Appellant
Teresa Harris
Appellee
Forklift Systems, Inc.
Appellant's Claim
That she was sexually harassed by the owner.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Irwin Bennick
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Stanley M. Chernau
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
9 November 1993
Decision
The Court found that Teresa Harris did work in a sexually abusive environment.
Significance
The Supreme Court defined sexual harassment in the workplace so that workerstoday can win lawsuits without having to prove that the offensive behavior left them psychologically damaged or unable to perform their jobs.
From April of 1985 to October of 1987, Teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc., of Nashville, Tennessee, an equipment rental company.During this time her boss, Charles Hardy, subjected her to lewd remarks, sexual put-downs, and suggestive innuendoes.
For example, Hardy told her in the presence of several other workers, "You'rea woman, what do you know," "We need a man as the rental manager," and "You're a dumb ass woman." Publicly, he suggested going "to the Holiday Inn to negotiate your raise." He threw items on the floor and demanded the women pick them up. Hardy would also harass female employees by asking them to remove coins from his front pants pockets.
Harris Files a Lawsuit
Finally, Harris had had enough. She confronted Hardy, who insisted he had only been joking, and promised to stop his lewd behavior. Satisfied by these assurances, Hardy remained at Forklift Systems. In early September of 1987, Hardy reneged on his promise. While Harris was negotiating a deal with one of Forklift's customers, Hardy asked her, in front of other staff, "What did you do, promise the guy . . . some `bugger' Saturday night?" Harris quit her job on1 October 1987 and filed a lawsuit, claiming that Hardy's conduct created anabusive work environment. Because Harris felt she had been harassed becauseof her gender, she filed charges under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From 1987 to 1992, Harris waged an uphill battle. Declaring this to be a "close case," the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, agreed that Hardy often was "vulgar" and "inane," but not discriminatory. The behavior would offend any "reasonable woman," but Hardy's insults were not:
The judge also decided, "Although Hardy may at times have genuinely offended[Harris], I do not believe that he created a working environment so poisonedas to be intimidating or abusive to [her]." In other words, Harris had not been so traumatized--medically or psychologically--to prove harassment, a standard set by earlier federal courts of appeal. Harris's case was denied.
Undaunted, Harris took her case to the Supreme Court. The Court, which can often make the simple appear complex, did the opposite in this case. It examined a complicated question and made the answer look easy. After a four-week period, the justices reached a unanimous decision.
Discrimination by Any Other Name
The Supreme Court's first female justice, Justice O'Connor, wrote the final decision, delivering the six-page ruling on 9 November 1993. She concluded that a workplace environment that "would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive" because of sexual harassment is an arena where sexdiscrimination has occurred. The decision overturned lower federal court rulings that made proof of "severely psychological injury" a critical factor.
Citing the "broad rule of workplace equality" and federal laws against job discrimination, the Court stated that no single factor, such as psychological distress, is an essential element. O'Connor wrote that the definition of sexual harassment "by its nature cannot be a mathematically precise test." Rather,courts should look at "all the circumstances" to determine whether a work environment is a hostile one. These circumstances may be "the frequency of thediscriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening orhumiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance."
Justice Ginsburg's brief was her first since joining the Court in October of1993. According to the New York Times, Ginsburg "went out of her way to suggest that discrimination on the basis of sex should be taken as seriously by the Court as discrimination on the basis of race." Ginsburg also cited a1982 decision of O'Connor's (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan) that declared it unconstitutional for a Mississippi state college to exclude men from a nursing program.
The Harris decision reaffirmed the standard set by Meritor SavingsBank v. Vinson, which ruled that an employer violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the workplace becomes an arena for discriminatory behavior, creating an unfairly hostile or abusive atmosphere.
The Supreme Court instructed the appeals court to rehear the case and assessdamages. However, before the lower court could reach its decision, Harris settled out of court with her former employer. The terms of the settlement werenever disclosed. Harris is now an oncology nurse at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.
Related Cases
Justice Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas was confirmed as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on 15 October 1991. President George Bush nominated him, and the subsequent confirmation hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee were highly volatile. His appointment was very controversial, and became more so after ProfessorAnita Hill charged Thomas with sexual harassment and testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, testified that Thomas had made sexual advances toward her while they were both employed by the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She alleged that after rejecting his social invitations, Thomas began to discuss sexually explicit topics with her, while they worked together. He also continued to ask Hill to accompany him on social occasions. Hill continued to reject his invitations until her employment with the EEOC was about to end in 1983. In a dinner conversation thatis recorded in Hill's testimony before the Senate, Thomas told her that, "IfI [Hill] ever told anyone of his [Thomas's] behavior . . . it would ruin hiscareer."
Clarence Thomas's confirmation was approved despite Hill's allegations of sexual harassment.
Sources
The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1994. Mahwah, NJ: Funk & Wagnalls, Corp., 1993. http://www.capitaloutlook.com/
Teresa Harris
Appellee
Forklift Systems, Inc.
Appellant's Claim
That she was sexually harassed by the owner.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Irwin Bennick
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
Stanley M. Chernau
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor (writing for the Court), William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
9 November 1993
Decision
The Court found that Teresa Harris did work in a sexually abusive environment.
Significance
The Supreme Court defined sexual harassment in the workplace so that workerstoday can win lawsuits without having to prove that the offensive behavior left them psychologically damaged or unable to perform their jobs.
From April of 1985 to October of 1987, Teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc., of Nashville, Tennessee, an equipment rental company.During this time her boss, Charles Hardy, subjected her to lewd remarks, sexual put-downs, and suggestive innuendoes.
For example, Hardy told her in the presence of several other workers, "You'rea woman, what do you know," "We need a man as the rental manager," and "You're a dumb ass woman." Publicly, he suggested going "to the Holiday Inn to negotiate your raise." He threw items on the floor and demanded the women pick them up. Hardy would also harass female employees by asking them to remove coins from his front pants pockets.
Harris Files a Lawsuit
Finally, Harris had had enough. She confronted Hardy, who insisted he had only been joking, and promised to stop his lewd behavior. Satisfied by these assurances, Hardy remained at Forklift Systems. In early September of 1987, Hardy reneged on his promise. While Harris was negotiating a deal with one of Forklift's customers, Hardy asked her, in front of other staff, "What did you do, promise the guy . . . some `bugger' Saturday night?" Harris quit her job on1 October 1987 and filed a lawsuit, claiming that Hardy's conduct created anabusive work environment. Because Harris felt she had been harassed becauseof her gender, she filed charges under Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From 1987 to 1992, Harris waged an uphill battle. Declaring this to be a "close case," the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, agreed that Hardy often was "vulgar" and "inane," but not discriminatory. The behavior would offend any "reasonable woman," but Hardy's insults were not:
so severe as to be expected to seriously affect [Harris'] psychological well-being. A reasonable woman manager under like circumstances would havebeen offended by Hardy, but his conduct would not have risen to the level ofinterfering with that woman's performance.
The judge also decided, "Although Hardy may at times have genuinely offended[Harris], I do not believe that he created a working environment so poisonedas to be intimidating or abusive to [her]." In other words, Harris had not been so traumatized--medically or psychologically--to prove harassment, a standard set by earlier federal courts of appeal. Harris's case was denied.
Undaunted, Harris took her case to the Supreme Court. The Court, which can often make the simple appear complex, did the opposite in this case. It examined a complicated question and made the answer look easy. After a four-week period, the justices reached a unanimous decision.
Discrimination by Any Other Name
The Supreme Court's first female justice, Justice O'Connor, wrote the final decision, delivering the six-page ruling on 9 November 1993. She concluded that a workplace environment that "would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive" because of sexual harassment is an arena where sexdiscrimination has occurred. The decision overturned lower federal court rulings that made proof of "severely psychological injury" a critical factor.
Citing the "broad rule of workplace equality" and federal laws against job discrimination, the Court stated that no single factor, such as psychological distress, is an essential element. O'Connor wrote that the definition of sexual harassment "by its nature cannot be a mathematically precise test." Rather,courts should look at "all the circumstances" to determine whether a work environment is a hostile one. These circumstances may be "the frequency of thediscriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening orhumiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance."
Justice Ginsburg's brief was her first since joining the Court in October of1993. According to the New York Times, Ginsburg "went out of her way to suggest that discrimination on the basis of sex should be taken as seriously by the Court as discrimination on the basis of race." Ginsburg also cited a1982 decision of O'Connor's (Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan) that declared it unconstitutional for a Mississippi state college to exclude men from a nursing program.
The Harris decision reaffirmed the standard set by Meritor SavingsBank v. Vinson, which ruled that an employer violates Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when the workplace becomes an arena for discriminatory behavior, creating an unfairly hostile or abusive atmosphere.
The Supreme Court instructed the appeals court to rehear the case and assessdamages. However, before the lower court could reach its decision, Harris settled out of court with her former employer. The terms of the settlement werenever disclosed. Harris is now an oncology nurse at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee.
Related Cases
- Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718 (1982).
- DeAngelis v. El Paso Municipal Police Officers Association, 51 F.3d 591 (1995).
- Ascolese v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 902 F.Supp. 533 (1995).
- E.E.O.C. v. Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc., 990 F.Supp. 1059 (1998).
- Etter v. Veriflo Corporation, 67 Cal.App.4th 457 (1998).
Justice Clarence Thomas
Clarence Thomas was confirmed as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court on 15 October 1991. President George Bush nominated him, and the subsequent confirmation hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee were highly volatile. His appointment was very controversial, and became more so after ProfessorAnita Hill charged Thomas with sexual harassment and testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, testified that Thomas had made sexual advances toward her while they were both employed by the EqualEmployment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She alleged that after rejecting his social invitations, Thomas began to discuss sexually explicit topics with her, while they worked together. He also continued to ask Hill to accompany him on social occasions. Hill continued to reject his invitations until her employment with the EEOC was about to end in 1983. In a dinner conversation thatis recorded in Hill's testimony before the Senate, Thomas told her that, "IfI [Hill] ever told anyone of his [Thomas's] behavior . . . it would ruin hiscareer."
Clarence Thomas's confirmation was approved despite Hill's allegations of sexual harassment.
Sources
The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1994. Mahwah, NJ: Funk & Wagnalls, Corp., 1993. http://www.capitaloutlook.com/
User Comments Add a comment…