On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Pollak, Melissa F. <[email protected]> wrote: > (SNIP) The other person who used > to come through my line was the woman who won the Supreme Court case > about the definition of a hostile work environment. I remember her > first name was Catherine and I believe that she worked at the FCC (or > perhaps another small federal agency), but a search didn't help me pin > down the information. What's relevant to this discussion is that she > herself was never harassed, nor was her job/career (she was an attorney) > threatened or even affected. She just didn't think she should have to > work in a place where "everyone" was sleeping with each other and > trading sex stories and favoritism occurred as a result of it. The > Supreme Court agreed with her.
If you think of any other identifying information about this Supreme Court Case Melissa I would be really interested in knowing more about it. The facts of the case as you seem to be remembering them (victim a lawyer, named Catherine, never harassed herself or had her job threatened or affected, who convinced the Supreme Court that she has been harassed just because everyone at work was sleeping with each other and talking about it, and favoritism occurred even though it did not directly effect her job situation) doesn't seem to add up to me. Here is what I think I know about Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment - I would love if you could point out where you think I am missing something or off base. In 1980 the EEOC wrote guidelines describing two kinds of Sexual Harassment: 1) Quid Pro Quo (favorable employment decisions contingent on sexual cooperation) and 2) Hostile Work Environment (HWE). There is very little disagreement about #1 - it is sexual harassment (though of course in specific cases the parties will disagree over whether it occurred or not). There have been 5 Supreme Court cases between 1986 and 1993 that looked at the second kind - HWE. There probably have been cases since 1993, but I don't think anything after 1993 could possible qualify as being the Supreme Court case that defined HWE has to be regarded as Meritor Savings Bank vs Vinson, 1986. The woman in this case was Mechelle Vinson though, not Catherine, and she was not a lawyer. However, there is a Catherine involved - Catherine Mackinnon, and she is a lawyer, though she is a legal scholar an as far as I know has never worked at a federal agency. But there is a possible connection between her and Melissa's memory of the story - Mackinnon is the scholar who first made the distinction between Quid Pro Quo and HWE types of sexual harassment, and the EEO followed her scholarship in writing its original guidelines. Thus Catherine Mackinnon could be the Catherine who was a lawyer and worked with (or at least influenced) the EEOC (not FCC) in drafting the first HWE rules - and she herself was never subject to harassment, though she also was never a plaintiff in a case that went to the Supreme Court. If this is the case Melissa has in mind, the facts are these (as they used to say on Pushing Daises): Mechelle Vinson worked for Sidney Taylor, a VP of Meritor Savings Bank. She engaged in a sexual relationship with Taylor (they had intercourse 2 or 3 score times), and he also exposed his genitals to her at work. He claimed it was a consensual relationship, and that Vinson never lost her job or had any unfavorable work decision (regarding pay or promotion, for example) because of it. She claimed that she felt coerced to have sex with him, and that even though she suffered no economic loss, her working conditions were intolerable. The Supreme Court agreed that this was a form of sexual harassment that did not have to result in any direct change in working conditions because it created an environment which a reasonable person would find intolerable. This case explicitly recognized the type 2, HWE form of sexual harassment originally created by Catherine Mackinnon, and used by the EEOC. If this is the case that Melissa has in mind (perhaps she met either Catherine Mackinnon or Mechelle Vinson - the Mackinnon encounter would be somewhat cooler, since she really is a very famous and influential person) I don't think it is fair to describe it as one in which the Supreme Court agreed that a woman has been sexually harassed just because she "works in a place where "everyone" was sleeping with each other and trading sex stories and favoritism occurred as a result of it." They key finding in this case was that a woman can be harassed even if she does not suffer directly from an employer's retribution for not sexually cooperating with him, but this case did not in any way establish that harassment has occurred when other women are sleeping with bosses, even if this is known by many in the work place. The crucial word in Melissa's account of her memory of the case, and in the Vanity Fair piece, is the allegation of favoritism. It is true that favoritism based on sexual cooperation can a basis for a harassment claim (though I am not sure that is rooted in these early Supreme Court cases) - but it has to be real favoritism, not just someone's uninformed guess that a person got promoted because of sexual cooperation, and there has to be a reasonable belief that such an event would negatively effect the person making the claim (for example, a female comedy writer aspires to be Dave's personal assistant, but despairs because she realizes she would have to sleep with him to become his top assistant). The other 4 early Supreme Court cases relating to HWE are: Harris vs Forklist Systems (1993); Burlington Industries bs Ellerth (1998); Faragher vs City of Boca Raton (1998); and Oncale vs Sundowner Offshore Services (1998). This last one has to do with same-sex harassment. I am not as familiar with the details in these other 4 cases, but I could not find a plaintiff named Catherine or employed as an attorney in any of them. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
