1. Do you agree with the court’s use of the “reasonable victim” standard? Explain.

2. Do you think the standard creates problems for management? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

3. Do you think Ellison was being overly sensitive? What would you have done if you had been the supervisor to whom she reported the incidents?

Issue: Whether an employee's sexual harassment claim should be judged by a reasonable person standard or a reasonable victim standard.

Facts: An employee brought a sexual harassment suit because, among other things, a co-worker she barely knew kept writing very personal letters to her even after being asked not to do so. The court found that viewed from the employee’s perspective, the action was offensive and a violation of Title VII.

Decision: For employee. The case presents the important issue of what test should be applied to determine whether conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile working environment. The standard set forth in Rabidue is not agreed upon. It is believed that Gray’s conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of Ellison’s employment and create an abusive working environment. In evaluating the severity and pervasiveness of sexual harassment, one should focus on the perspective of the victim. If an individual examines whether a reasonable person would engage in allegedly harassing conduct, he or she would run the risk of reinforcing the prevailing level of discrimination. Harassers could continue to harass merely because a particular discriminatory practice was common, and victims of harassment would have no remedy.

It is therefore preferred to analyze harassment from the victim’s perspective. A complete understanding of the victim’s view requires, among other things, an analysis of the different perspectives of men and women. Conduct that many men consider unobjectionable may offend many women. It is held that a female plaintiff states a prima facie case of hostile environment sexual harassment when she alleges conduct that a reasonable woman would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. Of course, where male employees allege that co-workers engage in conduct which creates a hostile environment, the appropriate victim’s perspective would be that of a reasonable man.

The perspective of a reasonable woman primarily is adopted because it is believed that a gender-blind reasonable person standard tends to be male-biased and tends to systematically ignore the experiences of women. The reasonable woman standard does not establish a higher level of protection for women than men. Instead, a gender-conscious examination of sexual harassment enables women to participate in the workplace on an equal footing with men. By acknowledging and not trivializing the effects of sexual harassment on reasonable women, courts can work towards ensuring that neither men nor women will have to “run a gauntlet of sexual abuse in return for the privilege of being allowed to work and make a living.”