slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Meritor v. Savings Bank (1986)

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 8

Meritor v. Savings Bank (1986) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 96 Views
  • Uploaded on

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Meritor and Beyond July 19, 2011 Fatima Goss Graves Vice President for Education & Employment National Women’s Law Center. Meritor v. Savings Bank (1986).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Meritor v. Savings Bank (1986)' - terentia-avis


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Meritor and BeyondJuly 19, 2011Fatima Goss GravesVice President for Education & EmploymentNational Women’s Law Center

meritor v savings bank 1986
Meritor v. Savings Bank (1986)
  • Plaintiff claimed 40+ instances of sexual conduct occurred with a supervisor over a 3 year period that only ceased when plaintiff began dating a steady boyfriend
  • Sexual conduct was not a condition to obtain or maintain employment or to obtain a promotion
  • Supreme Court held: sexual harassment that leads to a hostile or offensive work environment (HWE) violates Title VII, not just quid pro quo sexual harassment
meritor cont d
Meritor (cont’d)
  • Other key features:
    • Voluntariness of sexual conduct is not a defense; the issue is whether any alleged sexual advances were unwelcome
    • Trier of fact must look at the totality of the circumstances—including the nature and context of the sexual advances
    • Employer not automatically liable for supervisor’s conduct under respondeat superior
harris v forklift systems 1993
Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993)
  • Plaintiff subjected to gender-based insults and unwanted sexual innuendos
  • Supreme Court held: standard for an actionable hostile work environment—conduct must be severe or pervasive but does not have to lead to injury or psychological harm
oncale v sundowner offshore services 1998
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998)
  • Male plaintiff subjected to harassment by male supervisors; complaints to supervisors received no response; plaintiff eventually quit
  • Supreme Court held: nothing in Title VII or court precedent excludes same-sex harassment—prior law merely prohibits a hostile work environment
burlington industries v ellerth 1998
Burlington Industries v. Ellerth (1998)
  • Plaintiff subjected to 15 months of constant sexual harassment by a supervisor, refused all sexual advances, and did not report conduct
  • Plaintiff did not suffer any adverse job consequences
  • Supreme Court held: plaintiff could not state quid pro quo claim because no tangible job consequences; employer could be held vicariously liable under HWE claim
crawford v metropolitan government of nashville 2001
Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (2001)
  • Plaintiff participated in employer’s internal investigation and reported the multiple instances in which a supervisor had sexually harassed her
  • Plaintiff was subsequently fired
  • Supreme Court held: prohibition against retaliation extended from employees who report workplace discrimination on their own to include employees who report workplace discrimination during an employer’s internal investigation
    • Participation in internal investigation considered within the “opposition clause” of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision
harris v city of baltimore 4th cir 2011
Harris v. City of Baltimore(4th Cir. 2011)
  • Plaintiff subjected to profane, sexually explicit language, coworkers’ conversations about sexual activity, and provocative pictures of women displayed in her workplace
  • Fourth Circuit held: critical inquiry is whether the plaintiff’s environment was hostile and not whether conduct was directed at the plaintiff
ad