In 1986, the Supreme Court determined that Quid Pro Quo was not the only type of sexual harassment. They determined for the first time that this kind of situation constituted a hostile work environment of sexual harassment as well. Michelle Vison was promoted based on merit. The bank manager Sidney Taylor hired Ms. Vison over time, Taylor and Vison eventually went out for dinner, after refusing she eventually succumbed most out of fear of losing job. The affair then blossomed on cascaded into Vison, according to Taylor, making numerous demands, for sex. They has a sexual affair over 50 times over the years. Taylor sexually harassed her repeatedly and he forcibly raped her on several occasions. It stopped in 1977 when Vison found a steady boyfriend. By applying Title VII protection, the guidelines drew and were fully consistent with, the existing case law, however, not all work place conduct may be described as harassment that affects someone’s overall work condition. Sexual harassment has to be severe on pervasive and change the victim’s employment and creates an abusive work environment. Vinson’s behavior rises and meets the claim for a hostile sexual harassment environment. The district court erred because of Vison and Taylor having an intimate relationship. Title VII goes beyond that description of actionable harassment. It comes down to the seriousness of the sexual advances and if they were unwelcomed. It is now arbitrary about if the conduct and the credibility of the accuser is deemed critical. The district court focused too much on voluntary behavior of both Taylor and Vison. Did Vison ever indicate that the advances were unwelcomed? Not whether her participation in the sexual intercourse was voluntary. The district court admitted falsely evidence about fantasies and Vison’s dress. The EEOC guidelines emphasing that the accuser must show a totality of sexual harassment over the whole period in dispute along with the na