Sexual Harassment in the United States. Mary Welek Atwell

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_a6673665-68e2-5c75-ac8b-97154f89660f">31. 31Catharine A. MacKinnon, Women’s Lives. Men’s Laws. (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2005), 87–8.

32. 32Baker, Women’s Movement, 94.

33. 33Ann Scales, “Nooky Nation: On Tort Law and Other Arguments from Nature,” in Directions in Sexual Harassment Law, Catharine A. MacKinnon and Reva B. Siegel, eds. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), 311.

34. 34MacKinnon, Butterfly Politics, 59.

35. 35Catharine A. MacKinnon, Only Words (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), 46.

36. 36Dorothy Roberts, “The Collective Injury of Sexual Harassment,” in Directions in Sexual Harassment Law, Catharine A. MacKinnon and Reva B. Siegel, eds. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), 366–9.

37. 37MacKinnon, Women’s Lives. Men’s Laws, 190.

38. 38Catharine MacKinnon, “Brief for Respondent Mechelle Vinson,” Butterfly Politics, 65.

39. 39MacKinnon, Butterfly Politics, 3.

40. 40Ibid, 57–8.

41. 41Ibid, 16–8.

42. 42Gwendolyn Mink, Hostile Environment: The Political Betrayal of Sexually Harassed Women (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), 52–3.

43. 43MacKinnon, Directions in Sexual Harassment Law, 674–5.

44. 44MacKinnon, Butterfly Politics, 19–20.

      Bibliography

      Baker, Carrie N. The Women’s Movement Against Sexual Harassment. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

      Cochran III, Augustus B. Sexual Harassment and the Law: The Mechelle Vinson Case. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 2004.

      Crawford, Bridget J., Kathryn M. Stanchi, and Linda L. Berger. “Feminist Judging Matters: How Feminist Theory and Methods Affect the Process of Judgment.” University of Baltimore Law Review 47 (2018), www.digitalcommonspace.edu/lawfaculty/1089

      Hoff, Joan. Law, Gender, and Injustice. New York: New York University Press, 1991.

      Kessler-Harris, Alice. Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

      MacKinnon, Catharine A. Butterfly Politics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2017.

      MacKinnon, Catharine A. and Reva B. Siegel, eds. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989.

      MacKinnon, Catharine A. and Reva B. Siegel, eds. Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.

      MacKinnon, Catharine A. and Reva B. Siegel, eds. Directions in Sexual Harassment Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.

      MacKinnon, Catharine A. and Reva B. Siegel, eds. Women’s Lives. Men’s Laws. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2005.

      Mink, Gwendolyn. Hostile Environment: The Political Betrayal of Sexually Harassed Women. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000.

      Saguy, Abigail. What Is Sexual Harassment? From Capitol Hill to the Sorbonne. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003.

      Strebeigh, Fred. Equal: Women Reshape American Law. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009.

      ←16 | 17→

· 2 · the supreme court discovers sexual harassment

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson

Mechelle Vinson was definitely not the first American woman whose work life was made miserable—and ultimately intolerable—by a supervisor who treated her as a sex object. She was, however, the woman whose case made legal history when the United States Supreme Court first recognized sexual harassment as a violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In response to Vinson’s claim, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote the opinion which was joined by all members of the Court.¹ The justices were ready to go on record defining sexual harassment as a form of discrimination on the basis of sex. Vinson’s case reached the Supreme Court after a District Court had denied relief and the Court of Appeals had reversed that decision. Vinson’s employer, the Meritor Savings Bank appealed to the high court to resolve the conflict.

Before Vinson

For years before the justices ruled in Vinson’s case, the issue had been argued and considered in a number of lower courts. In addition, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) had issued guidelines regarding the ←17 | 18→meaning of sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Lower courts had heard numerous claims of sexual harassment since the 1970s but most had been denied. Many of these cases involved a male supervisor who propositioned a female subordinate. Typically when she refused, she was fired. Judges tended to see such a scenario as “personal proclivity” motivated by sexual desire, not as a matter of sex discrimination. Perhaps, they indicated, the proposition was a compliment, not an insult, and it certainly did not resemble illegal forms of biased behavior such as racial discrimination. “Romantic” advances in the workplace were “beyond the reach of Title VII.” The conduct was not seen as part of a larger social framework СКАЧАТЬ