As has previously been touched upon, the judiciary most often operates in relationship to shades of gray and not to the black and white between which those shades lie. The Court’s decision in Case...

As has previously been touched upon, the judiciary most often operates in relationship to shades of gray and not to the black and white between which those shades lie. The Court’s decision in Case 22-1, in large part dependent on its determination of a definition, illustrates this point. The Court’s primary test was to decide what constitutes an “abusive work environment,” the second type of sexual harassment actionable under Title VII. Deciding on such a definition is not as easy as going to a legal dictionary and looking up “abusive work environment.” The Court had to interpret the meaning of such an environment, and important to this interpretation were legal precedent, ambiguity, and primary ethical norms. Hence, the questions that follow will aid in thinking critically about these factors influential in the Court’s interpretation.

1. What ambiguous language did the Court leave undefined in Case 22-1? Clue: To find this answer, look at the Court’s definition of an “objectively hostile work environment.” As always, remember that ambiguities, most often, are adjectives.

 2. In her discussion of the precedent, Justice O’Connor made it clear that the district court misinterpreted the decision in rendering its decision. Contrary to the district court’s decision, the existence of which key fact was not necessary for the Court to find the defendant guilty of sexual harassment? Clue: Revisit the paragraph discussing the district court’s dismissal of Harris’s claim. On what basis was this dismissal made? This is the key fact the existence of which the Supreme Court found unnecessary for judgment in favor of the plaintiff.