Barnes v Train (1974)

Barnes v. Train (1974) is commonly viewed as the first sexual harassment case in America, even though the term "sexual harassment" was not used.^[10][6] Paulette Barnes, an African American woman, was a payroll clerk who worked for the Environmental Protection Agency. She brought the case after losing her job for refusing the advances of a male supervisor.^[6][11] The case was dismissed, but was appealed in Barnes v Costle (1977).^[6]

Williams v. Saxbe (1976)

In 1976, Williams v. Saxbe was the first case in a U.S. District Court to establish that quid pro quo sexual harassment constitutes sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.^[12] A male supervisor was found to have retaliated against Diane R. Williams, an African American woman, by firing her after she refused to have sex with him.^[13][12][14] The court found that it was a form of sex discrimination when a condition of employment is to submit to the sexual advances of a superior.^[14][12] Additionally, there was evidence that other female employees had been subjected to similar conditions.^[14] Judge Charles Richey ruled that Diane Williams' supervisor, who was an employee under William B. Saxbe, had only required women to submit to his advances, which created an artificial barrier to employment for one gender but not the other.^[14][15][12]

Judge Richey's decision received a lot of media attention, including stories in multiple national newspapers.^[12] A lot of this attention was critical of the decision, and focused on a footnote Judge Richey included in the Memorandum Opinion.^[12] This footnote indicated that sexual harassment from a supervisor who is bisexual cannot be considered sex discrimination under Title VII if both male and female employees are subject to the harassment. ^[12][14]

Williams' case was appealed multiple times, and it took around eight years for her to win.^[16][13][12] Judge Richey granted Williams $19,147 to make up for lost pay.^[13][16]

Williams v Saxbe was the first U.S. District Court decision to recognize quid pro quo sexual harassment.^[14][12] In response to the findings of this case, several earlier decisions against sex discrimination in lower courts were reversed on appeal, including Barnes v Train. ^[6]

Barnes v. Costle (1977)

Although Barnes v. Train (1974) was initially dismissed, Paulette Barnes won on appeal in Barnes v. Costle (1977). During this case, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled it was sex discrimination for a woman to suffer tangible employment losses (for example losing her job) for refusing to submit to requests for sexual favors. The appeals ruling was based in part on the Williams v. Saxbe (1976) decision.^[17] The court also found that companies are liable for not stopping sexual harassment if they know it is being conducted by supervisors.^[17] As part of the ruling of Barnes v. Costle, Barnes received around $18,000 for back pay and the loss of promotions.^[18]

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)

In the 1986 case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court first recognized "sexual harassment" as a violation of Title VII, established the standards for analyzing whether the conduct was welcome and levels of employer liability, and that speech or conduct in itself can create a "hostile environment".^[19] This case filed by Mechelle Vinson ruled that the sexual conduct between the subordinate and supervisor could not be deemed voluntary due to the hierarchical relationship between the two positions in the workplace.^[20] Following the ruling of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, reported sexual harassment cases grew from 10 cases being registered by the EEOC per year before 1986 to 624 case being reported in the subsequent following year.^[20] This number of reported cases to the EEOC rose to 2,217 in 1990 and then 4,626 by 1995.^[20]

Ellison v. Brady (1991)

The case of Ellison v. Brady resulted in rejecting the reasonable person standard in favor of the "reasonable woman standard" which allowed for cases to be analyzed from the perspective of the complainant and not the defendant.^[21]

Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. (1991)

Also in 1991, Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co. became the first sexual harassment case to be given class action status paving the way for others.

Seven years later, in 1998, through that same case, new precedents were established that increased the limits on the "discovery" process in sexual harassment cases, that then allowed psychological injuries from the litigation process to be included in assessing damages awards.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, and Burlington v. Ellerth (1998)

In the same year, the courts concluded in Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Florida, and Burlington v. Ellerth, that employers are liable for harassment by their employees.^[22][23] These cases solidified what would later be known as the Faragher-Ellerth affirmative defense, available to employers when the harassed employee suffered no tangible employment action.^[24] To avail itself of this defense, the employer must show 1. that the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and 2. the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise.^[25] In 2018 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the Faragher-Ellerth defense by holding that harassed employees who neither report the conduct nor suffer an adverse employment action may still potentially prevail in sexual harassment lawsuits.^{[24]: 559–560}

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services (1998)

Moreover, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services set the precedent for same-sex harassment, and sexual harassment without motivation of "sexual desire", stating that any discrimination based on sex is actionable so long as it places the victim in an objectively disadvantageous working condition, regardless of the gender of either the victim, or the harasser.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006)

In the 2006 case of Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, the standard for retaliation against a sexual harassment complainant was revised to include any adverse employment decision or treatment that would be likely to dissuade a "reasonable worker" from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Astra USA v. Bildman (2009)

In Astra USA v. Bildman, 914 N.E.2d 36 (Mass. 2009), applying New York's faithless servant doctrine, the court held that a company's employee who had engaged in financial misdeeds and sexual harassment must "forfeit all of his salary and bonuses for the period of disloyalty."^[26] The court held that this was the case even if the employee "otherwise performed valuable services," and that the employee was not entitled to recover restitution for the value of those other services.^[26][27]

Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (2010)

The 2010 case, Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. ruled that a hostile work environment can be created in a workplace where sexually explicit language and pornography are present.^[28] A hostile workplace may exist based upon the treatment of employees as a group, even if it is not targeted at any particular employee.^[29]