Meritor Savings Bank V. Vinson

710 Words2 Pages

The case Meritor Savings Bank V. Vinson is a landmark case for employee's rights in the 20th century and beyond. This case centered on a sexual harassment claim from Mechelle Vinson against her former employer and boss. Vinson's claim was that she was sexual harassed and was forcibly coerced into sexual acts with Sidney Taylor, her manager, while working for Meritor Savings Bank. The results of this case, helped establish what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is today.

Years before this case existed, lawmakers put into law Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under that law, it prohibited actions regarding discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in employment matters. This act also created the EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunities Commission to enforce Title VII.

In this case, Taylor who was the Vice President of Meritor Bank hired Vinson as a teller for Meritor Savings Bank. For Taylor, there was an instant attraction to Vinson and he pursued her sexually. Vinson started meeting Taylor outside of work and the relationship grew to be of the sexual nature. Taylor, being her boss, started showing possessive displays of affection within the work place in front of job candidates and current employees. Taylor then suggested that Vinson apply for a higher-ranking job he supervised. Vinson deliberated on it, decided to interview, and was then promoted. Taylor and Vinson had many sexual encounters, 40-50 times, during the course of her employment with the bank. Taylor started getting more aggressive with his impromptu barrage of sexual encounters in places like the women's bathroom. When Vinson notified Taylor that she had developed and was embarking on a relationship with another male, Tay...

... middle of paper ...

...thin. That is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court did. They defined that a hostile environment exists when unwelcome sexual conduct “has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with job performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” With guidance of the EEOC, The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling was that hostile environment could exist separately from quid pro quo harassment and found Taylor and Meritor Bank guilty. This set the precedence for future sexual discrimination cases.

Works Citied

"Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson." Supreme Court Drama. Ed. Elizabeth M. Shaw. UXL-Thomson Gale, 2001. eNotes.com. 2006. 16 Mar, 2011 meritor-savings-bank-v-vinson> Bohlander, George, and Scott Snell. Managing Human Resources. 15th. Mason, OH: South-Western Pub, 2009. 98-147. Print.

Open Document