Case brief meritor savings bank

The bank denied that Ms. Vinson or anyone else had ever complained about any harassment or any other discriminatory activity. The bank also showed that Ms.

Case brief meritor savings bank

Taylor, began what would be 3 years of recurring sexual harassment while in the workplace.

Case brief meritor savings bank

Vinson stated that she had intercourse with Taylor 40 or 50 times [4]. Additionally, she testified that Taylor had touched her in public, exposed himself to her, and forcibly raped her multiple times.

She argued such harassment created a '"hostile working environment'" and a form of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of Vinson sought injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages against Taylor and the bank. The primary question presented was whether a hostile work environment constituted a form of unlawful discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of[5] or the if Act was limited to tangible economic discrimination in the workplace.

Decision[ edit ] The Court held that Title VII was "not limited to 'economic' or 'tangible' discrimination" and found that the intention of Congress was "'to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women' in employment The Court recognized that the plaintiff, Mechelle Vinson, could establish violations of the Act "by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.

Case brief meritor savings bank

Catharine MacKinnonauthor of Towards a Feminist Theory of the State, was co-counsel for the respondent and wrote the respondent's brief. This court case articulated that the creation of a hostile work environment is a form of discrimination and economic loss is not required in violating Title VII.

Vinson, reported sexual harassment cases grew from 10 cases being registered by the EEOC per year before to case being reported in the subsequent following year.

Moreover, in gauging the totality of circumstances, lower courts typically focus on some or all of the following four factors: See for example Vance v.Meritor Savings Bank v.

United States labor law

Vinson. No. Argued March 25, Decided June 19, "was not the victim of sexual harassment and was not the victim of sexual discrimination" while employed at the bank.

Ibid., 23 FEP Cases at Brief for United States and EEOC as Amici Curiae Thus, the courts have consistently held employers. Case opinion for US Supreme Court MERITOR SAVINGS BANK v.

VINSON. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

Education Law

Sep 26,  · Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, US 57 () is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court recognised sexual harassment as a violation of Civil Rights Act of Title VII.

It established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful and when an employer would be liable. Facts After .

MERITOR SAVINGS BANK v. VINSON | FindLaw

Essays - largest database of quality sample essays and research papers on Case Brief Meritor Savings Bank. The brief filed by the Solicitor General on behalf of the United States and the EEOC in this case suggests that a different rule should apply when a supervisor's harassment "merely" results in a discriminatory work environment.

Join over , law students who have used Quimbee to achieve academic success in law school through expert-written outlines, a massive bank of case briefs, engaging video lessons, comprehensive practice exams with model answers, and practice questions.

Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson - Case Brief