Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment
| Jurisdiction | United States,Federal |
| Citation | Vol. 15 No. 9 Pg. 1651 |
| Pages | 1651 |
| Publication year | 1986 |
1986, September, Pg. 1651. Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment
Three years ago, the editor of this column wrote that the number of cases finding sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had increased sharply despite an early reluctance on the part of federal district courts to recognize such a cause of action.(fn1) At the same time, however, he noted that it remained to be seen whether the floodgates of litigation had been opened. On June 19, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court may have firmly opened those floodgates with its decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson.(fn2) This article provides a brief overview of that decision.
In 1980 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") issued guidelines defining sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature," when submission to such conduct is explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting the individual; or where such conduct unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment.(fn3) While some courts accepted this broad definition, finding that sexual harassment in and of itself violated Title VII,(fn4) other courts required plaintiffs to establish some nexus between the misconduct and the loss of employment benefits.(fn5)
In Vinson, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the narrow view that a plaintiff must show tangible or economic loss to establish a claim for sexual harassment. Instead, the Court endorsed the EEOC guidelines, holding that "hostile environment" harassment violates Title VII even if the sexual misconduct is not directly linked to the grant or denial of an economic quid pro quo.(fn6)
What kind of behavior produces a hostile work environment? Vinson offers little concrete guidance beyond holding that to be actionable the harassment "must be sufficiently severe or pervasive 'to alter the conditions of [the victim's] employment and create an abusive working environment.'"(fn7)
Vinson alleged that her supervisor engaged in unquestionably outrageous conduct. She asserted that he made repeated demands for sexual favors, both on and off the job. They engaged in intercourse forty or fifty times over a period of three years, and he forcibly raped her on several occasions. In addition, he allegedly fondled her in front of other employees, followed her to the restroom and exposed himself to her. It is not surprising that the Court found these allegations "plainly sufficient to state a claim for 'hostile environment' sexual harassment."(fn8)
When the conduct is not so outrageous as that described by Vinson, practitioners may look to case law from various jurisdictions to clarify what creates a hostile environment.(fn9) Offensive language and obscene gestures, without more, are not enough to constitute sexual harassment.(fn10) Similarly, mere flirtation (taking the plaintiff to dinner, sending Valentine's Day and get well cards and attempting a kiss) has been held insufficient to establish a hostile...
To continue reading
Request your trial