Women and the Law 12/01/09 Case: Meritor. Michelle Vincent sued for emotional and psychological harm, as long as she can prove it she will get compensation. Sidney Taylor – her supervisor hired her and she was qualified. He made moves on her. She had a boyfriend. In the suit she named Sidney and the bank. Under Title 7, you have an obligation to report it to the employer, who has to take it seriously and investigate it. then appropriate action is taken, which could have consequences for the corporation. If an employee does something inconsistent with corporate policy: “ultra vires” that is, outside the job. Her employer allowed her to be sexually harassed in violation of Title 7. Mr. Taylor had harassed other women too, who did not speak up against him while they were employees. Vincent used them as witnesses. This should’ve been used to disparage anything the employer offered as a legitimate reason. In order for quid pro quo to apply, it has to be someone who has authority. Hostile environment requires that it be continuous, repetitive and the person has to know that it bothers you. Court says that the conduct of the woman can be taken into consideration to determine if the advances are wanted or unwanted. Pg 752. Supreme Court took this case because women were newly re-entering the workforce. Court concluded that the bank could not be held liable for Taylor’s actions. Definitions of: Sexual harassment. Disparate treatment. Pg 757, section III. Pg 759. Case: Harris. She is a manager at a forklift station, non-traditional job for a woman. She got very bad and hostile treatment, even from the president of the company. But he did not deny her anything that she was entitled to. She was harassed by a salesman who only showed up occasionally, but it was sufficiently pervasive to affect her psychological well-being, but you’d have to prove it. pg 763. Title 7 does not include age. If a reasonable person doesn’t find the conduct offensive, it does not meet the criteria. If the victim does not subjectively find the conduct offensive, then there is no Title 7 violation. Case: Suders. This case is about what constitutes a constructive discharge. Her supervisors (Pennsylvania state police) sexually harassed her till she was forced to resign. Proof burdens when a discharge claim under Title 7. Moving burden for a defendant. Plaintiff must show that abusive working environment became so intolerable that she had to resign, employer must show that they had an appropriate policy to prevent or remedy it AND that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to avail it. this affirmative defense is not available if the plaintiff quits. Pg 778. Although Suders’ complaint didn’t mention constructive discharge, it was in her allegations in her prima facie case. Pg 781, section I. affirmative defense. Pg 784. Case: Brown. Assistant professor of English at Boston University. Committee decided not to give her tenure because of her gender. She asked for something that would benefit every untenured professor – an injunction. Jury of peers decided in favor of this. Pg 807. Judge cannot exclude evidence that a reasonable jury finds relevant unless if there’s a danger of unfair prejudice.