Mechelle Vinson Consenting to Sexual Harassment

Sara Lacey

March 5, 2015

Consenting to Sexual Harassment

Moral Issues in Business, Page 574-75

Consenting to Sexual Harassment

The case of Vinson V. Taylor was heard before the federal district court of the District of Columbia. Mechelle Vinson states that Sidney Taylor, her supervisor at Capital City Federal Savings and Loan sexually harassed, rapped and assaulted her and she could not do anything about it in fear of being fired. Sidney Taylor denies all allegations and states that he has never had sexual contact with Vinson; she is making this story up because of a work related dispute. The court ruled in favor with the defendant Taylor in stating that the sexual relationship was voluntary and that is was not employment related. The court also states that because the Capital City Federal Savings and Loan did not receive a notice about the harassment they are not liable either.

Vinson appealed the case and it eventually made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. The judge states that she encountered another type of sexual harassment in which the victims continued employment or promotion is conditioned on giving in to sexual demands and must tolerate a substantially discriminatory work environment. Voluntariness had no bearing in the sexual harassment case. Since Vinson had no method of defense at her job to stop the harassment, it is not voluntary participant to the sexual harassment. The U.S. Supreme Court also stated that employer is not responsible for the actions of their supervisor Sidney Taylor.

Before taking the course I would have sided with the defense Taylor because if you consent to having sexual relations with someone then it is not sexual harassment. But I’ve realized that there is a conflict of interest in which Taylor is putting his desires above those of the company that he works for. He is abusing the use of his official position for personal satisfaction. Taylor also restricts her freedoms in a breach of autonomy Vinson’s liberties were...