Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Alexander v. Yale, 631 F.2d 178 (2d Cir. 1980), [1] was the first use of Title IX [2] of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 in charges of sexual harassment against an educational institution. [3] It further established that sexual harassment of female students could be considered sex discrimination, and was thus illegal.
She distinguishes between two types of sexual harassment (see pp. 32–42): "quid pro quo", meaning sexual harassment "in which sexual compliance is exchanged, or proposed to be exchanged, for an employment opportunity (p. 32)" and; the type of harassment that "arises when sexual harassment is a persistent condition of work (p. 32)".
Sexual harassment in the workplace in US labor law has been considered a form of discrimination on the basis of sex in the United States since the mid-1970s. [1] [2] There are two forms of sexual harassment recognized by United States law: quid pro quo sexual harassment (requiring an employee to tolerate sexual harassment to keep their job, receive a tangible benefit, or avoid punishment) and ...
Quathisha Epps, 51, faced “quid pro quo sexual harassment” while working for Maddrey, her lawyer alleged in a Tuesday letter to NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch calling for the lieutenant’s ...
Mar. 4—A federal lawsuit claims UND failed to protect a student in the university's social work program from sexual harassment and abuse and instead "fostered a culture of silence" around ...
Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court, in a 9–0 decision, recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was the first of its kind to reach the Supreme Court and would redefine sexual harassment in the workplace.
The regulation expanded Title IX, a 1972 law forbidding discrimination based on sex in education, to also prevent discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. It also expanded ...
Regarding types of harassment, in a quid pro quo situation, a school would always be held liable because the harasser uses authority that has been granted by the school. For hostile environment claims, a school would be held liable if the employee acted with authority or was aided in the harassing by their position of authority.