Sex Harassment Suits Not Tied to Money Loss Upheld

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that employers may be sued under federal civil rights law for sexual harassment in the workplace, even when a victim has not suffered economic injury as a result.

In their first ruling on the issue, the justices said that unwelcome sexual advances or other misconduct that creates a “hostile environment” for workers is sufficient to sustain claims of illegal sex discrimination.

The court upheld guidelines issued by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that allow lawsuits not only where sexual harassment is tied to economic gain or loss but also where it results in “an intimidating, hostile or offensive” workplace.

“Nothing in (the law) suggests that a hostile environment based on discriminatory sexual harassment should not be . . . prohibited,” Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court.

But the justices held also that employers are not always automatically liable for a supervisor’s misconduct that they knew nothing about--and said that defendants may present evidence of a plaintiff’s “sexually provocative” speech or dress to refute allegations of harassment.

The justices added that the mere existence of a policy against discrimination and a procedure for handling grievances--coupled with a victim’s failure to use that procedure--are not sufficient in themselves to protect employers from liability.

The decision immediately drew claims of victory from several women’s organizations.

“We’re extremely pleased,” said Joanne L. Hustead, an attorney representing the Women’s Legal Defense Fund. “The court has recognized that sexual harassment is sex discrimination under the law--and that a victim doesn’t lose her rights by capitulating to unwelcome advances.”

Eleanor Smeal, president of the National Organization for Women, called the ruling “a victory for working women.”

On another front, Douglas S. McDowell, an attorney for the Equal Employment Advisory Council, an employer group, said that the decision was “positive” in that it encourages employers to act against sexual harassment but still allows them to defend themselves when they were not aware of any misconduct by supervisors.

Defendant ‘Pleased’

Charles H. Fleischer, a lawyer for a bank that is a defendant in the case before the court, said that the firm was “generally pleased” with the decision.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commissioner Rosalie Gaull Silberman hailed the decision as “a tremendous victory for working women.” She attributed part of the victory to efforts by the commission, which has been castigated by women’s groups as failing to protect their rights.

Silberman said: “We are pleased that the court relied so heavily on the commission’s guidelines and the government’s brief. Today’s decision will provide greater protection for women and greater incentives for employers to provide that protection. That’s a real step forward.”

Supervisor Accused

The ruling was issued in a widely watched, 8-year-old suit brought by Mechelle Vinson, a former assistant branch manager for Meritor Savings Bank here. Vinson brought a civil rights suit against the bank and her one-time supervisor, Sidney L. Taylor, charging that she had been subjected repeatedly to unwelcome advances by Taylor and had acquiesced in sexual intercourse about 50 times out of fear of losing her job.

Taylor flatly denied her allegations and said her claims were inspired by a business-related dispute between the two. The bank said it should not be held liable because it had received no complaints from Vinson and that it was unaware of any misconduct by Taylor. Evidence was presented that Vinson wore provocative clothing and discussed bizarre sexual fantasies with fellow workers.

A federal District Court dismissed the suit, noting that Vinson had failed to show that she had suffered any economic injury. But a federal appellate court here reinstated the suit, saying that her claim could be upheld on grounds that she suffered under a “hostile” working environment.

Employers must be held strictly liable for misconduct by their by supervisors, whether or not they know about it, the appeals court held, adding that testimony about Vinson’s dress or speech was irrelevant.

Appeals Court Partly Upheld

Rehnquist, named by President Reagan this week to succeed retiring Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, said that the appeals court was correct in reinstating the suit and ordering further proceedings to see whether Vinson’s claim should be sustained (Meritor vs. Vinson, 84-1979).

But the appellate court had gone too far in flatly barring evidence of Vinson’s dress and speech and in imposing strict liability on the bank, Rehnquist said. However, the justices refused to set down specific guidelines for determining when employers are liable in such cases.

Justices Thurgood Marshall, William J. Brennan Jr., Harry A. Blackmun and John Paul Stevens said in a concurring opinion written by Marshall that they would hold employers liable in such instances whether or not a victim formally complained to the firm about a supervisor’s sexual misconduct.