CONSENTING TO SEXUAL

HARASSMENT CASE 11.4

 SUMMARY
MECHELLE VINSON

• Mechelle Vinson sued Sidney Taylor, her supervisor at Capital Federal City
Savings and Loan, for sexual harassment.
• A year after she started working, Taylor asked her to have sexual relations with
him.
• He said she owed him for getting her the job.
• Vinson turned him down the first time but eventually they became involved.
• They continued to engaged to sexual relations for three years.
• She said she was force to submit to Taylor or jeopardize her job.
 SUMMARY
S I D N E Y TAY L O R

• Taylor denied everything.

• He claimed he never had sexual relations with Vinson.
• Taylor alleged that Vinson was the one who hit on him and he declined her.
• Says Vinson brought on charges to “get even.”
 DISTRICT COURT RULING

• If Vinson and Taylor had sexual relations, the relationship was voluntary.
• Not employee related.
• Capital City Federal Savings and Loan is not liable because it did not have
“notice.”
• Even though Taylor is Vinson’s supervisor, notice to him is not notice to the
bank.
 APPELLATE COURT RULING

• District court failed to see Vinson’s case as a hostile work environment.

• The majority claimed “voluntariness” does not rule out harassment.
• The judged rejected and argued he could no longer established a “willing
participant.”
• Majority agreed discrimination by a supervisor is attributable to the employer
had any notice.
• Judge stated that an employer should not be held liable for a supervisor’s
action it was unaware of.
 U.S. SUPREME COURT FINAL
RULING

• The fact that sex-related conduct was “voluntary” is not a defense to a sexual
harassment suit.
• It only matters if the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome.
• Employers are not strictly liable for the acts of their supervisors regardless of
the particular circumstance.
• Taylor is the only one held to be accountable for.
 SEXUAL HARASSMENT

• Quid pro quo: “This for that.”

Submission or rejection is a basis for employment decisions.
• Hostile Environment: Conduct that has the purpose or effect of interfering with
a persons work performance and environment.
 MORAL STANDARD

A supervisor can not will a maxim where he creates a hostile

environment for his employees. Therefore Taylor acted immorally by sexual
discriminating against Vinson.
 PREMISES

• Sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual

favors, and other verbal/physical conduct of a sexual nature.
• Vinson was forced to submit to Taylor or risk loosing her job
• Just because she submitted, does not mean she consented
• To qualify a sexual harassment the behavior must be persistent and since there
were multiple cases of Taylor asking for favors then it applies
• Vinson stated that the behavior was unwanted at first and her persisted until
she gave in
 CONCLUSIONS

• Taylor created a hostile work of environment when he requested sexual favors

from Vinson that were unwelcome and persisted to keep asking her for them.
• Even though she submitted they were still unwanted and only done to keep
her job.
• Taylor is guilty of sexual harassment.
• His actions did not come from goodwill and he did not act so that the maxim
of his actions would become universal law.
 QUESTIONS

• Do you think it is necessary for a person to have to prove sexual harassment

wans “unwelcome” in case of sexual discrimination?
• Do you think since Vinson’s gave into Taylor’s requests it makes her case
voidable?
• How do you choose who side to believe and will there always be the problem
of denial?
• Do you think Vinson’s company should be liable even though they were not
informed? Do they have a moral responsibility for Taylor’s actions?