[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-325517-105":59,"doc-detail-325517-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","sexual-harassment-is-discriminationbut-employers-not-almays-liable","SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DISCRIMINATION,BUT EMPLOYERS NOT ALMAYS LIABLE","","A Supreme Court ruling explains that sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination and can expose employers to lawsuits even when harassment is not linked to pay raises, promotions, or continued employment. The Court also clarifies that employers are not automatically liable for every workplace harassing act by supervisors, discussing notice, grievance procedures, and the role of supervisors as agents under job-bias law. The decision defines types of harassment and assesses when conduct is unwelcome, while noting that evidence of sexually provocative speech or dress can be relevant.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/sexual-harassment-is-discriminationbut-employers-not-almays-liable/325517/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/sexual-harassment-is-discriminationbut-employers-not-almays-liable/325517.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Liam","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-22","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",11,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What did the Supreme Court rule about sexual harassment?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The Court ruled unanimously that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination for which employers can be sued, even if it is not tied to raises, promotions, or continued employment.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Are employers liable for every case of harassment by supervisors?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"No. The Court stated that employers are not liable in every case where employees are harassed by supervisors, and that absence of notice does not automatically insulate an employer from liability.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"How did the Court describe the two types of sexual harassment?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"It recognized one type as economic quid pro quo and a second type involving harassment that unreasonably interferes with work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},325517,1790916725,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},8796095461564,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Vo1。14,No。119  \nFriday,June 20,1986  \n# SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DISCRIMINATION,BUT EMPLOYERS NOT ALMAYS LIABLE\n\nThe U.S.Supreme Court yesterday ruled unanimously that sexual harassment 1s aform of sex discrimination for which employers can be sued,even if that ha-rassment is not tied to raises,promotions or continued employment.  \nBut employers are not liable in every case in which employees are harassed bytheir supervisors,said the Court in Meritor Savings Bank v.Vinson(54 USLW3677)。The justices refused to issue a \"definitive rule\"on the employer's1iability for behavior at work,but they noted that job bias law defines anemployer to include that employer's “agents,\"such as supervisors.  \nVinson is the first Supreme Court case on sexual harassment under Title VII ofthe 1964 Civil Rights Act,which forbids job discrimination on the basis ofrace,color,creed,national origin and sex.  \nEven when a victim does not tell an employer he or she is being harassed,\"ab-sence of notice …does not necessarily insulate that employer from liabil1-ty,\"said the main opinion,written by Justice William Rehnquist,the nomineeto become chief justice when Warren Burger retires this surmer.  \nBank's Liability SticksMechelle Vinson sued Meritor for sex discrimina-tion seven years ago,charging that her supervisor for four years had extractedsexual favors and manhandled her at work。The U.S.Circuit Court of Appealsfor the District of Columbia held Meritor llable for the supervisor's allegedbehavior,whether or not the bank knew of that behavior(HED,Jan.9)。  \nWithout adopting a liability rule,the Supreme Court held that the\"mere exis-tence of a grievance procedure and a policy against discrimination\"does notnecessarily protect the employer,even if the victim fails to invoke that pro-cedure.While relevant,those factors are not absolute defenses.  \nMeritor's grievance procedure,for instance,\"did not address sexual harassmentin particular,and thus did not alert employees to their employer's interest incorrecting that form of discrimination.\"Also,Meritor directed employees withgrievances to their immediate superiors,and in Vinson's case,that was the manwho allegedly was harassing her.The bank's procedures could have been \"bettercalculated to encourage victims of harassment to come forward,\"said Rehnquist.  \nTaking Rehnquist to mean that sound grlevance procedures may mitigate employer1iability,Michael Rosen,assoclate general counsel for Boston University,wascautiously pleased although he has not yet seen the opinion.The universityhad intervened to argue against absolute liability for employers.(more)  \n(O  \n     June 20,1986  \n# SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DISCRIMINATION(Cont.)\n\nThe Court seems to have \"opened the door to saying,where there is a reasonableprocedure [or]a meaningfui remedy avallable to_victims of sexual\"harassment,victims have a duty to use the procedure,sald Rosen.  \nJustice Thurgood Marshal1,in a concurring opinion,went further than Rehnquistand said employers should be held 1iable\"regardless of[lack of]knowledge orany other mitigating factor.\"Agreeing with him were Justices William Brennan,Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens。Their position copled Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission guidelines,but in Vinson,EEOC and the Reagan adminis-tration retreated and said employers with grievance procedures should not beheld lable.  \nTwo Types Of HarassmentRehnquist also drew on EEOC's guidelines andrecognized two types of sexual harassment.The first is the obvious economicquid pro quo,such as a raise in exchange for sexual favors.  \nThe second type is harassment \"unreasonably interfering with an individual'swork performance or creating an intimidating,hostile,or offensive workingenvironment.\"It might include \"unwelcome sexual advances,requests for sexualfavors or other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,\"and it issevere or pervasive enough to \"create an abusive working environment,\"theguidelines say.  \nIf a victim has capitulated to a supervisor's adv","cbCaimb2vX8Gydk7","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimb2vX8Gydk7","pdf",1262910,"English","# SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DISCRIMINATION,BUT EMPLOYERS NOT ALMAYS LIABLE\n# SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DISCRIMINATION(Cont.)\n# PUBLIC EMPLOYEES CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN FROM SOCIAL SECURITY,COURT RULES\n# CONFEREES AGREE ON PARTIAL PELL SUPPLEMENTAL,BUT VETO POSSIBLE","[{\"question\":\"What did the Supreme Court rule about sexual harassment?\",\"answer\":\"The Court ruled unanimously that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination for which employers can be sued, even if it is not tied to raises, promotions, or continued employment.\"},{\"question\":\"Are employers liable for every case of harassment by supervisors?\",\"answer\":\"No. The Court stated that employers are not liable in every case where employees are harassed by supervisors, and that absence of notice does not automatically insulate an employer from liability.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Court describe the two types of sexual harassment?\",\"answer\":\"It recognized one type as economic quid pro quo and a second type involving harassment that unreasonably interferes with work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.\"}]","SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS DISCRIMINATION,BUT EMPLOYERS NOT ALMAYS LIABLE | PDF",1789970725,13]