美聯邦大法院의 性戱弄判決에 대한 硏究

Sexual harassment was not considered as a matter of public concern but as just a personal issue at first. However, since the sexual harassment has been done against women who have the relative weak status and power in the workplace, the status and reality of women disadvantaged than those of men are reflected. It forces adverse conditions of employment or environments which are different from those of men. The United States Supreme Court has expanded the scope of sexual harassment since Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, decided in 1986 and makes sure that it is the sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Therefore, first, this article reviews the Supreme Court opinions after dividing the sexual harassment cases into opposite-sex and same-sex harassments, respectively. It examines specific details of the Meritor and Harris in which the Supreme Court recognized the sexual harassment creating an intimidating or hostile working environment and to widen the range. And, it analyzes the Supreme Court’s position in Oncle as the first to bring up the issue of same-sex sexual harassment. Second, this article reviews the Supreme Court’s framework for determining what sexually harassing conduct constitutes a hostile work environment. Especially it point outs the problems requires to demonstrate that the sexually harassing conduct is unwelcomed and it reviews the problems that the aspect of reasonable people has rather than the aspect of women upon determining whether it’s a sexual harassment. Third, this article discusses the criteria proposed by the Supreme Court to demonstrate that same-sex sexual harassment was discrimination because of sex. It reviews that the criteria of which the conduct could be discrimination because of sex if it is proved that the homosexual sexual harassment is done because of harasser’s hostility against the specific gender in workplace besides the sexual desire or that men and women are not treated equally, has offered no clear guidance.