1 / 8

Meritor v. Savings Bank (1986)

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).

Télécharger la présentation

Meritor v. Savings Bank (1986)

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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

More Related