meritor
savings
bank
vinson
argued
march
decided
june
respondent
former
employee
petitioner
bank
brought
action
bank
supervisor
bank
claiming
employment
bank
subjected
sexual
harassment
supervisor
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
seeking
injunctive
relief
damages
trial
parties
presented
conflicting
testimony
existence
sexual
relationship
respondent
supervisor
district
denied
relief
without
resolving
conflicting
testimony
holding
respondent
supervisor
sexual
relationship
voluntary
nothing
continued
employment
bank
therefore
respondent
victim
sexual
harassment
went
hold
since
bank
without
notice
held
liable
supervisor
alleged
sexual
harassment
appeals
reversed
remanded
noting
violation
title
vii
may
predicated
either
two
types
sexual
harassment
harassment
involves
conditioning
employment
benefits
sexual
favors
harassment
affecting
economic
benefits
creates
hostile
offensive
working
environment
appeals
held
since
grievance
second
type
district
considered
whether
violation
type
occurred
remand
necessary
held
need
remand
obviated
fact
district
found
sexual
relationship
respondent
supervisor
voluntary
one
finding
might
based
testimony
respondent
dress
personal
fantasies
place
litigation
bank
liability
appeals
held
employer
absolutely
liable
sexual
harassment
supervisory
personnel
whether
employer
knew
known
held
claim
hostile
environment
sexual
harassment
form
sex
discrimination
actionable
title
vii
pp
language
title
vii
limited
economic
tangible
discrimination
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
guidelines
fully
support
view
sexual
harassment
leading
injury
violate
title
vii
respondent
allegations
sufficient
state
claim
hostile
environment
sexual
harassment
pp
district
findings
insufficient
dispose
respondent
hostile
environment
claim
district
apparently
erroneously
believed
sexual
harassment
claim
lie
absent
economic
effect
complainant
employment
erroneously
focused
voluntariness
respondent
participation
claimed
sexual
episodes
correct
inquiry
whether
respondent
conduct
indicated
alleged
sexual
advances
unwelcome
whether
participation
voluntary
pp
district
err
admitting
evidence
respondent
sexually
provocative
speech
dress
voluntariness
sense
consent
defense
sexual
harassment
claim
follow
evidence
irrelevant
matter
law
determining
whether
complainant
found
particular
sexual
advances
unwelcome
pp
appeals
erred
concluding
employers
always
automatically
liable
sexual
harassment
supervisors
agency
principles
may
transferable
particulars
title
vii
congress
decision
define
employer
include
agent
employer
evinces
intent
place
limits
acts
employees
employers
title
vii
held
responsible
case
however
mere
existence
grievance
procedure
bank
bank
policy
discrimination
coupled
respondent
failure
invoke
procedure
necessarily
insulate
bank
liability
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
burger
white
powell
stevens
joined
stevens
filed
concurring
opinion
post
marshall
filed
opinion
concurring
judgment
brennan
blackmun
stevens
joined
post
robert
troll
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
charles
fleischer
randall
smith
patricia
barry
argued
cause
respondent
vinson
brief
catherine
mackinnon
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
et
al
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorneys
general
reynolds
willard
deputy
solicitor
general
kuhl
albert
lauber
john
cordes
john
daly
johnny
butler
equal
employment
advisory
council
robert
williams
douglas
mcdowell
garen
dodge
chamber
commerce
dannie
fogleman
stephen
bokat
trustees
boston
university
william
burnett
harvey
michael
rosen
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
state
new
jersey
et
al
cary
edwards
attorney
general
new
jersey
james
ciancia
assistant
attorney
general
susan
reisner
lynn
norcia
deputy
attorneys
general
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
california
joseph
lieberman
attorney
general
connecticut
neil
hartigan
attorney
general
illinois
hubert
humphrey
iii
attorney
general
minnesota
paul
bardacke
attorney
general
new
mexico
robert
abrams
attorney
general
new
york
jeffrey
amestoy
attorney
general
vermont
elisabeth
shuster
american
federation
labor
congress
industrial
organizations
et
al
marsha
berzon
joy
koletsky
laurence
gold
winn
newman
sarah
burns
women
bar
association
massachusetts
et
al
beville
may
women
bar
association
state
new
york
stephen
shulman
lynda
mounts
women
legal
defense
fund
et
al
linda
singer
anne
simon
nadine
taub
judith
levin
barry
gottfried
working
women
institute
et
al
laurie
foster
senator
paul
simon
et
al
michael
salsbury
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
case
presents
important
questions
concerning
claims
workplace
sexual
harassment
brought
title
vii
civil
rights
act
stat
amended
et
seq
respondent
mechelle
vinson
met
sidney
taylor
vice
president
petitioner
meritor
savings
bank
bank
manager
one
branch
offices
respondent
asked
whether
might
obtain
employment
bank
taylor
gave
application
completed
returned
next
day
later
day
taylor
called
say
hired
taylor
supervisor
respondent
started
thereafter
promoted
teller
head
teller
assistant
branch
manager
worked
branch
four
years
undisputed
advancement
based
merit
alone
september
respondent
notified
taylor
taking
sick
leave
indefinite
period
november
bank
discharged
excessive
use
leave
respondent
brought
action
taylor
bank
claiming
four
years
bank
constantly
subjected
sexual
harassment
taylor
violation
title
vii
sought
injunctive
relief
compensatory
punitive
damages
taylor
bank
attorney
fees
bench
trial
parties
presented
conflicting
testimony
taylor
behavior
respondent
respondent
testified
probationary
period
taylor
treated
fatherly
way
made
sexual
advances
shortly
thereafter
however
invited
dinner
course
meal
suggested
go
motel
sexual
relations
first
refused
described
fear
losing
job
eventually
agreed
according
respondent
taylor
thereafter
made
repeated
demands
upon
sexual
favors
usually
branch
business
hours
estimated
next
several
years
intercourse
times
addition
respondent
testified
taylor
fondled
front
employees
followed
women
restroom
went
alone
exposed
even
forcibly
raped
several
occasions
activities
ceased
respondent
stated
started
going
steady
boyfriend
respondent
also
testified
taylor
touched
fondled
women
employees
bank
attempted
call
witnesses
support
charge
supporting
testimony
apparently
admitted
without
objection
district
allow
present
wholesale
evidence
pattern
practice
relating
sexual
advances
female
employees
case
chief
advised
might
well
able
present
evidence
rebuttal
defendants
cases
vinson
taylor
epd
fep
cases
dc
respondent
offer
evidence
rebuttal
finally
respondent
testified
afraid
taylor
never
reported
harassment
supervisors
never
attempted
use
bank
complaint
procedure
taylor
denied
respondent
allegations
sexual
activity
testifying
never
fondled
never
made
suggestive
remarks
never
engaged
sexual
intercourse
never
asked
contended
instead
respondent
made
accusations
response
dispute
bank
also
denied
respondent
allegations
asserted
sexual
harassment
taylor
unknown
bank
engaged
without
consent
approval
district
denied
relief
resolve
conflicting
testimony
existence
sexual
relationship
respondent
taylor
found
instead
respondent
taylor
engage
intimate
sexual
relationship
time
respondent
employment
bank
relationship
voluntary
one
nothing
continued
employment
bank
advancement
promotions
institution
fep
cases
omitted
although
concluded
respondent
proved
violation
title
vii
district
nevertheless
went
address
bank
liability
noting
bank
express
policy
discrimination
finding
neither
respondent
employee
ever
lodged
complaint
sexual
harassment
taylor
ultimately
concluded
bank
without
notice
held
liable
alleged
actions
taylor
fep
cases
appeals
district
columbia
circuit
reversed
app
relying
earlier
holding
bundy
jackson
app
decided
trial
case
stated
violation
title
vii
may
predicated
either
two
types
sexual
harassment
harassment
involves
conditioning
concrete
employment
benefits
sexual
favors
harassment
affecting
economic
benefits
creates
hostile
offensive
working
environment
drew
additional
support
position
equal
employment
opportunity
commission
guidelines
discrimination
sex
cfr
set
two
types
sexual
harassment
claims
believing
vinson
grievance
clearly
hostile
environment
type
app
district
considered
whether
violation
type
occurred
concluded
remand
necessary
concluded
district
finding
sexual
relationship
respondent
taylor
voluntary
one
obviate
need
remand
ncertain
precisely
district
meant
finding
appeals
held
evidence
otherwise
showed
taylor
made
vinson
toleration
sexual
harassment
condition
employment
voluntariness
materiality
whatsoever
surmised
district
finding
voluntariness
might
based
voluminous
testimony
regarding
respondent
dress
personal
fantasies
testimony
appeals
believed
place
litigation
bank
liability
appeals
held
employer
absolutely
liable
sexual
harassment
practiced
supervisory
personnel
whether
employer
knew
known
misconduct
relied
chiefly
title
vii
definition
employer
include
agent
person
well
eeoc
guidelines
held
supervisor
agent
employer
title
vii
purposes
even
lacks
authority
hire
fire
promote
since
mere
existence
even
appearance
significant
degree
influence
vital
job
decisions
gives
supervisor
opportunity
impose
employees
app
accordance
foregoing
appeals
reversed
judgment
district
remanded
case
proceedings
subsequent
suggestion
rehearing
en
banc
denied
three
judges
dissenting
app
granted
certiorari
affirm
different
reasons
ii
title
vii
civil
rights
act
makes
unlawful
employment
practice
employer
discriminate
individual
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
individual
race
color
religion
sex
national
origin
prohibition
discrimination
based
sex
added
title
vii
last
minute
floor
house
representatives
cong
rec
principal
argument
opposition
amendment
sex
discrimination
sufficiently
different
types
discrimination
receive
separate
legislative
treatment
see
statement
celler
quoting
letter
department
labor
statement
green
argument
defeated
bill
quickly
passed
amended
left
little
legislative
history
guide
us
interpreting
act
prohibition
discrimination
based
sex
respondent
argues
appeals
held
unwelcome
sexual
advances
create
offensive
hostile
working
environment
violate
title
vii
without
question
supervisor
sexually
harasses
subordinate
subordinate
sex
supervisor
discriminate
basis
sex
petitioner
apparently
challenge
proposition
contends
instead
prohibiting
discrimination
respect
compensation
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
congress
concerned
petitioner
describes
tangible
loss
economic
character
purely
psychological
aspects
workplace
environment
brief
petitioner
support
claim
petitioner
observes
legislative
history
title
vii
title
vii
decisions
focus
tangible
economic
barriers
erected
discrimination
reject
petitioner
view
first
language
title
vii
limited
economic
tangible
discrimination
phrase
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
evinces
congressional
intent
strike
entire
spectrum
disparate
treatment
men
women
employment
los
angeles
dept
water
power
manhart
quoting
sprogis
air
lines
petitioner
pointed
nothing
act
suggest
congress
contemplated
limitation
urged
second
eeoc
issued
guidelines
specifying
sexual
harassment
defined
form
sex
discrimination
prohibited
title
vii
administrative
interpretation
act
enforcing
agency
griggs
duke
power
guidelines
controlling
upon
courts
reason
authority
constitute
body
experience
informed
judgment
courts
litigants
may
properly
resort
guidance
general
electric
gilbert
quoting
skidmore
swift
eeoc
guidelines
fully
support
view
harassment
leading
noneconomic
injury
violate
title
vii
defining
sexual
harassment
guidelines
first
describe
kinds
workplace
conduct
may
actionable
title
vii
include
nwelcome
sexual
advances
requests
sexual
favors
verbal
physical
conduct
sexual
nature
cfr
relevant
charges
issue
case
guidelines
provide
sexual
misconduct
constitutes
prohibited
sexual
harassment
whether
directly
linked
grant
denial
economic
quid
pro
quo
conduct
purpose
effect
unreasonably
interfering
individual
work
performance
creating
intimidating
hostile
offensive
working
environment
concluding
hostile
environment
non
quid
pro
quo
harassment
violates
title
vii
eeoc
drew
upon
substantial
body
judicial
decisions
eeoc
precedent
holding
title
vii
affords
employees
right
work
environment
free
discriminatory
intimidation
ridicule
insult
see
generally
fed
reg
rogers
eeoc
cert
denied
apparently
first
case
recognize
cause
action
based
upon
discriminatory
work
environment
rogers
appeals
fifth
circuit
held
hispanic
complainant
establish
title
vii
violation
demonstrating
employer
created
offensive
work
environment
employees
giving
discriminatory
service
hispanic
clientele
explained
employee
protections
title
vii
extend
beyond
economic
aspects
employment
phrase
terms
conditions
privileges
employment
title
vii
expansive
concept
sweeps
within
protective
ambit
practice
creating
working
environment
heavily
charged
ethnic
racial
discrimination
one
readily
envision
working
environments
heavily
polluted
discrimination
destroy
completely
emotional
psychological
stability
minority
group
workers
since
guidelines
issued
courts
uniformly
held
agree
plaintiff
may
establish
violation
title
vii
proving
discrimination
based
sex
created
hostile
abusive
work
environment
appeals
eleventh
circuit
wrote
henson
dundee
sexual
harassment
creates
hostile
offensive
environment
members
one
sex
every
bit
arbitrary
barrier
sexual
equality
workplace
racial
harassment
racial
equality
surely
requirement
man
woman
run
gauntlet
sexual
abuse
return
privilege
allowed
work
make
living
demeaning
disconcerting
harshest
racial
epithets
course
courts
rogers
henson
recognized
workplace
conduct
may
described
harassment
affects
term
condition
privilege
employment
within
meaning
title
vii
see
rogers
eeoc
supra
mere
utterance
ethnic
racial
epithet
engenders
offensive
feelings
employee
affect
conditions
employment
sufficiently
significant
degree
violate
title
vii
henson
quoting
sexual
harassment
actionable
must
sufficiently
severe
pervasive
alter
conditions
victim
employment
create
abusive
working
environment
ibid
respondent
allegations
case
include
pervasive
harassment
also
criminal
conduct
serious
nature
plainly
sufficient
state
claim
hostile
environment
sexual
harassment
question
remains
however
whether
district
ultimate
finding
respondent
victim
sexual
harassment
epd
fep
cases
effectively
disposed
respondent
claim
appeals
recognized
think
correctly
ultimate
finding
likely
based
one
two
erroneous
views
law
first
district
apparently
believed
claim
sexual
harassment
lie
absent
economic
effect
complainant
employment
see
ibid
without
question
sexual
harassment
female
employees
asked
required
submit
sexual
demands
condition
obtain
employment
maintain
employment
obtain
promotions
falls
within
protection
title
vii
emphasis
added
since
appears
district
made
findings
without
ever
considering
hostile
environment
theory
sexual
harassment
appeals
decision
remand
correct
second
district
conclusion
actionable
harassment
occurred
might
rested
earlier
finding
respondent
taylor
engage
intimate
sexual
relationship
relationship
voluntary
one
fep
cases
fact
conduct
voluntary
sense
complainant
forced
participate
defense
sexual
harassment
suit
brought
title
vii
gravamen
sexual
harassment
claim
alleged
sexual
advances
unwelcome
cfr
question
whether
particular
conduct
indeed
unwelcome
presents
difficult
problems
proof
turns
largely
credibility
determinations
committed
trier
fact
district
case
erroneously
focused
voluntariness
respondent
participation
claimed
sexual
episodes
correct
inquiry
whether
respondent
conduct
indicated
alleged
sexual
advances
unwelcome
whether
actual
participation
sexual
intercourse
voluntary
petitioner
contends
even
case
must
remanded
district
appeals
erred
one
terms
remand
specifically
appeals
stated
testimony
respondent
dress
personal
fantasies
app
district
apparently
admitted
evidence
place
litigation
ibid
apparent
ground
conclusion
respondent
voluntariness
vel
non
submitting
taylor
advances
immaterial
sexual
harassment
claim
voluntariness
sense
consent
defense
claim
follow
complainant
sexually
provocative
speech
dress
irrelevant
matter
law
determining
whether
found
particular
sexual
advances
unwelcome
contrary
evidence
obviously
relevant
eeoc
guidelines
emphasize
trier
fact
must
determine
existence
sexual
harassment
light
record
whole
totality
circumstances
nature
sexual
advances
context
alleged
incidents
occurred
cfr
respondent
claim
marginal
relevance
evidence
question
outweighed
potential
unfair
prejudice
sort
argument
properly
addressed
district
case
district
concluded
evidence
admitted
appeals
contrary
conclusion
based
upon
erroneous
categorical
view
testimony
provocative
dress
publicly
expressed
sexual
fantasies
place
litigation
app
district
must
carefully
weigh
applicable
considerations
deciding
whether
admit
evidence
kind
per
se
rule
admissibility
iii
although
district
concluded
respondent
proved
violation
title
vii
nevertheless
went
consider
question
bank
liability
finding
bank
without
notice
taylor
alleged
conduct
notice
taylor
equivalent
notice
bank
concluded
bank
therefore
held
liable
taylor
alleged
actions
appeals
took
opposite
view
holding
employer
strictly
liable
hostile
environment
created
supervisor
sexual
advances
even
though
employer
neither
knew
reasonably
known
alleged
misconduct
held
supervisor
whether
possesses
authority
hire
fire
promote
necessarily
agent
employer
title
vii
purposes
since
even
appearance
authority
may
enable
impose
subordinates
parties
amici
suggest
several
different
standards
employer
liability
respondent
surprisingly
defends
position
appeals
noting
title
vii
definition
employer
includes
agent
employer
also
argues
long
circumstance
supervisor
employer
employer
supervisor
brief
respondent
notice
taylor
advances
unwelcome
therefore
notice
bank
petitioner
argues
respondent
failure
use
established
grievance
procedure
otherwise
put
notice
alleged
misconduct
insulates
petitioner
liability
taylor
wrongdoing
contrary
rule
unfair
petitioner
argues
since
hostile
environment
harassment
case
employer
often
reason
know
opportunity
cure
alleged
wrongdoing
eeoc
brief
amicus
curiae
contends
courts
formulating
employer
liability
rules
draw
traditional
agency
principles
examination
principles
led
eeoc
view
supervisor
exercises
authority
actually
delegated
employer
making
threatening
make
decisions
affecting
employment
status
subordinates
actions
properly
imputed
employer
whose
delegation
authority
empowered
supervisor
undertake
brief
eeoc
amici
curiae
thus
courts
consistently
held
employers
liable
discriminatory
discharges
employees
supervisory
personnel
whether
employer
knew
known
approved
supervisor
actions
anderson
methodist
evangelical
hospital
eeoc
suggests
sexual
harassment
claim
rests
exclusively
hostile
environment
theory
however
usual
basis
finding
agency
often
disappear
case
eeoc
believes
agency
principles
lead
rule
asks
whether
victim
sexual
harassment
reasonably
available
avenue
complaint
regarding
harassment
available
utilized
whether
procedure
reasonably
responsive
employee
complaint
employer
expressed
policy
sexual
harassment
implemented
procedure
specifically
designed
resolve
sexual
harassment
claims
victim
take
advantage
procedure
employer
shielded
liability
absent
actual
knowledge
sexually
hostile
environment
obtained
filing
charge
eeoc
comparable
state
agency
cases
employer
liable
actual
knowledge
harassment
considering
facts
case
victim
question
reasonably
available
avenue
making
complaint
known
appropriate
management
officials
brief
eeoc
amici
curiae
debate
appropriate
standard
employer
liability
rather
abstract
quality
given
state
record
case
know
stage
whether
taylor
made
sexual
advances
toward
respondent
let
alone
whether
advances
unwelcome
whether
sufficiently
pervasive
constitute
condition
employment
whether
pervasive
long
continuing
employer
must
become
conscious
taylor
jones
holding
employer
liable
racially
hostile
working
environment
based
constructive
knowledge
therefore
decline
parties
invitation
issue
definitive
rule
employer
liability
agree
eeoc
congress
wanted
courts
look
agency
principles
guidance
area
principles
may
transferable
particulars
title
vii
congress
decision
define
employer
include
agent
employer
surely
evinces
intent
place
limits
acts
employees
employers
title
vii
held
responsible
reason
hold
appeals
erred
concluding
employers
always
automatically
liable
sexual
harassment
supervisors
see
generally
restatement
second
agency
reason
absence
notice
employer
necessarily
insulate
employer
liability
ibid
finally
reject
petitioner
view
mere
existence
grievance
procedure
policy
discrimination
coupled
respondent
failure
invoke
procedure
must
insulate
petitioner
liability
facts
plainly
relevant
situation
us
demonstrates
necessarily
dispositive
petitioner
general
nondiscrimination
policy
address
sexual
harassment
particular
thus
alert
employees
employer
interest
correcting
form
discrimination
app
moreover
bank
grievance
procedure
apparently
required
employee
complain
first
supervisor
case
taylor
since
taylor
alleged
perpetrator
altogether
surprising
respondent
failed
invoke
procedure
report
grievance
petitioner
contention
respondent
failure
insulate
liability
might
substantially
stronger
procedures
better
calculated
encourage
victims
harassment
come
forward
iv
sum
hold
claim
hostile
environment
sex
discrimination
actionable
title
vii
district
findings
insufficient
dispose
respondent
hostile
environment
claim
district
err
admitting
testimony
respondent
sexually
provocative
speech
dress
employer
liability
conclude
appeals
wrong
entirely
disregard
agency
principles
impose
absolute
liability
employers
acts
supervisors
regardless
circumstances
particular
case
accordingly
judgment
appeals
reversing
judgment
district
affirmed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
justice
stevens
concurring
see
inconsistency
two
opinions
believe
question
statutory
construction
justice
marshall
answered
fairly
presented
record
join
opinion
justice
marshall
opinion
justice
marshall
justice
brennan
justice
blackmun
justice
stevens
join
concurring
judgment
fully
agree
conclusion
workplace
sexual
harassment
illegal
violates
title
vii
part
iii
opinion
however
leaves
open
circumstances
employer
responsible
title
vii
conduct
believe
question
properly
us
write
separately
issue
declines
resolve
addressed
eeoc
guidelines
discrimination
sex
entitled
great
deference
see
griggs
duke
power
eeoc
guidelines
employment
testing
procedures
see
also
ante
guidelines
explain
applying
general
title
vii
principles
employer
responsible
acts
agents
supervisory
employees
respect
sexual
harassment
regardless
whether
specific
acts
complained
authorized
even
forbidden
employer
regardless
whether
employer
knew
known
occurrence
commission
examine
circumstances
particular
employment
relationship
job
unctions
performed
individual
determining
whether
individual
acts
either
supervisory
agency
capacity
respect
conduct
fellow
employees
employer
responsible
acts
sexual
harassment
workplace
employer
agents
supervisory
employees
knows
known
conduct
unless
show
took
immediate
appropriate
corrective
action
cfr
employer
act
individual
supervisors
employees
discrimination
rarely
carried
pursuant
formal
vote
corporation
board
directors
although
employer
may
sometimes
adopt
companywide
discriminatory
policies
violative
title
vii
acts
may
constitute
title
vii
violations
generally
effected
actions
individuals
often
individual
may
take
step
even
defiance
company
policy
nonetheless
title
vii
remedies
reinstatement
backpay
generally
run
employer
entity
question
thus
arises
circumstances
employer
held
liable
title
vii
acts
employees
answer
supplied
general
title
vii
law
like
supplied
federal
labor
law
act
supervisory
employee
agent
imputed
employer
thus
example
supervisor
discriminatorily
fires
refuses
promote
black
employee
act
without
considered
act
employer
courts
stop
consider
whether
employer
otherwise
notice
action
even
whether
supervisor
actual
authority
act
flowers
young
southwestern
savings
loan
anderson
methodist
evangelical
hospital
following
approach
every
appeals
considered
issue
held
sexual
harassment
supervisory
personnel
automatically
imputed
employer
harassment
results
tangible
job
detriment
subordinate
employee
see
horn
duke
homes
div
windsor
mobile
homes
craig
snacks
katz
dole
henson
dundee
miller
bank
america
brief
filed
solicitor
general
behalf
eeoc
case
suggests
different
rule
apply
supervisor
harassment
merely
results
discriminatory
work
environment
solicitor
general
concedes
sexual
harassment
affects
tangible
job
benefits
exercise
authority
delegated
supervisor
employer
thus
gives
rise
employer
liability
departing
eeoc
guidelines
argues
case
supervisor
merely
creating
discriminatory
work
environment
different
supervisor
exercising
threatening
exercise
actual
apparent
authority
make
personnel
decisions
affecting
victim
brief
eeoc
amici
curiae
latter
situation
concludes
notice
requirement
therefore
necessary
solicitor
general
position
untenable
supervisor
responsibilities
begin
end
power
hire
fire
discipline
employees
power
recommend
actions
rather
supervisor
charged
supervision
work
environment
ensuring
safe
productive
workplace
reason
abuse
latter
authority
different
consequences
abuse
former
cases
authority
vested
supervisor
employer
enables
commit
wrong
precisely
supervisor
understood
clothed
employer
authority
able
impose
unwelcome
sexual
conduct
subordinates
therefore
justification
special
rule
applied
hostile
environment
cases
sexual
harassment
create
employer
liability
employee
suffering
discrimination
notifies
supervisors
requirement
appears
statute
requirement
coherently
drawn
law
agency
agency
principles
goals
title
vii
law
make
appropriate
limitation
liability
employers
acts
supervisors
example
supervisor
authority
employee
two
work
wholly
different
parts
employer
business
may
improper
find
strict
employer
liability
see
cfr
considerations
however
justify
creation
special
notice
rule
hostile
environment
cases
nothing
gained
crafting
rule
pure
hostile
environment
case
employee
files
eeoc
complaint
alleging
sexual
harassment
workplace
employee
seeks
money
damages
injunctive
relief
see
bundy
jackson
app
title
vii
eeoc
must
notify
employer
charges
made
within
days
receipt
complaint
charges
appear
based
reasonable
cause
eeoc
must
attempt
eliminate
offending
practice
informal
methods
conference
conciliation
persuasion
ibid
employer
whose
internal
procedures
assertedly
redressed
discrimination
avoid
injunctive
relief
employing
procedures
receiving
notice
complaint
conciliation
period
cf
brief
eeoc
amici
curiae
complainant
hand
seeks
backpay
theory
hostile
work
environment
effected
constructive
termination
existence
internal
complaint
procedure
may
factor
determining
employer
liability
remedies
available
complainant
without
good
reason
bypassed
internal
complaint
procedure
knew
effective
may
reluctant
find
constructive
termination
thus
award
reinstatement
backpay
therefore
reject
solicitor
general
position
apply
case
rules
apply
title
vii
cases
hold
sexual
harassment
supervisor
employee
supervision
leading
discriminatory
work
environment
imputed
employer
title
vii
purposes
regardless
whether
employee
gave
notice
offense
footnotes
nlra
cases
see
graves
trucking
nlrb
nlrb
kaiser
agricultural
chemical
division
kaiser
aluminum
chemical
amalgamated
clothing
workers
america
nlrb
app