assment in any form.Justice Scalia in his decision, outlined the parameters of Title VII and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission Guidelines on sexual harassment. He reiterated the purpose of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit an employers discrimination with respect to compensation or employment status based on any of the suspect classes. He notes that the act shows the noble intent of congress to eliminate all forms of disparate treatment of men and women in the workforce. Scalia relies on the holding in Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc. 114 S.Ct. 367, when the court held that,"Title VII is violated when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." The language of the law makes no gender distinctions , in turn it is not the courts position to interpret the law any other way than that which it is written.The court notes that there is very little information regarding the intent of the Congress which enacted the Civil Rights Act. Allegedly "sex" was originally included as a suspect class in an attempt to defeat the Act. Regardless, the court reasoned that although male on male harassment was most likely not the original intent or even a secondary concern when Congress enacted Title VII, "statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils." Despite what the original intent of the Act was in 1964, the Supreme Court redefined the scope of Title VII to include all forms of sexual harassment which meet the statutory guidelines. In the response to concerns that this decision would turn Title VII into a code of conduct for the workplace, the court restated the requirements to qualify as sexual harassment. Title VII requires two prongs to test for sexual harassment. First the behavior must be discriminatory and second...
