LANDMARK CASES IN FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY:

Sexual Harassment

Vinson sued her former employer, Meritor Savings Bank, for sexual harassment by her supervisor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964, which provides protections from discrimination on the basis of protected class (sex, race, color, religion, race, national origin)
Vinson’s supervisor argued their sexual interactions were consensual and unrelated to her career advancement.
US Supreme Court ruled that sexual harassment violates Title VII.

Sexual harassment falls under quid pro quo or hostile work environment.
- Sexual harassment can create a hostile work environment if the conduct is unwelcome and severe enough to alter the terms of employment, even if voluntary..
Employers may be held liable for sexual harassment by an employee.

Harris, an employee of Forklift Systems, filed a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the CRA on the basis that her boss repeatedly sexually harassed her. She did not experience physical nor psychological harm.
US Supreme Court ruled that psychological harm is not a required element for hostile work environment claims. Conduct is actionable if it creates an objectively hostile work environment.

Hostile Work Environment claims under Title VII of CRA are actionable if the conduct creates an objectively hostile work environment.
Psychological harm is not a required element.

Oncale, a male employee of Sundowner Offshore Services, claimed violations of Title VII of the CRA on the basis of humiliating sex-related conduct by male coworkers.
US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII.

Title VII of CRA provides protection from both same-sex and opposite sex sexual harassment.
Conduct “need not be motivated by desire”