Meritor Savings Bank V. Peterson Case Summary

Justice Scalia in his concurring opinion of the case Meritor Savings Bank v.Vinson (1986) discusses the standard required to classify a “ hostile work environment.” He states that a “ hostile work environment, ” will be made up of “ an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive (205). The classification of a workplace as a “ hostile work environment,” is a very difficult task considering classifying a firm as a “ hostile work environment,” could severely ruin their reputation and their income. Such label should not emerge as part of a one time incident, especially if the companies chooses to assess the harassment claims shortly after they are filed. Severity must also fall into consideration when defining a hostile work environment because of how potentially damaging these actions can be. The harsher cases of harassment require harsher punishment for the perpetrator to act as a deterrent. However, if a pattern emerges or the
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ‘ makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer.. To discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin” (204). The language of the law makes it clear that discrimination is considered unlawful, regardless if a firm’s stance on the issue or whether it states it does not want its employees to be harassed since under Title VII, firms are accountable for workplace behavior. Furthermore, firms under Title VII have a legal responsibility to monitor their employees’ behavior to ensure discrimination is not occurring in the workplace. Therefore, an employee cannot be “ acting on their own,” because he is a representative of the firm he / she works at and as a result his actions make the firm legally