Harassment

Under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA, employees can bring a claim for harassment based on protected-class status. But harassment claims raise unique challenges. The acceptability of behavior may vary over time or even by context or workplace. And employees being harassed do not always suffer an economic harm as a result of harassment. And most of the time, harassers typically are satisfying their own personal interests, rather than advancing any agenda of the employer's. 

Although the lower federal courts were originally skeptical of harassment claims under Title VII, the Supreme Court decision in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), ushered in a new era.  Sidney Taylor, a vice president of Meritor and manager of one of its branch offices, hired Michelle Vinson and became her supervisor. After a promotion, she alleged that she had been constantly harassed by Taylor, who propositioned her, suggested she would be fired if she did not sleep with him, fondled her in front of co-workers, and even sexually assaulted her on several occasions.

In Meritor, the Court held that “a plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.” Meritor, 477 U.S. at 66. 

We will look at several pieces of the harassment puzzle: 1) how can an employee prove that harassment was because of sex or other protected class status?; 2) what makes harassment severe and pervasive?