Dr. Melissa Gerald, a scientist who worked at the University of Puerto Rico in its Caribbean Primate Research Center, encountered difficulty with her supervisor, Dr. Edmundo Kraiselburd. After working together without incident for several years, the two engaged in a one-week sexual liaison while attending a conference. Upon return to work. Kraiselburd wanted to continue, but Gerald, embarrassed, did not. There followed a number of incidents in which Kraiselburd groped her, solicited sex from her, threatened to fire her and demote her, and other actions. Gerald resigned, and sued for sexual harassment, and the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the University and Dr. Kraiselburd. Dr. Gerald appealed.

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?

2. Why did the appeals court decide that the alleged conduct of the supervisor was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment for the plaintiff? Do you agree? Why or why not?

3. Do you think that the alleged harassment was “unwelcome” to the plaintiff” Why or why not?

4. Material facts are disputed in this case; the plaintiff and defendants offered very different accounts of the relevant events. At trial, do you think that the plaintiff will be able to prove her allegations of harassment? Why or why not?