Facts of the Case: Anna's immediate supervisor, Michael, repeatedly requested that she have “closed door” meetings with him. Closed-door meetings violate company policy. Other employees knew about these closed-door meetings, and as a result, rumors began to spread that Anna and Michael were having an office romance. In fact, in these closed-door meetings, Michael tried to convince Anna to lend him money, a practice that also violates company policy. Anna repeatedly denied the request and Michael stopped asking. However, the rumors continued and affected Anna deeply. She was treated like an outcast by her colleagues. Anna asked Michael to clarify the rumors, but he found them funny. Anna received two evaluations in which she scored low for “integrity” and “interpersonal relationships” due to the rumors. She was passed over for two promotions for which she applied where her skills and experience were superior to those of the promoted employees. She brought action against her employer on the grounds that her supervisor had created a hostile work environment because he refused to stop the rumors. Question: Consider whether Anna has a valid claim under Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Anna's claim falls under the broad rubric of the illegal employment practice of sexual harassment that has become known as the "hostile work environment" developed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: (a) Employer PracticesIt shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to - 1. fail or refuse to hire or fire any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his or her pay, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, due to... middle of paper... ...and Court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1994), and the employer may be held vicariously liable under the standards of Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998) ), so he should prevail in the case against his employer. Works Cited Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US 742 (Supreme Court of the United States 1998). Colorado State University-Global Campus. (2014). MGT 515-1 Module 3.Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 US 17 (Supreme Court of the United States 1994). Kubasek, N., Brennan, B., & Browne, M. (2012). The business legal environment: A critical thinking approach (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 US 57 (Supreme Court of the United States 1986).Remington, J., Heiser, R., Smythe, C., & Sovereign, K. (2012). Human Resources Law (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.