The case Meritor Savings Bank V. Vinson is a landmark case for employee's rights in the 20th century and beyond. This case centered on a sexual harassment claim from Mechelle Vinson against her former employer and boss. Vinson's claim was that she was sexual harassed and was forcibly coerced into sexual acts with Sidney Taylor, her manager, while working for Meritor Savings Bank. The results of this case, helped establish what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is today.
Years before this case existed, lawmakers put into law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under that law, it prohibited actions regarding discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment matters. This act also created the EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to enforce Title VII.
In this case, Taylor who was the Vice President of Meritor Bank hired Vinson as a teller for Meritor Savings Bank. For Taylor, there was an instant attraction to Vinson and he pursued her sexually. Vinson started meeting Taylor outside of work and the relationship grew to be of the sexual nature. Taylor, being her boss, started showing possessive displays of affection within the work place in front of job candidates and current employees. Taylor then suggested that Vinson apply for a higher-ranking job he supervised. Vinson deliberated on it, decided to interview, and was then promoted. Taylor and Vinson had many sexual encounters, 40-50 times, during the course of her employment with the bank. Taylor started getting more aggressive with his impromptu barrage of sexual encounters in places like the women's bathroom. When Vinson notified Taylor that she had developed and was embarking on a relationship with another male, Tay...
... middle of paper ...
...thin. That is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court did. They defined that a hostile environment exists when unwelcome sexual conduct “has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” With guidance of the EEOC, The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling was that hostile environment could exist separately from quid pro quo harassment and found Taylor and Meritor Bank guilty. This set the precedence for future sexual discrimination cases.
Works Citied
"Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson." Supreme Court Drama. Ed. Elizabeth M. Shaw. UXL-Thomson Gale, 2001. eNotes.com. 2006. 16 Mar, 2011 meritor-savings-bank-v-vinson> Bohlander, George, and Scott Snell. Managing Human Resources. 15th. Mason, OH: South-Western Pub, 2009. 98-147. Print.
Belanger v. Swift Transportation, Inc. is a case concerned with the qualified privilege of employers. In this case Belanger, a former employee of Swift Transportation, sued the company for libel in regard to posting the reason for his termination on a government data website accessible to other potential employers. Swift has a policy of automatic termination if a driver is in an accident, unless it can be proved that it was unpreventable. When Belanger rear ended another vehicle while driving for Swift the company determined the accident was preventable, while Belanger maintained it was not. Upon his termination Swift posted on a database website for promoting highway safety that he was fired because he “did not meet the company’s safety standards,”
Shaw describes two types of sexual harassment, “quid pro quo” and “hostile work environment” in both cases the victim can be a man or a woman and in both cases sexual harassment is illegal.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
The names and sex of all of the Junior Executive Secretaries that were terminated are important to this case. A wrongful termination, Title VII claim was brought against Greene’s. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states, individuals are protected against discrimination on bases of sex, religion, race, color, and national origin. Knowing all of the terminated Junior Executive Secretaries sex, can determine whether there was a male employee terminated as well. A male working within that title would suggest Greene’s did not terminate Ms. Lawson due to her
Plaintiff Debra Denise Gregg filed a sexual harassment suit for violations of Title VII, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act against Hay-Adams Hotel. She sought $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 for damages resulting from emotional distress and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff Anthony Gregg brought the claim for damages resulting from loss of companionship and consortium in the amount of $1,000,000. The judges dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiff’s accounts lacked consortium and that the facts did not support her claims for emotional distress and punitive damage.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY= This was brought to the state court were Jacobson was found guilty and then after exhausting the state level he appealed to supreme court of the United States.
Title IX is a law that requires equality of genders in every educational program funded by the federal government. It is called the “living, breathing law” because it’s been the subject of court cases, amendments, and reviews. (NWLC)
...on and Sexual Harassment: Supreme Court Drama. (n.d.). eNotes - Literature Study Guides, Lesson Plans, and More.. Retrieved November 14, 2014, from http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/gender-discrimination-and-sexual-harassment
For instance, a representative's unmistakable occupation conditions are influenced when a sexually antagonistic workplace results in her helpful release. Additionally, a boss who makes sexual advances toward a subordinate representative may convey a certain threat to unfavorably influence her employment status in the event that she doesn't go along. Hostile environment badgering may procure qualities of "quid pro quo" harassment if the culpable boss misuses his power over job choices to compel the casualty to persevere or take part in the sexual behavior. Sexual harassment may finish in a retaliatory release if a victim tells the harasser or her employer she will no more submit to the badgering, and is then terminated in striking back for this challenge. “To guarantee a work environment free from inappropriate behavior, associations can take after some essential steps. Initially, the association can build up a strategy proclamation making it clear that sexual harassment won't go on without serious consequences in the working environment. Second, all employees, new and old, can be prepared to distinguish improper working environment conduct. What's more, the association can add to a component for reporting sexual harassment in a manner that urges individuals to stand up. Finally, administration can get ready to act quickly to teach the individuals who take part in sexual harassment, and also to secure the victims of inappropriate behavior (Noe,
Mathis, R. L., & Jackson, J. H. (2010). Human resource management (13th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomas/South-western
Anna’s claim comes under the broad rubric of the unlawful employment practice of sexual harassment which has become known as “hostile work environment” developed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Yes, the comment made by Taylor to Smith in the men’s room, “You agree with me, don’t you? She’s a fox”, is already a harassment. Sexual harassment does not only pertain to “quid pro quo” in a company. According to US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general”. (US EEOC). As a manager, Smith, Taylor and Shayer is also held responsible for their actions even outside of work environment. If the conversation outside of work regarding an individual that they work become uncomfortable, Smith should say something about it to stop the conversation and then remove himself from the
Noe, Raymond A., John R. Hollenbeck, Barry Gerhart, and Patrick M. Wright. Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage. 7th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2010. Print.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Religious Discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act is the subject of this term paper.
Sexual harassment in the workplace has been a huge problem in recent history. It can happen to anyone, and it can happen everywhere. It can affect all types of races, genders and ages. Statistics today show that more and more sexual harassment has become an issue due to the large number of cases presented. Mainstream media becomes consumed covering sexual harassment because of the high-profile cases.