Vinson Meritor Savings Bank vs. Vinson charged that she had constantly been subjected to sexual harassment by Taylor over her four years at the bank.
Vinson charged that she had constantly been subjected to sexual harassment by Taylor over her four years at the bank. Vinson sought injunctive relief along with compensatory and punitive damages against Taylor and the bank. Question Did the Civil Rights Act prohibit the creation of a "hostile environment" or was it limited to tangible economic discrimination in the workplace?
Troll, you may proceed whenever you're ready. You may elevate that lectern if you wish. Chief Justice, may it please the Court.
The primary question in this case is whether a corporate employer is automatically liable under Title VII for a supervisor's sexual advances toward a subordinate even though the employer did not know about the advances and never had a chance to stop them.
The district court, after taking eleven days of evidence, found that the employee had suffered no Title VII discrimination and it rendered judgment against her. The district court also found that the bank had no notice of the supervisor's alleged discrimination and therefore it could not be liable as a matter of law.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Let me turn to the specific facts of this proceeding. Vinson, plaintiff in this case, went to work as a teller trainee at one of the bank's branch offices in September Over the next four years, she was promoted to teller, head teller, and finally to assistant branch manager.
It was undisputed at trial that these promotions were based on merit. Vinson's immediate supervisor throughout this period was Sidney L. Taylor was the branch manager and an assistant vice president.
Vinson claimed that she and Mr.
Taylor began a sexual affair in Mayto which she consented out of fear of losing her job. She claimed that for the next two and one-half years Mr. Taylor repeatedly demanded sex from her and otherwise harassed her physically and verbally. But she admitted that she never complained to the bank about Mr.
Taylor, even though she herself was a supervisory employee and had regular contact with higher bank officers. Taylor denied having a sexual relationship with her, and he further denied all of her accusations of harassment.
He offered evidence that just before Ms. Vinson left the bank and filed this lawsuit that they had had a continuing dispute about her failure to carry out his instructions to train a new teller.
The bank showed that it had a written policy expressly prohibiting sex discrimination and had appointed one of its senior officials as its EEO officer to enforce the non-discrimination policy.
It also had a written grievance procedure for resolving employee complaints.
Taylor is not here, is he? He is not before this Court. Have you represented him in the past? No, we have not.
We have represented strictly the bank in all proceedings before the district court and the Court of Appeals. Is he any longer employed by the bank? Although I don't think it's part of the record, it is my understanding that he is still employed with the bank and is still at the branch premises where the alleged incidents occurred.Meritor Savings Bank v.
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. Essays - largest database of quality sample essays and research papers on Case Brief Meritor Savings Bank. Meritor Savings Bank v.
Vinson: Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, , ruled (9–0) that sexual harassment that results in a hostile work environment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of , which bans sex discrimination by employers. The court also established.
Case opinion for US Supreme Court MERITOR SAVINGS BANK v. VINSON. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. 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 nationwidesecretarial.com established the standards for analyzing whether conduct was unlawful and when an .
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, , ruled (9–0) that sexual harassment that results in a hostile work environment is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of , which bans sex discrimination by employers.