phenomenon of "workplace bullying" and the need for status-blind hostile work environment protection, The

221. Mirzaie v. Smith Cogeneration, Inc., 962 P.2d 678 (Okla. Ct. App. 1998): .see RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORT sec 46 cmt. d ( 1965).

222. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) oF TORT sec 46 cmt. d ( 1965); see Travis, 504 S.E.2d at 425-26.

223. Many states have their own employment discrimination statutes and agencies to enforce them. In the interest of brevity and in recognition of the fact that the state courts and agencies frequently adopt federal discrimination law as persuasive precedent, however, the scope of this discussion is limited to federal statutory law and case law.

224. 42 iI.S.C. 20 2000e-2000e-15 (1994).

225. Id. at 2000e-2.

226. Although the statutory language does not include the term "sexual harassment," Title VIPs proscriptions against discrimination on the basis of sex have been read by the federal courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to cover sexual harassment. See Meritor v. Vinson, 477 LJ.S. 57, 64, 67 (1986); Equal Employment Opportunity Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex, 29 C.ftR. 1604.11 (a) (1985).

227. "Disaggregation" refers to the way in which federal courts exclude nonsexual conduct from considerations of hostile work environment analysis. See generally Vicki Schultz, Reconceptualizing Sexual Harrassment,sment, 107 Yai_e L.l. 1683, 1710-29 ( 1998).

228. 477 U.S. 57 (1986).

229. Id: at 65, 67.

230. S 10 tt.S. 17 ( 1993).

231: See id. at 21-22 (1993.

232. Id: at 21:

233. Id. at 21-22.

234. See id: at 23.

235: Id.

236: Id. at 21.

237. Id. at 22.

238: 523 u.s. 75 (1998).

239. Id. at 77.

240: See id: at 81.

241. Id, at 81-82 (quoting Harris, 510 U:S. at 23):

242: Id. at 81-82.

243. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 22 (1993):

244. Schultz, supra note 227, at 1713:

245: Id. at 1714. "Disparate treatment" is a form of intentional discrimination in which the defendant fails to treat a plaintiff the same as other employees or job applicants because of the plaintiffs membership in a protected class. MARK A. ROTHSTEiN Er nt.:, EMPLOYMENT LAw 97 (1994). 246. Schultz, supra note 221, at 1721.

247. See id. at 1716-17.

248. 736 F. Supp. 94, 100 (W.D.N.C. 1990), rev'd in part and affd in part; 946 F:2d 888 (4th Cir. 1991 ).

249. 618 F Supp. 1438, 1442 (S.D. Va. 1985).

250. 736 F: Supp. at 100 (quoting Katz v. Dole. 709 F.2d 251, 254 (4th Cir. 1983)).

251. Id.

252. Id.

253: Id: (quoting Katz, 709 F 2d at 254).

254. 618 F. Supp. at 1442.

255. Id.

256. Id.

257. See id:

258: Id: at 1141.

259. 736 F Supp. at 100.

260. Schultz, supra note 227, at I?21.

261. 524 U.S. 742 (1998).

262. 524 t3.S. 775 (1998?.

263. Ellerth, 524 U:S. at 765; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807.

264. A tangible employment action includes actions "such as discharge, demotion, or undesirable reassignment." Ellerth, 524 tJ.S. at 765.

265. Id: at 765; Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807.

266, Ellerth, 524 U:S, at 765; Faragher; 524 I3.S. at 807.

267. Ellerth, 524 U:S. at 756 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) oF AGENCY 219(1) (1958)).

268. Id. at 757.

269. Id. at 759 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENcY 219(2)(d) (1958))_