Scribd
Upload
208 views12 pages

Consenting To Sexual Harassment Case 11

This document summarizes the case of Mechelle Vinson suing her supervisor Sidney Taylor for sexual harassment. Vinson claimed Taylor demanded sexual acts to keep her job, while Taylor denied this and said the relationship was consensual. While the district court ruled in Taylor's favor, saying the relationship was voluntary, higher courts found that voluntariness does not preclude harassment. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that unwelcomeness, not consent, is key in harassment cases, and that employers can be liable for a supervisor's actions.

Uploaded by

Herwin Mae Boclaras
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
208 views12 pages

Consenting To Sexual Harassment Case 11

This document summarizes the case of Mechelle Vinson suing her supervisor Sidney Taylor for sexual harassment. Vinson claimed Taylor demanded sexual acts to keep her job, while Taylor denied this and said the relationship was consensual. While the district court ruled in Taylor's favor, saying the relationship was voluntary, higher courts found that voluntariness does not preclude harassment. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that unwelcomeness, not consent, is key in harassment cases, and that employers can be liable for a supervisor's actions.

Uploaded by

Herwin Mae Boclaras
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

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?

You might also like