The following court cases broke new ground in the legal status of sexual harassment and established once and for all the judicial framework to be followed by lower courts hearing such cases.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986)
In this case, the legal issue facing the Supreme Court was whether a claim of hostile work environment sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under Title VII. The court's decision set a precedent for sexual harassment cases involving hostile work environment claims - where the victim suffers no tangible or economic loss. An important point made by the Court is that an employee's apparent consent to sexual activity does not necessarily negate a claim of sexual harassment. The employee's submission to a sexual relationship cannot be considered truly voluntary if the harasser has the power to fire, demote, or blackball an employee, or to deny raises, bonuses, or promotions. The court's ruling firmly established the working definition of sexual harassment and the kinds of workplace conduct that may be actionable under Title VII. This case also reaffirmed previous rulings by other courts that there are two types of sexual harassment - quid pro quo and hostile work environment.
The Case: A woman who started her career as a bank teller trainee, then was promoted to teller, then to head teller and finally to assistant manager consented to a sexual relationship with her supervisor after he repeatedly sexually harassed her during a four-year period. During her probationary period, he made no sexual advances. After her first promotion - under his supervision the harassment began. The promotions were based on merit alone she had proved to be a stellar employee in the four years she worked at the bank. The relationship started immediately after her first promotion, he invited her out to dinner then asked her to go to a motel to have sex. At first she refused then out of fear of losing her job, she agreed to have sex with him. During this time, he fondled her in front of other employees, followed her to the ladies' room, exposed himself to her and forcibly raped her on several occasions. She never reported the harassment because she was afraid of him.
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 112 S.CT. 1028 (1992)
The Supreme Court's decision in favor of the student broke important new ground in the law of sexual harassment, confirming the right of sexual harassment victims to sue their schools or other educational institutions for monetary damages under Title IX.
The Case: A sports coach/ teacher harassed a female student form the beginning of her sophomore year to the spring of her junior year. He would ask her about her sexual experiences with her boyfriend and if she would ever consider having sex with an older man. He forcibly kissed her on the mouth in the school parking lot. On three occasions, he went to her classes, asked the teachers to excuse her, and then took her to a private office and raped her. At the school, the teachers and administration knew about the harassment but did nothing to stop it. They discouraged the student from pressing charges. The school agreed to drop the matter and close the investigation if the teacher resigned he did.
Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 842 F. Supp. 847 (1993)
This was the first sexual harassment class-action case to reach federal court. The court's decision produced a new legal standard applicable to class action suits involving sexual harassment. It provided a positive expansion of sexual harassment law, where individual plaintiffs may now join forces to bring their claims before the court.
The Case: The workplace was filled with pornographic graffiti, photographs, cartoons, and other material that depicted women as sexual objects in an extremely degrading manner. The men made sexually derogatory comments whenever they chose. They spoke of female co-workers in terms of their body parts and frequently propositioned the women. The attitudes and speech of the male miners created a sexualized, male-oriented, and anti-female environment. There was sex discrimination in hiring, job assignment, promotion, compensation, discipline and training. Women composed only 3% - 5% of the mine's hourly workforce. The plaintiffs stated a claim of sex discrimination based on hostile environment sexual harassment.
Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us, Inc., 132 N.J. 587 (1993)
The Supreme Court of New Jersey made a huge impact in the battle against sexual harassment because it adopted b. This case introduced the "reasonable woman" standard where the courts evaluate potential instances of sexual harassment of a female in light of her feelings and a woman's perspective. In cases of harassment of a male, they would use the perspective of a "reasonable man". The court recognized the inherent differences in male and female perspectives on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace, and established a precedent of respect for those differences. The court challenged the reasonable person standard because it proved insufficient in cases that overwhelmingly involved female plaintiffs, because of the general tendency to view the male perspective as objective or normative.
The Case: A female employee was hired initially as a file clerk and was promoted on several occasions. The supervisor who sexually harassed her was hired four years after she joined the company. The harassment started approximately 14 months later. He told her to show her breasts to a male employee and his male boss. He would comment on her figure in a vulgar manner. He lifted her skirt in front of his office window because he wanted the employees outside to get a "show". She complained to his direct supervisor and was told to handle it herself and not to mention it to the vice president of their department. She met with the manager of employee relations to discuss her complaint along with another female employee's complaint. She was assured that management would speak with her supervisor but the harassment continued. She finally took her complaints to the vice president of the department. During this time she was offered two transfers and refused both. When she resigned she was again offered a transfer and refused it. She confronted her supervisor with her complaints he was initially apologetic but then became angry. She left the company without working her final two-week notice. The company concluded the supervisor did not harass her and terminated its investigation.
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S.CT. 367 (1993)
The Supreme Court decision in this case broadened the legal definition of hostile work environment sexual harassment by establishing that harassment may be actionable even if it does not cause serious psychological harm or other injury to the victim. This case sent a clear message to victims - they do not have to wait for their situation to deteriorate to an extreme degree before they can file a winnable Title VII claim. This ruling has the potential to reduce the damage done by sexual harassment by stopping it at an earlier or milder stage.
The Case: A female employee was hired as a rental manager at the company. She was continually mocked and ridiculed with dirty jokes, lewd comments, and sexual innuendo by the president of the company. He frequently humiliated and insulted her in the presence of clients and other employees most of whom were male. He would ask her and other female employees to reach into his front pants pockets for coins. He liked to throw objects on the ground and ask female employees to pick them up. The constant harassment made her job stressful and unpleasant. When she complained to her harasser he was surprised that she was offended by his "jokes" and promised to stop. Believing him, she stayed on the job but the harassment resumed one month later. The following month she picked up her paycheck and quit her job.
Tammy S. Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc., et als. (New Jersey Supreme Court, A-5-99)
An employer who has notice that its co-employees are engaged on a work-related forum in a pattern of retaliatory harassment directed at a co-employee has a duty to remedy that harassment; defendants who publish defamatory electronic messages, with knowledge that the messages would be published and could influence a claimant's efforts to seek a legal remedy may properly be subject to the State's jurisdiction.
The Case: In December 1989, Tammy S. Blakey became Continental's first female captain to fly an
Airbus or A300 Aircraft. Shortly after qualifying to be a captain on the A300, Blakey complained of sexual
harassment and a hostile working environment based on conduct and comments directed at her by
male co-employees. In February 1993, Blakey filed a charge of sexual discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 against Continental with the Equal Opportunity Commission in Seattle, Washington, her home state. From February to July 1995, a number of Continental's male pilots posted derogatory and insulting remarks about Blakey on the pilots' on-line computer bulletin board called the Crew Members Forum ("Forum"). The Forum is like a bulletin board where employees can post messages or "threads" for each other. In December 1995, Blakey filed suit in Superior Court in New Jersey against Continental and the pilots exchanging the information on the Forum, alleging defamation, sexual harassment/hostile work environment, business libel, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Superior Court ruled in favor of Continental, but the Supreme Court overturned that ruling.
