Document: 477 U.S. 57 106 S.Ct. 2399 91 L.Ed.2d 49 MERITOR SAVINGS BANK, FSB, Petitionerv.Mechelle VINSON et al. No. 84-1979. Argued March 25, 1986. Decided June 19, Syllabus Respondent former employee of petitioner bank brought an action against the and her supervisor at bank, claiming that during employment she had been subjected to sexual harassment by in violation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964, seeking injunctive relief damages. At trial, parties presented conflicting testimony about existence a relationship between respondent supervisor. The District Court denied without resolving testimony, holding if did have relationship, it was voluntary nothing do with continued therefore not victim harassment. court then went on hold since notice, could be held liable for supervisor's alleged Appeals reversed remanded. Noting may predicated either two types harassment—(1) involves conditioning benefits favors, (2) that, while affecting economic benefits, creates hostile or offensive working environment—the grievance here second type considered whether this occurred, remand necessary. further need obviated fact found any one, finding might based respondent's "dress personal fantasies" "had no place litigation." As bank's liability, employer is absolutely supervisory personnel, knew should known it. Held: 1. A claim "hostile environment" form sex discrimination actionable under VII. Pp. 63-69. (a) language limited "economic" "tangible" discrimination. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Guidelines fully support view leading noneconomic injury can violate Here, allegations were sufficient state 63-67. (b) Court's findings insufficient dispose claim. apparently erroneously believed will lie absent effect complainant's employment, focused "voluntariness" participation claimed episodes. correct inquiry conduct indicated advances unwelcome, them voluntary. 67-68. (c) err admitting evidence sexually provocative speech dress. While sense consent defense claim, does follow such irrelevant as matter law determining complainant particular unwelcome. 68-69. 2. erred concluding employers are always automatically their supervisors. common-law agency principles transferable all particulars VII, Congress' decision define "employer" include "agent" evinces intent some limits acts employees which responsible. In case, however, mere procedure policy discrimination, coupled failure invoke procedure, necessarily insulate from liability. 69-73. 243 U.S.App.D.C. 323, 753 F.2d 141, affirmed REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion Court, BURGER, C.J., WHITE, POWELL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. ---. MARSHALL, judgment, BRENNAN, BLACKMUN, joined, 74. F. Robert Troll, Jr., Hyattsville, Md., petitioner. Patricia J. Barry, Grover City, Cal., respondents. Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 This case presents important questions concerning claims workplace "sexual harassment" 78 Stat. 253, amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e seq. 2 * 1974, Mechelle Vinson met Sidney Taylor, vice president what now Meritor Savings Bank (bank) manager one its branch offices. When asked obtain Taylor gave application, completed returned next day; later same day called say hired. With supervisor, started teller-trainee, thereafter promoted teller, head assistant manager. She worked four years, undisputed advancement there merit alone. September 1978, notified taking sick leave indefinite period. On November 1, discharged excessive use leave. 3 years "constantly sought relief, compensatory punitive damages attorney's fees. 4 11-day bench Taylor's behavior employment. testified probationary period treated fatherly way made advances. Shortly thereafter, he invited out dinner and, course meal, suggested they go motel relations. first refused, but described fear losing job eventually agreed. According respondent, repeated demands upon usually branch, both after business hours; estimated over several intercourse him 40 50 times. addition, fondled front other employees, followed into women's restroom when alone, exposed himself her, even forcibly raped occasions. These activities ceased 1977, stated, going steady boyfriend. 5 also touched women attempted 6 Like Appeals, provided complete transcript trial. We rely largely summary relevant testimony. call witnesses charge. But supporting admitted objection, allow "to present wholesale pattern practice relating female chief, advised well able rebuttal defendants' cases." v. 22 EPD ¶ 30,708, 14,693, n. 23 FEP Cases 37, 38-39, (DC 1980). offer rebuttal. Finally, because afraid never reported his supervisors complaint procedure. 7 activity, testifying suggestive remarks engaged so. He contended instead accusations response business-related dispute. asserted unknown approval. 8 resolve Taylor. It 9 "[i]f [respondent] engage intimate time [respondent's] [the bank], having bank] promotions institution." Id., 14,692, Cases, (footnote omitted). 10 ultimately "was discrimination" employed bank. Ibid., 43. 11 Although concluded proved nevertheless address After noting express neither nor ever lodged "the notice cannot actions Taylor." 14,691, 42. 12 Columbia Circuit reversed. 141 (1985). Relying earlier Bundy Jackson, 205 444, 641 934 (1981), decided trial stated harassment: concrete environment. drew additional position Commission's Discrimination Because Sex, 29 CFR 1604.11(a) (1985), set these claims. Believing "Vinson's clearly [hostile environment] type," U.S.App.D.C., 327, F.2d, 145, 13 one" obviate remand. "[U]ncertain precisely [district] meant" finding, otherwise showed "Taylor Vinson's toleration condition employment," voluntariness materiality whatsoever." 328, 146. surmised voluminous regarding dress fantasies," 36, 146, 36. 14 practiced misconduct. relied chiefly VII's definition "any agent person," 2000e(b), EEOC Guidelines. purposes, lacks authority hire, fire, promote, existence—or appearance—of significant degree influence vital decisions gives opportunity impose employees." 332, 150. 15 accordance foregoing, judgment remanded proceedings. subsequent suggestion rehearing en banc denied, three judges dissenting. 245 306, 760 1330 granted certiorari, 474 1047, 57, 88 46 affirm different reasons. II 16 1964 makes "an unlawful . discriminate individual respect compensation, terms, conditions, privileges individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin." 2000e-2(a)(1). prohibition added last minute floor House Representatives. 110 Cong.Rec. 2577-2584 (1964). principal argument opposition amendment "sex sufficiently ought receive separate legislative treatment. See id., 2577 (statement Rep. Celler quoting letter United States Department Labor); 2584 Green). defeated, bill quickly passed we left little history guide us interpreting Act's "sex." 17 argues, held, unwelcome create environment Without question, harasses subordinate subordinate's "discriminate[s]" basis sex. Petitioner challenge proposition. contends prohibiting "compensation, privileges" Congress concerned describes "tangible loss" character," "purely psychological aspects environment." Brief 30-31, 34. observes decisions, focus has tangible, barriers erected 18 reject petitioner's view. First, phrase "terms, employment" congressional " 'to strike entire spectrum disparate treatment men women' Los Angeles Dept. Water Power Manhart, 435 702, 707, 13, 98 1370, 1375, 55 657 (1978), Sprogis Air Lines, Inc., 444 1194, 1198 (CA7 1971). pointed suggest contemplated limitation urged here. 19 Second, 1980 issued specifying harassment," defined, prohibited "administrative interpretation enforcing agency," Griggs Duke Co., 401 424, 433-434, 849, 855, 28 158 (1971), Guidelines, 'while controlling courts reason authority, constitute body experience informed litigants properly resort guidance,' General Electric Co. Gilbert, 429 125, 141-142, 97 401, 410-11, 343 (1976), Skidmore Swift & 323 134, 140, 65 161, 164, 89 L.Ed.124 (1944). 20 defining describe kinds "[u]nwelcome advances, requests verbal physical nature." Relevant charges issue provide misconduct constitutes directly linked grant denial quid pro quo, where "such purpose unreasonably interfering work performance creating intimidating, hostile, 1604.11(a)(3). 21 so-called (i.e., non quo ) violates substantial judicial precedent affords right free discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, insult. generally 45 Fed.Reg. 74676 (1980). Rogers EEOC, 454 234 (CA5 1971), cert. 406 957, 92 2058, 32 (1972), recognize cause Rogers, Fifth Hispanic establish demonstrating created giving service clientele. explained employee's protections extend beyond employment: "[T]he 'terms, conditions employment' [Title VII] expansive concept sweeps within protective ambit heavily charged ethnic racial One readily envision environments so polluted destroy completely emotional stability minority group workers. ." 238. Courts applied principle e.g., Firefighters Institute Racial Equality St. Louis, 549 506, 514-515 (CA8), sub nom. Banta States, 434 819, 60, 54 76 (1977); Gray Greyhound East, 178 91, 98, 545 169, 176 Compston Borden, 424 F.Supp. 157 (SD Ohio 1976), origin, Cariddi Kansas City Chiefs Football Club, 568 87, (CA8 1977). Nothing suggests likewise prohibited. thus appropriately from, consistent with, existing law. 24 Since issued, uniformly agree, plaintiff proving abusive Eleventh wrote Henson Dundee, 682 897, 902 (1982): "Sexual members every bit arbitrary barrier equality equality. Surely, requirement man woman run gauntlet abuse return privilege being allowed make living demeaning disconcerting harshest epithets." 25 Accord, Katz Dole, 709 251, 254-255 (CA4 1983); 444-454, 934-944; Zabkowicz West Bend 589 780 (ED Wis.1984). 26 Of course, recognized, "harassment" affects "term, condition, privilege" meaning supra, 238 ("mere utterance epithet engenders feelings employee" would affect VII); Henson, 904 (quoting same). For actionable, must severe pervasive alter victim's] Ibid. Respondent's case—which only criminal most serious nature—are plainly 27 question remains, ultimate 14,692-14,693, 43, effectively disposed think correctly, likely erroneous views ibid. ("It required submit maintain falls protection VII") (emphasis added). appears considering theory harassment, Appeals' correct. conclusion occurred rested "finding" ., one." sex-related "voluntary," forced participate will, suit gravamen "unwelcome." indeed difficult problems proof turns credibility determinations committed trier fact, actual terms Specifically, evidence, apparent ground vel submitting immaterial To contrary, obviously relevant. emphasize determine light record whole" totality circumstances, nature context incidents occurred." 1604.11(b) marginal relevance outweighed potential unfair prejudice sort addressed admitted, contrary erroneous, categorical publicly expressed fantasies carefully weigh applicable considerations deciding admit kind, per se rule admissibility. III 30 consider Finding notice" conduct, equivalent actions. took opposite view, strictly though reasonably possesses "even appearance" enable subordinates. 31 amici standards Respondent, surprisingly, defends Appeals. includes employer, argues "so long circumstance work-related, supervisor." 27. Notice therefore, established put misconduct, insulates liability wrongdoing. unfair, often know about, cure, 33 brief amicus curiae, formulating rules draw traditional principles. Examination those led exercises actually delegated making threatening status subordinates, imputed whose delegation empowered undertake them. Amici Curiae 22. Thus, consistently discharges knew, known, approved E.g., Anderson Methodist Evangelical Hospital, 464 723, 725 (CA6 1972). 34 rests exclusively theory, usual disappear. believes, lead 35 "a asks available avenue utilized, responsive complaint. If implemented specifically designed claims, take advantage shielded knowledge (obtained, filing charge comparable agency). cases, if, facts appropriate management officials." 26. 36 points out, tension agents regard notice. 1604.11(c) require, "examin[ation of] circumstances [f]unctions performed capacity." debate standard rather abstract quality given case. stage toward all, let alone continuing become conscious [them]," Jones, 653 1193, 1197-1199 1981) (holding racially constructive knowledge). 37 decline parties' invitation definitive agree wanted look guidance area. surely reason, Restatement (Second) Agency §§ 219-237 (1958). absence 38 relevant, situation before demonstrates why dispositive. Petitioner's general nondiscrimination particular, alert employer's interest correcting App. 25. Moreover, complain perpetrator, altogether surprising failed report him. contention substantially stronger procedures better calculated encourage victims come forward. IV 39 sum, conclude wrong entirely disregard absolute supervisors, regardless Accordingly, reversing affirmed, proceedings opinion. 41 ordered. concurring. 43 I see inconsistency opinions, believe statutory construction MARSHALL answered fairly record, join MARSHALL's 44 whom STEVENS join, judgment. illegal, Part leaves open responsible conduct. us, write separately. declines entitled great deference. 854-55, (1971) (EEOC Testing Procedures 1966); ante, 65. explain: 47 "Applying principles, specific complained authorized forbidden occurrence. examine capacity. 48 "With fellow (or employees) knows unless show immediate corrective action." 1604.11(c), (d) Commission, issuing "in keeping employees. [T]he mitigating factor." adopt Commission. An act through employees; rarely carried pursuant formal vote corporation's board directors. sometimes companywide policies violative violations effected individuals, step defiance company policy. Nonetheless, remedies, reinstatement backpay, entity.1 arises 51 answer supplied law, like federal labor employer.2 example, discriminatorily fires refuses promote black employee, is, more, employer. stop "notice" action, did. Flowers Crouch-Walker Corp., 552 1277, 1282 1977); Young Southwestern Loan Assn., 509 140 1975); 723 Following approach, personnel results tangible detriment employee. Horn Homes, Div. Windsor Mobile 755 599, 604-606 1985); Craig Y Snacks, 721 77, 80-81 (CA3 255, 910 (CA11 1982); Miller America, 600 211, 213 (CA9 1979). 52 Solicitor behalf apply "merely" concedes exercise rise But, departing merely "is exercising, exercise, victim." 24. latter situation, concludes, 53 General's untenable. responsibilities begin end power discipline recommend Rather, day-to-day supervision ensuring safe, productive workplace. There consequences than former. cases vested enables commit wrong: understood clothed justification special rule, until suffering notifies No statute, coherently drawn agency. goals Where, wholly parts business, improper find strict Those considerations, justify creation cases. Further, gained crafting rule. "pure" files alleging workplace, seeks money relief. 456, 12, 934, 946, (1981). Under notify days receipt 2000e-5(b). appear "reasonable cause," attempt eliminate offending "informal methods conference, conciliation, persuasion." internal assertedly redressed avoid employing receiving conciliation Cf. Where complainant, hand, backpay termination, factor remedies good bypassed effective, reluctant termination award backpay. 56 position. supervision, environment, purposes offense. remedial provisions modeled National Labor Relations (NLRA). Albemarle Paper Moody, 422 405, 419, 11, 95 2362, 2372, (1975); Franks Bowman Transportation 747, 768-770, 96 1251, 1266-67, (1976). NLRA see, Graves Trucking, Inc. NLRB, 692 470 NLRB Kaiser Agricultural Chemical, Division Aluminum Chemical 473 374, 384 1973); Amalgamated Clothing Workers America 124 365, 377, 365 898, 909 (1966).

Category: 1