The authors begin with a discussion of the first hostile environment case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson). Following this, the chapter discusses both legal theory and factual information (types of conduct, harassers, and plaintiffs) on cases that have been heard by U.S. Federal appeals courts since "Vinson." The authors then consider the second, recent Supreme Court case, Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., and its potential implications for future hostile environment sexual harassment cases. Without explicitly rejecting the "reasonable woman" standard for assessing the existence of a hostile work environment fostered by sexual harassing behavior, the Court's reliance on the "reasonable person" standard suggests that the "reasonable woman" standard may be inappropriate. Because of its ruling on the "reasonableness" issue, the "Harris" decision has particularly important implications for two elements of the plaintiff's hostile environment case: unwelcomeness and severity/pervasiveness. Regarding unwelcomeness, the plaintiff's conduct may appear unreasonable if she attempts to minimize the harassing behavior in an attempt to preserve her employment relationship. Further, severity and pervasiveness may be perceived by courts as less serious under the "reasonable person" standard, since women tend to view men's sexual aggressiveness with greater alarm under women's pervasive fear of sexual assault. 2 tables, 2 notes, and 24 references