In: Operations Management
Mechelle Vinson worked at Meritor Savings Bank, initially as a teller-trainee, but was later promoted to teller, head teller, and assistant branch manager, admittedly based upon merit. Sidney Taylor was the bank branch manager and the person who hired Vinson. Vinson alleged that in the begin- ning Taylor was “fatherly” toward her and made no sexual advances, but eventually he asked her to go out to dinner. During the course of the meal Taylor suggested that he and Vinson go to a motel to have sexual relations. At first she refused, but out of what she described as fear of losing her job, she eventually agreed. Taylor thereafter made repeated demands upon Vinson for sexual activity, usually at the branch, both during and after business hours. She estimated that over the next several years she had intercourse with him some 40 or 50 times. In addition, she testified that Taylor fondled her in front of other employees, followed her into the women’s restroom when she went there alone, exposed himself to her, and even forcibly raped her on several occasions. These activities ceased in 1977 when Vinson started going with a steady boyfriend.
Courts have applied Title VII protection to racial ha- rassment
and nothing in Title VII suggests that a hostile environment based
on discriminatory sexual harassment should not be likewise
prohibited. The Guidelines thus appropriately drew from, and were
fully consistent with, the existing case law.
Of course, not all workplace conduct that may be de- scribed as
“harassment” affects a “term, condition, or privi- lege” of
employment within the meaning of Title VII. For instance, mere
utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive
feelings in an employee would not af- fect the condition of
employment to a sufficiently signifi- cant degree to create an
abusive working environment. For sexual harassment to be
actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter
the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive
working environment. Vinson’s allegations in this case—which
include not only pervasive harassment, but also criminal conduct of
the most serious nature—are plainly sufficient to state a claim for
hostile environment sexual harassment.
The District Court’s conclusion that no actionable ha- rassment
occurred might have rested on its earlier finding that if Vinson
and Taylor had engaged in intimate or sexual relations, that
relationship was a voluntary one. But the fact that sex-related
conduct was “voluntary” in the sense that the complainant was not
forced to participate against her will, is not a defense to a
sexual harassment suit brought under Title VII. The gravamen of any
sexual harassment claim is the alleged sexual advances were
“unwelcome.” While the question whether particular conduct was
indeed unwelcome presents difficult problems of proof and turns
largely on credibility determinations committed to the trier of
fact, the District Court in this case erroneously focused
on the “voluntariness” of Vinson’s participation in the claimed
sexual episodes. The correct inquiry is whether Vinson, by her
conduct, indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome,
not whether her participation in sexual intercourse was
voluntary.
The district court admitted into evidence testimony about Vinson’s
“dress and personal fantasies.” The court of appeals stated that
testimony had no place in the litigation, on the basis that
Vinson’s voluntariness in submitting to Taylor’s advances was
immaterial to her sexual harassment claim. While “voluntariness” in
the sense of consent is not a defense to such a claim, it does not
follow that a complain- ant’s sexually provocative speech or dress
is irrelevant as a matter of law in determining whether she found
particular sexual advances welcome. To the contrary, such evidence
is obviously relevant. The EEOC Guidelines emphasize that the trier
of fact must determine the existence of sexual ha- rassment in
light of “the record as a whole” and the “totality of
circumstances,” such as the nature of the sexual advances and the
context in which the alleged incidents occurred.
In sum we hold that a claim of “hostile environment” sexual
harassment gender discrimination is actionable under Title VII.
AFFIRMED.
Case Questions
1. As a manager, what would you have done if Vinson had come to you
with her story?
2. Under the circumstances, should it matter that
Vinson “voluntarily” had sex with Taylor? That she received her
regular promotions? Explain.
3. As a manager, how would you determine who to
believe?
1: As a manager it is very much required to understand the views from both side ( Vinson & Taylor). Then the manager can go in detail where Taylor had taken or given any inappropriate or undeservable promotion or hike to the Vinson. The detailed evaluation may help in understanding whther the relationship started mutually or was it forcibly made.
2: Yes it matter. She cannot alleged later on that somebody without her interest started sexual relationship and done intercourses for more than 40 times. If she has fear about losing the job she couldnt have expressed the concern to senior management that time itself. Now she cannot claim everyhting in favor of her as now she is a well established employee in that company.. T
3: It is a very tough situation to handle. Vinson claim must be true to an extent as Taylor must have had sexual relationship with her. But cannot take the entire details or situation only from one angle. The multiple versions of the same scenario will help in providing some more insight which would be more judgemental in nature . In this both parties have done mistake by building an illegal relationship in the cover of employement. They have even utilised the space in office for their sexual activities which is an offense.