Hello please review but I need this back by 5pm today. It must include one outside reference. It only has to be

two pages Instructions are included and thank you again. ATTACHMENT PREVIEW Download attachmentMust be in your own words.Read the case studies identified below. Prepare a single document that answersthe specified Discussion questions listed at the end of the case study.The body of the paper will be no more than four pages—a maximum of two pages anda minimum of one page—for each case study question. It must be typed in a 12-point font, double spaced, and conform to APA formatting standards, including acover page, in-text citations, and a reference page. The cover page and referencepage are not counted toward the four-page maximum. ALL sources (including thetextbook) must be properly cited within the paper and on the reference page. At leastone outside source foreachcase study question must be included, and includeinformation from the textbook.Use the DeVry University Library onlineathttp://library.devry.edu(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.to selectyour sources, using either EBSCOhost or LEXIS-NEXIS.Do not use Google or similarsearch engines or references from sources such as Wikipedia.CASE 11.3:Consenting to Sexual HarassmentIn the case ofVinson v. Taylor,heard before the federal district court for theDistrict of Columbia, Mechelle Vinson alleged that Sidney Taylor, hersupervisor at Capital City Federal Savings and Loan, had sexually harassedher.72But the facts of the case were contested. In court Vinson testi±ed thatabout a year after she began working at the bank, Taylor asked her to havesexual relations with him. She claimed that Taylor said she “owed” himbecause he had obtained the job for her.Although she turned down Taylor at ±rst, she eventually became involvedwith him. She and Taylor engaged in sexual relations, both during and afterbusiness hours, in the remaining three years she worked at the bank. Theencounters included intercourse in a bank vault and in a storage area in thebank basement. Vinson also testi±ed that Taylor often actually “assaulted orraped” her. She contended that she was forced to submit to Taylor orjeopardize her employment.Taylor, for his part, denied the allegations. He testi±ed that he had neverhad sex with Vinson. On the contrary, he alleged that Vinson had madeadvances toward him and that he had declined them. He contended thatVinson had brought the charges against him to “get even” because of awork-related dispute.In its ruling on the case, the court held that if Vinson and Taylor hadengaged in a sexual relationship, that relationship was voluntary on the partof Vinson and was not employment related. The court also held that CapitalCity Federal Savings and Loan did not have “notice” of the alleged

View the Answerharassment and was therefore not liable. Although Taylor was Vinson’ssupervisor, the court reasoned that notice to him was not notice to the bank.Vinson appealed the case, and the Court of Appeals held that the districtcourt had erred in three ways. First, the district court had overlooked thefact that there are two possible kinds of sexual harassment. Writing for themajority, Chief Judge Spottswood Robinson distinguished cases in which thevictim’s continued employment or promotion is conditioned on giving in tosexual demands and those cases in which the victim must tolerate a“substantially discriminatory work environment.” The lower court had failedto consider Vinson’s case as possible harassment of the second kind.Second, the higher court also overruled the district court’s ±nding thatbecause Vinson voluntarily engaged in a sexual relationship with Taylor, shewas not a victim of sexual harassment. Voluntariness on Vinson’s part had“no bearing,” the judge wrote, on “whether Taylor made Vinson’s tolerationof sexual harassment a condition of her employment.” Third, the Court ofAppeals held that any discriminatory activity by a supervisor is attributableto the employer, regardless of whether the employer had speci±c notice.In his dissent to the decision by the Court of Appeals, Judge Robert Borkrejected the majority’s claim that “voluntariness” did not automatically ruleout harassment. He argued that this position would have the result ofdepriving the accused person of any defense, because he could no longerestablish that the supposed victim was really “a willing participant.” JudgeBork contended further that an employer should not be held vicariouslyliable for a supervisor’s acts that it didn’t know about.Eventually the case arrived at the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld themajority verdict of the Court of Appeals, stating that:[T]he fact that sex-related conduct was “voluntary,” in the sense that thecomplainant was not forced to participate against her will, is not a defense to a sexualharassment suit brought under Title VII. The gravamen of any sexual harassment claimis that the alleged sexual advances were “unwelcome.” … The correct inquiry is whetherrespondent by her conduct indicated that the alleged sexual advances were unwelcome,not whether her actual participation in sexual intercourse was voluntary.The Court, however, rejected the Court of Appeals’s position that employersare strictly liable for the acts of their supervisors, regardless of theparticular circumstances.73Question 1.According to her own testimony, Vinson acquiesced to Taylor’ssexual demands. In this sense her behavior was “voluntary.” Does thevoluntariness of her behavior mean that she had “consented” to Taylor’sadvances? Does it mean that they were “welcome”? Do you agree that

Show 

Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get 10% Discount! Use Coupon Code "Newclient"