Whether an employer is vicariously liable for sexual harassment reported anonymously, whether employer liability depends on organizational size, and whether non-supervisor physical assault constitutes sexual harassment

Question Presented Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, U.S.C. 2000e Et Seq., outlines an employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment amounting to employment . discrimination. We hold that an employer is vicariously liable for actionable discrimination, which outlines that sexual harassment is actionable if it is severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the employee's employment and create a hostile or abusive working environment. The question presented is whether an employer is liable for sexual harassment that is reported by an employee anonymously, whether an employer is not liable based on the size of its organization, whether physical assault and groping by a non-supervisor constitute sexual harassment. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,78 Stat., 255, as amended 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees because the employee has opposed any practice by Title VII, or because the ; employee has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, / proceeding, or hearing under Title VII. The question presented is whether an employee who establishes a pretext has established a causal connection regarding protected activity and adverse action, whether employee is required to demonstrate intent under title VII for an employer to be liable for retaliation, and whether close timing demonstrates retaliation. The questions holds whether an 2 employer who attempts to reverse its decision of adverse action if an employee has demonstrated that the adverse action was only based on its protected activity. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et Seq., prohibits a covered employer from discriminating in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment against a qualified individual with a disability including failing to make reasonable accommodations for a known physical or ' mental disabilities. The question presented is whether the requirement of reasonable accommodations can be denied based on a suspicion of a threat without medical evidence, whether an employer has accommodated an . employee disability if the accommodation neither accommodates the employee disability, nor enables an employee to perform essential functions of her job but is provided by the employer. Whether an employer has violated its requirements to provide an accommodation if an employee has more than one disability, which the employer is aware of but refuses to accommodate one and not the other known disabilities. Whether the employee who meets the prongs described in the ADA, regarded as, actual disability and record of disability be qualified as an individual without a covered disability. Whether an employer can refuse to accommodate based on speculation that an employee is not disabled. Whether an employee is afforded the same enjoyment as non-disabled employees in terms of accommodations. Whether an employee with an 3 episodic disability is disabled. Lastly, whether the interactive process is meant to be ongoing and if an employee requests for accommodations after prior accommodations if the accommodations are not enabling the employee to perform its duties has the employer failed to accommodate an employee if it knows the accommodations does not work. Whether the employer can refuse to accommodate and continue to engage in the interactive process. Section 1981 holds that all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every state and territory to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens including the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. The question presented is whether an employee who identifies a similar comparator outside of the petitioner's race, demonstrated that her employer violated the provisions that prohibit discrimination as to all terms, c