No. The company is responsible for the harassment. The court said that just because Lisa posed for a magazine doesn't mean she invited or was okay with being harassed at her job. Her private life is separate from her right to a safe workplace. The judge was wrong to think that because the conduct was 'unwelcome,' it could somehow not be 'offensive.' If it's unwanted, it's offensive. The final fight with her coworker, where he used sexist slurs, was just more of the same sexual harassment she had been dealing with all along.

Yes, the way Lisa was treated at work was wrong and against the law. It doesn't matter that she posed for a magazine outside of work. What matters is that people at her job, including her boss, treated her badly because she's a woman. The court made mistakes when it said this treatment was okay. They should have looked at all the bad things that happened to Lisa over time, not just one incident. Also, it's not okay for Lisa's coworkers to call her mean names, even if her bosses didn't do it themselves. The company should have stopped this behavior when they found out about it. Lisa didn't have to stay at a job where people were treating her so badly just because she needed the money.

No. An employee's conduct outside of work does not provide acquiescence to unwanted sexual advances in the workplace. The district court erred by separating the concept of 'unwelcome' conduct from 'offensive' conduct; if sexual advances are unwelcome, they are by definition offensive to the victim. The court rejected the trial court's reasoning that a person who would pose nude could not be offended by workplace harassment, stating that a plaintiff's private life does not waive her legal protections. Furthermore, the court must consider the 'totality of the circumstances' and cannot compartmentalize the harassment into discrete incidents. The final verbal assault by the co-worker, using gender-specific epithets, was a continuation of the hostile environment and was directly related to harassment based on sex, making the trial court's finding on causation clearly erroneous.

Yes, the employer's conduct constituted unwelcome sexual harassment that altered the conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment under Title VII. We reverse the district court's decision and direct judgment in favor of the plaintiff because: (1) The district court erred in requiring proof that the conduct was both unwelcome and offensive. The correct inquiry is whether the conduct was uninvited and offensive, which determines if it was unwelcome. (2) The plaintiff's choice to pose for a nude magazine outside work hours is not material to whether she found her employer's work-related conduct offensive. (3) The court erred in compartmentalizing the harassment into separate employment periods rather than considering the totality of circumstances. (4) The final incident with Ottaway was not unrelated to sexual harassment but part of a continuum of harassment that created a hostile work environment. (5) A female worker does not have to endure a hostile environment until she can find another job. The employer's failure to address known harassment from coworkers constitutes a violation of Title VII.

Lisa Ann BURNS, Appellant, v. McGREGOR ELECTRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot