Facts of the case: Anna's immediate supervisor, Michael, repeatedly demanded that she hold "closed-door" meetings with him . Closed meetings violate company policy. Other employees knew about these closed-door meetings, and as a result, rumors began to spread that Anna and Michael were having a romantic relationship in the office. In fact, during these closed-door meetings, Michael tried to convince Anna to lend him money, a practice that also violates company policy. Anna denied the request several times and Michael stopped asking. However, the rumors continued and affected Anna deeply. She was treated like an outcast by her colleagues. Anna asked Michael to dispel the rumors, but he found them amusing. Anna had two evaluations where she received low marks for "integrity" and "interpersonal relations" as a result of the rumors. She did not receive two promotions she applied for even though her skills and experience were superior to those of the employees being promoted. She filed suit against her employer on the grounds that her supervisor created a hostile work environment because he refused to put an end to the rumors.Question: Evaluate whether Anna has a valid claim under Title VII.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Anna's claim falls under the broad rubric of unlawful employment practice of sexual harassment, known as a "hostile work environment," developed under Title VII of the Act on Civil Rights Act of 1964: (a) Employer Practices It must be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to - 1. fail or refuse to hire or fire a person, or otherwise do evidence of discrimination against a person with respect to their remuneration, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of that person's... middle of paper... ...th Tribunal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1994), and the employer may be held vicariously liable under the standards of Burlington Industries, Inc. . v Ellerth (1998). ), she should therefore prevail in her lawsuit against her employer.Works CitedBurlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 US 742 (United States Supreme Court 1998). Colorado State University-Global Campus. (2014). MGT 515-1 Module 3. Harris v Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 US 17 (United States Supreme Court, 1994). Kubasek, N., Brennan, B., & Browne, M. (2012). The legal environment of businesses: a critical thinking approach (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 US 57 (United States Supreme Court, 1986). Remington, J., Heiser, R., Smythe, C., and Sovereign, K. (2012). Human Resources Law (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.