Opinion ID: 1060691
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: This Court established a framework for analyzing sexual harassment cases under the THRA in Carr v. United Parcel Serv., 955 S.W.2d 832 (Tenn. 1997). In Carr , we recognized that our legislature had intended the THRA to be coextensive with federal law. Id. at 834-35 citing Bennett v. Steiner-Liff Iron & Metal Co., 826 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tenn.1992); Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101(a)(1) (1991 Repl.) (stating purpose and intent of general assembly was to provide for execution of the policies embodied in the federal Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1968 and 1972, ...). We, however, are neither bound by nor limited by the federal law when interpreting our state's anti-discrimination statute. Id. at 835. The policy of interpreting the THRA coextensively with Title VII is predicated upon a desire to maintain continuity between state and federal law. Since our decision in Carr , the United States Supreme Court has modified the federal analysis for imposition of employer liability in cases involving supervisor sexual harassment. We shall begin by discussing our decision in Carr . Next we shall briefly examine the recent Supreme Court decisions articulating a standard for imposition of employer liability in cases involving supervisor sexual harassment. Finally, we shall examine the differences between Carr and the current federal law and address the facts of this case.