Connection lost
Server error
HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that to prove a hostile work environment under Title VII, a plaintiff does not need to show severe psychological injury. The conduct must only be severe or pervasive enough to create an environment that a reasonable person would find abusive.
Legal Significance: This case clarified the standard for hostile work environment claims under Title VII, establishing that psychological harm is a relevant factor but not a required element. It affirmed a standard focusing on both objective and subjective perceptions of abusiveness based on the totality of circumstances.
HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc., where the company president, Charles Hardy, repeatedly subjected her to gender-based insults and unwanted sexual innuendos. In front of other employees, Hardy made comments such as, “You’re a woman, what do you know,” and suggested they negotiate her raise at a Holiday Inn. He also asked female employees to retrieve objects from his front pants pocket and made sexual remarks about their clothing. After Harris complained, Hardy apologized and promised to stop, but his offensive behavior soon resumed. Harris subsequently resigned and filed a lawsuit against Forklift under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that Hardy’s conduct created a hostile and abusive work environment based on her gender. The District Court, while finding Hardy’s conduct offensive to a reasonable woman, ruled against Harris. It held that the conduct was not severe enough to seriously affect her psychological well-being, which it considered a necessary element for an actionable claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a plaintiff in a Title VII hostile work environment action need to prove that the defendant’s conduct caused tangible psychological injury to be actionable?
No. A plaintiff does not need to prove concrete psychological harm to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a plaintiff in a Title VII hostile work environment action need to prove that the defendant’s conduct caused tangible psychological injury to be actionable?
Conclusion
Harris is a foundational case in employment discrimination law that defines the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupt
Legal Rule
To be actionable under Title VII, harassing conduct need not cause tangible Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo c
Legal Analysis
The Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice O'Connor, reaffirmed the standard Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A plaintiff does not need to prove severe psychological injury to