 Plaintiff claimed 40+ instances of sexual conduct occurred with a supervisor over a 3 year period that only ceased when plaintiff began dating a steady boyfriend  Sexual conduct was not a condition to obtain or maintain employment or to obtain a promotion  Supreme Court held: sexual harassment that leads to a hostile or offensive work environment (HWE) violates Title VII, not just quid pro quo sexual harassment

 Other key features: ◦ Voluntariness of sexual conduct is not a defense; the issue is whether any alleged sexual advances were unwelcome ◦ Trier of fact must look at the totality of the circumstances—including the nature and context of the sexual advances ◦ Employer not automatically liable for supervisor’s conduct under respondeat superior

 Plaintiff subjected to gender-based insults and unwanted sexual innuendos  Supreme Court held: standard for an actionable hostile work environment— conduct must be severe or pervasive but does not have to lead to injury or psychological harm

 Male plaintiff subjected to harassment by male supervisors; complaints to supervisors received no response; plaintiff eventually quit  Supreme Court held: nothing in Title VII or court precedent excludes same-sex harassment—prior law merely prohibits a hostile work environment

 Plaintiff subjected to 15 months of constant sexual harassment by a supervisor, refused all sexual advances, and did not report conduct  Plaintiff did not suffer any adverse job consequences  Supreme Court held: plaintiff could not state quid pro quo claim because no tangible job consequences; employer could be held vicariously liable under HWE claim

 Plaintiff participated in employer’s internal investigation and reported the multiple instances in which a supervisor had sexually harassed her  Plaintiff was subsequently fired  Supreme Court held: prohibition against retaliation extended from employees who report workplace discrimination on their own to include employees who report workplace discrimination during an employer’s internal investigation ◦ Participation in internal investigation considered within the “opposition clause” of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision

 Plaintiff subjected to profane, sexually explicit language, coworkers’ conversations about sexual activity, and provocative pictures of women displayed in her workplace  Fourth Circuit held: critical inquiry is whether the plaintiff’s environment was hostile and not whether conduct was directed at the plaintiff