In the court case of Vinson V. Taylor, Mechelle Vinson was nineteen years old when she was hired as a teller-trainee at a branch of the company, Capitol City Federal Savings and Loan Association located in Washington D.C. in 1974. In May 1975, Vinson stated that Sidney Taylor, her supervisor, started to sexually harass her in the workplace.
Vinson initially turned down Taylor’s offer to sexual intercourse, the two eventually got involved with each other. She claimed that Taylor stated that he “owed” Taylor because he was the one that gave her the job. Once the two got involved with each other, they would have sexual intercourse both during and after business hours. This went on for the duration of the time that Mechelle Vinson worked for …show more content…
Instead, he expressed that Vinson was asking to have sexual intercourse with him and Taylor declined them. Taylor stated that Vinson only made up these charges just to get back him for a work related issue.
In the court ruling, the judge ruled that if Vinson and Taylor did engage in a sexual relationship, it was voluntary and not related to the workplace. Also stated in court, Capitol City Federal Savings and Loan Association was not told about the alleged harassment and since the company did not know, they are not held responsible for anything that had happened between Vinson and Taylor.
Vinson ended up appealing the court case. The Court of Appeals declared that the district court made three errors. The first error that was made was the district court oversaw that there could have been another kind of sexual harassment. As stated by Chief Judge Spottswood Robinson, he decides in cases like this whether or not the victim is only employed or promoted because they are sexually involved with a person with higher authority in the company. The second error was since Vinson did agree to sexual intercourse, this meant to the lower court that she was not a victim of sexual harassment. Vinson did not agree to sexual intercourse when she was interviewing for the job with Taylor, thus makes this an error. The third and final error was that no matter what the circumstances were, there should have never been
Vinson initially turned down Taylor’s offer to sexual intercourse, the two eventually got involved with each other. She claimed that Taylor stated that he “owed” Taylor because he was the one that gave her the job. Once the two got involved with each other, they would have sexual intercourse both during and after business hours. This went on for the duration of the time that Mechelle Vinson worked for …show more content…
Instead, he expressed that Vinson was asking to have sexual intercourse with him and Taylor declined them. Taylor stated that Vinson only made up these charges just to get back him for a work related issue.
In the court ruling, the judge ruled that if Vinson and Taylor did engage in a sexual relationship, it was voluntary and not related to the workplace. Also stated in court, Capitol City Federal Savings and Loan Association was not told about the alleged harassment and since the company did not know, they are not held responsible for anything that had happened between Vinson and Taylor.
Vinson ended up appealing the court case. The Court of Appeals declared that the district court made three errors. The first error that was made was the district court oversaw that there could have been another kind of sexual harassment. As stated by Chief Judge Spottswood Robinson, he decides in cases like this whether or not the victim is only employed or promoted because they are sexually involved with a person with higher authority in the company. The second error was since Vinson did agree to sexual intercourse, this meant to the lower court that she was not a victim of sexual harassment. Vinson did not agree to sexual intercourse when she was interviewing for the job with Taylor, thus makes this an error. The third and final error was that no matter what the circumstances were, there should have never been