in this case analysis, What does the court need to look at to determine hostile or abusive work environments?

Case Analysis Understanding Title VII and Sexual Harassment Implications Meredith Jacobson was hired in March of 2012 by the Clinic Manager of the local health clinic as a billing and insurance advocate. She was promoted over the course of 4 years to Insurance Coordinator and then to Ofce Manager. In January of 2017 she took an indefinite sick leave and was red in April 2017 for abuse of sick leave for taking excessive leave. She then sued the Clinic and the Clinic Manager, claiming that she had been sexually harassed over the four-year period that she was employed. Jacobson testified that while on probation, the Clinic Manager that hired her continually subjected her to sexual harassment. The manager treated her in a familiar manner from day one so staffthought they were close friends and within a few months he had requested that she engage in sexual relations with him. Afraid of losing her job she finally wand they had a secret relationship for the next four years. Jacobson also testified that his conduct in front of other employees was humiliating and that he had assaulted her after work on more than one occasion. She was afraid of him and needed the job so never reported the events to his superiors. She did not ll out a complaint form with human resources because this needed to be signed by her supervisor and since her mshe had become a direct report to him. The Manager denied all allegations. The attorney representing the clinic took the position that they were not liable because there was no notice of the alleged allegations and because Jacobson refused to use the grievance procedure in place. After several days of testimony, the trial court concluded that neither sexual harassment not discrimination has occurred. They concluded that the sexual relationship was consensual for both parties. They also found the clinic innocent of all changes because the situation was never reported, so there was no way for the clinic administrators to know about the alleged incidents. The Court of Appeals reversed the ruling and said there are two kinds of sexual harassment under Title VII; sexual demands for favors as a condition of employment and harassment from a hostile work environment. The appeals court suggested that the case be reviewed by the trial court in light of the second condition. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the employer was absolutely liable for sexual harassment by the supervisor, regardless of knowledge. This was misconduct. The Clinic appealed