1. Case Title: Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.
2. Citation: 510 U.S. 17; 114 S. Ct. 367; Year Decided: 1993
3. Facts: Teresa Harris was a rental manager for Forklift Systems, Inc. Harris issued a complaint on Forklift System’s president, Charles Hardy, stating that he sexually harassed her causing her to suffer PTSD-like symptoms. About the time Harris was ready to resign her position, Hardy apologized stated he was only kidding. Once the harassment continued, Harris filed a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The district court concluded that even though Hardy was crude and vulgar, Harris was the subject of sex-based derogatory conduct by Hardy, and that Harris was offended by said conduct as would…show more content… Court Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the District Court’s application of incorrect standards may have influenced its ultimate conclusion. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
6. Holding: The Supreme Court ruled that to be considered an abusive work environment, harassment and inappropriate conduct do not need to seriously affect an employee’s psychological well-being or lead the plaintiff to suffer injury. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
7. Rationale: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is violated when a workplace is filled with discriminatory behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a discriminatorily hostile or abusive working environment. This standard requires an objectively hostile or abusive environment-- one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive--as well as the victim's subjective perception that the environment is abusive. Whether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances, which may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or offensive language, also whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The effect on the employee's psychological well-being is relevant in determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. But