National+History+Day

**__ [] __** **__ [] __**
 * __ Cohen v. San Bernardino Valley College, 92 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 1996) __**

Tenured professor of English was disciplined for violating the college's sexual harassment policy against creating a "hostile learning environment" for his in-class use of profanity, and discussions of sex, pornography, obscenity, cannibalism, and other controversial topics in a confrontational, devil's advocate style. The court held the policy unconstitutionally vague as applied to Cohen's in-class speech, calling it a "legalistic ambush." In-class speech did not fall within the policy's core definition of sexual harassment and Cohen, who had used this apparently sound and proper teaching style for year, did not know the policy would be applied to him or his teaching methods. **__ C.C.Q __** The professor should change his teaching methods because in my opinion I don’t think that its right for him to be talking about cannibalism, pornography and the devil’s advocate. There is really no reson for him to even be talking about those topics with his students. And for him being a teacher he should know what he should and shouldn’t be doing to begin with. And for him being a teacher for over a year the school should had noticed this sooner not a year later. So why wouldn’t the school notice something as big as that happening sooner? From my point of view the professer should be disciplined because he did violate the college’s sexual harassment policy. Because he did go against the "hostile learning environment". **__ Summary __** The professor of English was disciplined for violating the college's sexual harassment policy against creating a "hostile learning environment" for his in-class use of profanity, and discussions of sex, pornography, obscenity, cannibalism, devil's advocate style. He had used this apparently sound and proper teaching style for year, did not know the policy would be applied to him or his teaching methods.

**__Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, ( __****__June 26,1998) __** **__And __** **__Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth( __****__June 26,1998) __**

**__[] __** The Supreme Court on June 26,1998, made employers more liable for incidents of sexual harassment. Ruling on two sexual harassment cases, __Faragher v. City of Boca Raton__, and __Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth__, the Supreme Court basically stated that the employer is responsible for the actions of the supervisor, even when the employer is unaware of the supervisor’s behavior. An employer can no longer claim that they did not know about the sexual harassment because the employee did not inform them, nor can they claim that they were unaware of the supervisor’s behavior. The Supreme Court also stated that the court will no longer heavily rely on the two different forms of sexual harassment, “quid pro quo” and “hostile environment.” The Court called these two forms of sexual harassment of “limited utility” in assessing employer liability. As a result, an employee that refuses the unwelcome sexual harassment of a supervisor, and who suffers no adverse job consequences, can still bring a sexual harassment lawsuit against her employer if the employee can show they were discriminated by the sexual content. The employee will not necessarily be required to show a loss of advancement, retaliation, loss of income, or stress as they once did under “quid pro quo” and hostile-environment. They will need to show that the nature of the sexual content they experienced caused them to experience discrimination. **__C.C.Q __** Even though the employer has a policy against sexual harassment and even when sexual harassment training is provided to their supervisors; they still can be held vicariously liable in cases where a supervisor uses sexual content to discriminate against an employee. The courts are now looking at what a "reasonable person" would determine to be sexual content that could cause discrimination versus the old standards of quid pro quo and hostile-environment. The Supreme Court did not throw out these standards, but will not rely on them as courts have in the past. **__Summary __** The Supreme Court on June 26,1998, made employers more liable for incidents of sexual harassment. Ruling on two sexual harassment cases, __Faragher v. City of Boca Raton__, and __Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth__, the Supreme Court basically stated that the employer is responsible for the actions of the supervisor, even when the employer is unaware of the supervisor’s behavior. An employer can no longer claim that they did not know about the sexual harassment because the employee did not inform them, nor can they claim that they were unaware of the supervisor’s behavior.Even though the employer has a policy against sexual harassment and even when sexual harassment training is provided to their supervisors; they still can be held vicariously liable in cases where a supervisor uses sexual content to discriminate against an employee. But the Supreme Court did not throw out these standards, but will not rely on them as courts have in the past.