Consenting To Sexual Harassment Case 11.pptx

CONSENTING TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE 11.4

SUMMARY

MECHELLE VINSON

• Mechelle Vinson sued Sidney Taylor, her supervisor at Capital Federal City Savings and Loan, for sexual harassment. • A year after she started working, Taylor asked her to have sexual relations with him. • He said she owed him for getting her the job. • Vinson turned him down the first time but eventually they became involved. • They continued to engaged to sexual relations for three years. • She said she was force to submit to Taylor or jeopardize her job.

SUMMARY

S I D N E Y TAY L O R

• Taylor denied everything. • He claimed he never had sexual relations with Vinson.

• Taylor alleged that Vinson was the one who hit on him and he declined her. • Says Vinson brought on charges to “get even.”

DISTRICT COURT RULING

• If Vinson and Taylor had sexual relations, the relationship was voluntary. • Not employee related.

• Capital City Federal Savings and Loan is not liable because it did not have “notice.” • Even though Taylor is Vinson’s supervisor, notice to him is not notice to the bank.

APPELLATE COURT RULING

• District court failed to see Vinson’s case as a hostile work environment. • The majority claimed “voluntariness” does not rule out harassment.

• The judged rejected and argued he could no longer established a “willing participant.” • Majority agreed discrimination by a supervisor is attributable to the employer had any notice. • Judge stated that an employer should not be held liable for a supervisor’s action it was unaware of.

U.S. SUPREME COURT FINAL RULING • The fact that sex-related conduct was “voluntary” is not a defense to a sexual harassment suit. • It only matters if the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome. • Employers are not strictly liable for the acts of their supervisors regardless of the particular circumstance. • Taylor is the only one held to be accountable for.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

• Quid pro quo: “This for that.” Submission or rejection is a basis for employment decisions.

• Hostile Environment: Conduct that has the purpose or effect of interfering with a persons work performance and environment.

MORAL STANDARD

A supervisor can not will a maxim where he creates a hostile environment for his employees. Therefore Taylor acted immorally by sexual discriminating against Vinson.

PREMISES

• Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal/physical conduct of a sexual nature. • Vinson was forced to submit to Taylor or risk loosing her job • Just because she submitted, does not mean she consented • To qualify a sexual harassment the behavior must be persistent and since there were multiple cases of Taylor asking for favors then it applies • Vinson stated that the behavior was unwanted at first and her persisted until she gave in

CONCLUSIONS

• Taylor created a hostile work of environment when he requested sexual favors from Vinson that were unwelcome and persisted to keep asking her for them. • Even though she submitted they were still unwanted and only done to keep her job. • Taylor is guilty of sexual harassment. • His actions did not come from goodwill and he did not act so that the maxim of his actions would become universal law.

QUESTIONS

• Do you think it is necessary for a person to have to prove sexual harassment wans “unwelcome” in case of sexual discrimination? • Do you think since Vinson’s gave into Taylor’s requests it makes her case voidable? • How do you choose who side to believe and will there always be the problem of denial? • Do you think Vinson’s company should be liable even though they were not informed? Do they have a moral responsibility for Taylor’s actions?