According to her own testimony, Vinson acquiesced to Taylor’s sexual demands. In this sense her behavior was “voluntary.” Does the voluntariness of her behavior mean that she had “consented” to Taylor’s advances? Does it mean that they were “welcome”?

Do you agree that Vinson’s acquiescence shows there was no sexual harassment? Which court was right about this? Defend your position.

IN THE CASE OF VINSON V. TAYLOR, HEARD BEFORE the federal district court for the District of Columbia, Mechelle Vinson alleged that Sidney Taylor, her supervisor at Capital City Federal Savings and Loan, had sexually harassed her.73 But the facts of the case were contested.
In court Vinson testified that about a year after she began working at the bank, Taylor asked her to have sexual relations with him. She claimed that Taylor said she “owed”
him because he had obtained the job for her. Although she turned down Taylor at first, she eventually became involved with him. She and Taylor engaged in sexual relations, she said, both during and after business hours, in the remaining three years she worked at the bank. The encounters included intercourse in a bank vault and in a storage area in the bank basement. Vinson also testified that Taylor often actually “assaulted or raped” her. She contended that she was forced to submit to Taylor or jeopardize her employment.