taken the claim seriously and began looking further into it. Supreme court of the united states meritor savings bank, fsb. Suders claim is of the same genre as the claims analyzed in.
Argued march 25, 1986decided june 19, 1986 respondent former employee of petitioner bank brought an action against the bank and her supervisor at the bank, claiming that during her em. It also held that to be actionable under title vii, sexual advances must be 1 unwelcome and 2 sufficiently severe or pervasive to. 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. 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. Chapter 3 sexual harassment civil rights act of 1964. Which of the following statements is true of the case of meritor savings bank, fsb v. Audio transcription for oral argument march 25, 1986 in meritor savings bank, fsb v. 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. The case was the first of its kind to reach the supreme court and would redefine sexual harassment in the workplace. In the pure hostile environment case, where an employee files an eeoc complaint alleging sexual harassment in the workplace, the. 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.
United states of america usa 3 federal supreme court meritor savings bank, fsb v. 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. 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. This case presents important questions concerning claims of workplace sexual harassment brought under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 78 stat. Allison can file a claim with the equal employment opportunity commission on behalf of kay for. The court, for the first time, made sexual harassment an. The court in formulating its opinion, favorably cites eeocs policy guidance on sexual harassment. Study 20 terms employment law chapter 910 flashcards. Since that decision, case law has continued to evolve, with courts.
In that particular case, mechele vinson, a bank employee claimed that her supervisor harassed her. If he files a sexual orientation discrimination claim, it could be based on. A summary and case brief of meritor savings bank v. It established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful. 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. 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. Did the civil rights act prohibit the creation of a hostile environment or was it limited to tangible economic discrimination in the workplace.
In 1974, respondent mechelle vinson met sidney taylor, a vicepresident of what is now petitioner meritor savings bank 106 s. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. The burger court opinion writing database meritor savings bank, fsb v. Certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit no. Vinson is exactly the kind of case that is troublesome because it embodies the problematic nature of the subjective definition of sexual harassment. Vinson, the supreme court for the first time recognizes that sexual harassment is a violation of title vii. When respondent asked whether she might obtain employment at the bank, taylor gave her an application, which she completed and returned the next day. The court will hear arguments first this morning in meritor savings bank against vinson.
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. 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. Vinson claimed that she had had sexual intercourse with taylor on multiple occasions, out of fear of losing her job, and that. The united states district court for the district of columbia entered judg. Clarence thomas, anita hill, and sexual harassment law in. Title vii liability for sexual harassment, 17 golden gate u. Sexual harassment found to be a form of sex discrimination under 1964 civil rights act. Robert troll, jr it is our position in a case such as this that the plaintiff must show defendant knew about the offensive environment and had a chance to correct it before that defendant can be held liable. Shoenfelt and others published reasonable person versus reasonable woman. Assignment continued case study 5 read meritor savings.
A hostileenvironment constructive discharge claim entails something more. 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. 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, 1986 behavior that is welcome to the recipient is by definition not harassing, and the concept of offensiveness or nonreciprocity is incorporated into every research measure of harassment. The latest versions of adobe reader do not support viewing pdf files within firefox on mac os and if you are using a modern intel mac. Vinson, decided in 1986, marked the first time the supreme court considered a sexual harassment case under title vii. Vinson in 1974, mechelle vinson met sidney taylor, a branch manager and assistant vice president for meritor savings bank. She then filed suit under title vii against taylor and the bank, alleging that she had been subjected to sexual harassment during her tenure in the job. Title vii may be predicated on two types of harassment. Overview of the law on harassment lehigh university. 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. Supreme court ruled 90 that sexual harassment that results in a hostile work environment is a. It established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful and when an employer would be liable. What links here related changes upload file special pages permanent link page.
424 1160 1420 392 288 1147 1343 1527 569 353 854 623 491 1111 1107 358 51 362 1603 389 803 804 1014 1068 7 211 1332 868 390 1092 662 1328 519 364