Meritor Savings Bank Vinson Essay

Employers need to have a clear understanding about the laws that are in place to protect them and their employees as well as how to prevent and address such claims. An option for employers is provide training for their employees and supervisors. Research shows that 49.7% of harassment cases are seen between co-workers, 26.4% from direct supervisors, 17.1% from other superior, and 6.8% from customers and vendors (Glazer, 1996). The trainings Santiago-Santos will provide employers with an insight on how to adapt their internal policies to comply with employment laws. Also, the employer training will help them develop a process of reporting and dealing with such claims internally and what their rights are when a claim reaches the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

In corporate America, sexual harassment is a huge concern amongst many organizations. The matter of sexual harassment is an issue that needs to be immediately attended to in

In what may be the most bewildering court ruling ever produced, “The court held that the complainant’s refusal to have sexual relations with her supervisor, and the resulting elimination of her job, was not discrimination. Rather it was due to ‘the subtleties of an inharmonious personal relationship’” (Gregg, pg. 304,

Harassment, specifically sexual harassment, is one of those challenges faced by businesses and employers as of a result of workplace diversification. Inappropriate conversations, unwanted advances and uncomfortable physical contact are some of the ways sexual harassment can occur. According to Hellriegel and Slocum, “Sexual harassment refers to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” (p.52). To be clear, sexual harassment can, and has, affected both women and men over the years however up to half of all working women have reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment in the career (Vijayasiri, 2008, p.1). It wasn’t until 1986 though that the Supreme Court recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII in the case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (O’Brien, 1994, p. 1). Before the high court’s ruling, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had begun to address the issue by drafting hostile work environment guidelines that included sexual harassment (O’Brien, 1994, p. 4). These guidelines would serve later to guide the high court’s decision. There are many more cases like this one we could look at. In 1991, sexual harassment became a household term as Anita Hill testified before congress stating she was sexually

It is somewhat surprising that employers continue to violate employment laws dealing with discrimination. One case, Catterson v. Marymount Manhattan College, litigated and settled in 2013, was especially egregious. According to the EEOC (2013), the college had refused,

Sexual harassment is considered to be a form of sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies to all U.S. employers with 15 or more employees (some state laws may provide additional worker protections). Anyone affected by the offensive conduct in question, not just the person to whom it is directed, may be a victim.

Although great strides in fighting gender discrimination were taken in the 1970s, largely due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, abuses falling within the category of sexual harassment generally were not addressed. Finally, in 1980, the EEOC wrote and released guidelines that defined sexual harassment. They described it as one form of sex discrimination prohibited by the 1964 act. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 referred to as Title VII, prohibits employment discrimination and harassment based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin in addition to sexual harassment. The law specifically states;

VA Empl. Comm’n, 1997 Va. App. LEXIS 178 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 1997). (citing Umbarger v. Virginia Empl. Comm’n, 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (Va. Ct. App. 1990)). In Gardner v. Hercules the court found that an employee who becomes dissatisfied with their work environment must pursue every available option to alleviate or correct the environment before he or she can quit her job. Gardner v. Hercules, Inc., 1996 Va. App. LEXIS 22 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 16, 1996). Furthermore in Smith v. S.W. Rodgers the plaintiff was sexually harassed by direct managers. Smith v. S.W. Rogers Co., 1999 Va. App. LEXIS 436 (Va. Ct. App. July 20, 1999). Plaintiff complained to other managers that were on the same level as the manager who were sexually harassing her, but not to higher management for fear of retaliation. Id. However, plaintiff finally reported it, but decided not to return to work. The court found that although her sexual assault claim was legitimate, the plaintiff had not allowed the situation to resolve prior to quitting and therefore she did not quit with good cause. Id. In order to find “good cause” the court looks for factors or circumstances which

This case law was where Dianne Rawlinson was attempting to seek employment as a correctional officer with the Alabama board of correction. Her position was officially called in Alabama a “Correctional Counselor.” Alabama Board of Corrections rejected the application form Dianne Rawlinson. She immediately filed a class action law suit under the Title VII of the civil rights act of 1964. Because of her sex was the primary dispute that they denied her employment which was a violation of federal law.

Work place policies regarding sexual harassment is the main issue discussed in this article. Sexual harassment has continued to be a challenge within the workplace. According to a recent review of sexual harassment related resolutions, employers have paid over $732,976.00 in sexual harassment fines (Hobson, Szostek, & Fitzgerald, 2015). The EEOC has issued written guidelines for appropriate strategies employers should use to handle workplace sexual harassment and specific ways to address it. It is the employer’s duty to proactively work to protect all employees from any type of sexual harassment by following sexual harassment policies and procedures that are put in place. Failure to implement and follow the policy and procedure in the workplace can and most likely will lead to liability should an EEOC investigation or lawsuit occur. The employer needs to disperse copies of the policies and procedures and post them in central locations throughout the organization and address sexual harassment in the employee handbooks. The policy and procedures need to clear

The Court of Appeals overturned that a violation of Title VII may predicate on either of two types of sexual harassment, employment benefits on sexual favors, and a hostile or offensive working environment. As to the bank 's liability, the Court of Appeals held that an employer is liable for sexual harassment by supervisory personnel, whether or not the employer knew or should have known about it. US Supreme Court (1986)

In accordance with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) situations that sexual harassment might occur can be verbal and/or physical in manner such as:

As seen in the case study, a court decision may be one way for any company to legally define what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace, but there are many ways to define sexual harassment. Everyone has different views and tolerance levels towards sexual harassment. When a case of sexual harassment occurs in a workplace, however, it comes down to how the courts define sexual harassment. The Supreme Court defines sexual harassment to be unlawful in two ways. “The first type involves sexual harassment that results in a tangible employment action;” this is referred to as quid pro quo. For example, if an employee complies with the harasser’s request, then she will get a raise. This unlawful act is usually presented in the workplace by a person who has an upper hand, such as a manager, to ensure that s/he will get what s/he wants. Employees are often victimized by fear that they will not get promoted or that they will get fired. They also dread that if a complaint is filed, it will not be handled correctly. “This instance of sexual harassment always involves another violation of employee rights; [sic] wrongful termination.” This would occur, for instance, when “a supervisor . . . tells a subordinate that . . . she must be sexually cooperative with [him] or . . . she will be fired, and who then indeed does fire the subordinate for not submitting” (“U.S. Supreme Court Defines”). [schwinlaw.com]

For example, in the case of Lois Robinson co-workers would post pornographic pictures and make suggestive comments when they noticed her pass by. Although, this did not affect her pay or the terms and conditions of her job she was subjected to a hostile work environment. Lois Robinson filed a suit against Jacksonville Shipyards Inc., for sexual harassment. However, the challenge for the court is to determine what is considered discomfort. The judge ruled that the display of pornographic pictures and pinup calendars was a visual assault on the emotional response of female workers due to the conditions sexual harassment under the “hostile working environment” provision. (Boatright 2007) Keep in mind that the court decision did not state that the display of pictures always constituted sexual harassment. The problem was the scarcity of women workers in a shipyard, and the lack of women in authority and the occurrence of verbal harassment including explicit sexual remarks. Jacksonville Shipyards Inc. (JSI) were federally contracted to repair U.S. Navy ships, therefore, they are required to have an affirmative action plan. In the company policy it stated that any violation should be reported to the Equal Employment Opportunity Coordinator in the facility. Unfortunately, supervisors at the shipyard were unaware that such policy existed and it was not included in the standard JSI

For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by