Assignment 4.Chapter11 Case 11.4 Consenting to Sexual Harassment

Name:
Professor’s Name:
Course:
Due Date:
Sexual Harassment
The case dubbed Vinson v. Taylor will forever remain in the minds of those who were keenly following the proceedings. In the case, Vinson argued that Taylor had sexually harassed her. However, Taylor alleged that Vinson had acted voluntarily and therefore, she had no case because he interpreted her voluntariness as consent. Well, acting voluntarily does not necessarily mean someone is not fearful of what her objection might bring. Vinson’s voluntariness of her behavior does not mean she consented to Taylor’s advances nor does it mean that his advances were welcome. In her defense, she “contended that she was forced to submit to Taylor or jeopardize her employment.” As per the United Nations Development Programme (2019), “sexual harassment happens when it interferes with work, is made a condition of employment or when it creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment.” The article continues to state that it can either “be a one-off act or a series of incidents.” Vinson’s consent or acquiescence should not be taken to mean she was not sexually abused. As indicated above, sexual harassment can be made a condition of employment, and Vinson might have been trying to protect her job. Thus it is wrong to assume that her acquiescence acquits Taylor of any wrongdoing.
Of the three courts, the Court of Appeal appears to be right about the case. First of all, it is true that one’s voluntariness could be based on or can be made a condition of employment. Secondly, the employer ought to be held liable for the actions of the supervisor. It is the responsibility of the employer to provide their employees the right kind of tools to do their job as well as offer them a conducive environment in which to operate. So, the Court of Appeal was right in its assertion that the employer ought to be held liable for Taylor’s actions.
Regardless of the above, there are those who may feel that men often end up paying harshly even when ladies consent to sex. This, therefore, brings about the question of acquiescence and when it would or would not be a defense. Firstly, acquiescence should be used as a defense to sexual harassment when there are no conditions as well as when objections towards sexual advances do not create a siege environment (means an intimidating or discriminatory environment) for anyone. However, when there are conditions against the victim or objection leads to an environment that is unconducive to work in, then acquiescence cannot be used as a defense. So, the general rule is that acquiescence works only when there are no strings attached to the sexual re...