TERESA HARRIS PETITIONER v FORKLIFT SYSTEMS INC No 92 1168 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 510 U S 17 114 S Ct 367 1993 U S LEXIS 7155 126 L Ed 2d 295 62 U S L W 4004 63 Fair Empl Prac Cas BNA 225 62 Empl Prac Dec CCH P42 623 93 Cal Daily Op Service 8330 93 Daily Journal DAR 14212 7 Fla L Weekly Fed S 655 October 13 1993 Argued November 9 1993 Decided PRIOR HISTORY 1 ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DISPOSITION 976 F 2d 733 reversed and remanded View References Turn Off Lawyers Edition Display DECISION Federal District Court held to have applied incorrect standards under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 in rejecting female worker s claim alleging abusive work environment because of gender SUMMARY One of the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 USCS 2000e et seq is 42 USCS 2000e 2 a 1 which in pertinent part prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual with respect to terms conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race color religion sex or national origin In Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson 1986 477 US 57 91 L Ed 2d 49 106 S Ct 2399 which involved a sexual harassment claim asserted under Title VII the United States Supreme Court held that pursuant to 2000e 2 a 1 a plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment A female worker who had quit a company filed suit against the company in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee and claimed that the conduct of the company s male president had created an abusive work environment for the worker because of her gender A magistrate found that the president had often 1 insulted the worker because of her gender and 2 made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos The District Court in adopting the magistrate s report and recommendation found the case to be close but decided that the president s conduct had not created a hostile work environment as the court expressed the view that while some of the president s comments had offended the worker and would offend a reasonable woman 1 the comments had not been so severe as to be expected to affect seriously the worker s psychological well being and 2 the worker had not been subjectively so offended that she had suffered injury The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed in a brief unpublished opinion On certiorari the Supreme Court reversed and remanded In an opinion by O Connor J expressing the unanimous view of the court it was held that 1 pursuant to the 2000e 2 a 1 prohibition a when the workplace is permeated by discriminatory intimidation ridicule and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of a victim s employment and to create an abusive working environment Title VII is violated b this standard takes a middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury c so long as the environment would reasonably be perceived and is perceived as hostile or abusive there is no need for the environment also to be psychologically injurious and d whether an environment is hostile or abusive can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances 2 with respect to the case at hand it was improper for the District Court to rely on whether the president s conduct had seriously affected the worker s psychological well being or had led her to suffer injury for such an inquiry might needlessly focus the factfinder s attention on concrete psychological harm and 3 the District Court s application of these incorrect standards might well have influenced that court s ultimate conclusion Scalia J concurring expressed the view that with respect to sexual harassment that takes the form of a hostile work environment he knew of no test more faithful to the inherently vague statutory language than the test that the Supreme Court adopted in the case at hand Ginsburg J concurring expressed the view that 1 the Supreme Court s opinion was in harmony with the view that it generally suffices to prove that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find that the harassment so altered working conditions as to make it more difficult to do the job and 2 under the court s equal protection jurisprudence it remains an open question as to whether classifications based on gender are inherently suspect LEXIS HEADNOTES Classified to U S Digest Lawyers Edition CIVIL RIGHTS 7 7 sex discrimination abusive work environment Headnote 1A 1B 1C In deciding in a suit by a female worker against a company she quit whether for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 USCS 2000e et seq the conduct of the company s male president created an abusive work environment for the worker because of her gender it is improper for a Federal District Court to rely on whether the president s conduct seriously affected the worker s psychological well being or led her to suffer injury for such an inquiry may needlessly focus the factfinder s attention on concrete psychological harm an element that Title VII does not require while Title VII bars conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person s psychological well being the statute is not limited to such conduct CIVIL RIGHTS 7 6 discrimination race sex or other bases abusive work environment Headnote 2A 2B 2C 2D Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 USCS 2000e et seq the language in 42 USCS 2000e 2 a 1 which in pertinent part prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual with respect to terms conditions or privileges of employment on the basis of race color religion sex or national origin is not limited to economic or tangible discrimination and evinces a congressional intent to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women in employment which treatment includes requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment when the workplace is permeated by discriminatory intimidation ridicule and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of a victim s employment and to create an abusive working environment Title VII is violated this standard takes a middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury the
View Full Document
Unlocking...