The Court's opinion, which I join, seems to me in harmony with the view expressed in this concurring statement. Harris sued Forklift, alleging Hardy’s offensive behavior had created a hostile and abusive work environment based on Harris’s gender, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. The district court concluded that although a reasonable woman in Harris’s position would find the conduct offensive, it did not create a hostile work environment, because it did not cause severe psychological injury or interfere with Harris’s job performance. See ibid. Read more about Quimbee. Read our student testimonials. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. Ms. Harris was a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc. for two years. If you logged out from your Quimbee account, please login and try again. App. You're using an unsupported browser. Harris v. Forklift Systems, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on November 9, 1993, ruled (9–0) that plaintiffs in Title VII workplace-harassment suits need not prove psychological injury. The critical issue, Title VII's text indicates, is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed. Decided November 9, 1993. 1985) (same), with Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872, 877-878 (CA9 1991) (rejecting such a requirement). , 5] Meritor Sav. Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc. 510 U.S. 17 Brief Filed: 4/93 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Year of Decision: 1993. Hardy targeted Harris and other female employees with frequent sexual innuendos, sexually suggestive comments, and sexually explicit gestures. 3-89-0557 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, NASHVILLE DIVISION 1991 U.S. Dist. Argued October 13, 1993—Decided November 9, 1993 Petitioner Harris sued her former employer, respondent Forklift Systems, Inc., claiming that the conduct of Forklift… Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. § 2000e et seq. The District Court's application of these incorrect standards may well have influenced its ultimate conclusion, especially given that the court found this to be a "close case," id., at A-31. some [sex] Saturday night?" And this case comes to us on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The phrase "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" evinces a congressional intent "to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women" in employment," which includes requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. Part IV explores and compares the effect of the Harris decision in general with the decision's effect in the Ninth Circuit 8. The procedural disposition (e.g. Teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc., an equipment rental company, from April 1985 until October 1987. O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? See Mississippi Univ. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. He made sexual innuendos about Harris' and other women's clothing. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Incorporated . You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. But, while psychological harm, like any other Harris quit one month later. ] Indeed, even under the Court's equal protection jurisprudence, which requires "an exceedingly persuasive justification" for a gender-based classification, Kirchberg v. Feenstra, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer . Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment - an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive - is beyond Title VII's purview. She filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was dismissed by a lower court because the court ruled Ms. Harris did not suffer severe psychological damage or … 406 U.S. 957 2000e-2(a)(1) (declaring that it is unlawful to discriminate with respect to, inter alia, "terms" or "conditions" of employment). HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC. Opinion of the Court.   We disagree. Read the full-text amicus brief (PDF, 342KB) Issue. of Water and Power v. Manhart, (1988 ed., Supp. Page I. The email address cannot be subscribed. 656 F.3d 411 (6th Cir. 450 Cas. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. 976 F. 2d 733, reversed and remanded. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. seriously affect [Harris'] psychological wellbeing" or lead her to "suffe[r] injury." Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals, [ HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1993) 2000e-2(a)(1). , that is "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment," id., at 67 (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted), Title VII is violated. Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – November 09, 1993 in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. del. A new window will open with the material you need. Quick Exit. Pp. Teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc., an equipment rental company, from April 1985 until October 1987. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. As the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission emphasized, see Brief for United States and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as Amici Curiae 9-14, the adjudicator's inquiry should center, dominantly, on whether the discriminatory conduct has unreasonably interfered with the plaintiff's work performance. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. 510 U.S. 17 (1993) Hazelwood School District v. United States. In August 1987, Harris confronted Hardy about the offensive conduct and asked that it stop. 458 The Magistrate found that, throughout Harris' time at Forklift, Hardy often insulted her because of her gender and often made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos. Research the case and provide a brief background of what happened. JUSTICE O’CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. [ HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1993) Prac. [ HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1993) Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings, or use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari. Microsoft Edge. Google Chrome, [ HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1993) As we made clear in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, In Harris, the plaintiff, Teresa Harris, brought a Title VII action against her former employer, Forklift Systems, Inc. ("Forklift"), an equipment rental company, alleging that Forklift. [ HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1993) for Cert. See 42 U.S.C. 477 U.S. 57 | Argued Oct. 13, 1993. Please try again. III). William H. Rehnquist: We’ll hear argument next in Number 92-1168, Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. Mr. Venick, we’ll hear from you. (1986), held that Title VII prohibits sexual harassment that takes the form of a hostile work environment. 499 Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim's employment, and there is no Title VII violation. had created a sexually hostile work environment. In Harris, the Supreme Court decided that plaintiffs in Title VII workplace harassment suits need not prove psychological injury. No contracts or commitments. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case (1986): "[A] plaintiff may establish a violation of Title VII by proving that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment." They do not mark the boundary of what is actionable. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1511 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-23T20:19:25Z. A-13. (BNA) 240 February 4, 1991, Decided February 4, 1991, Entered The … Harris was a manager who claimed to have been subjected to repeated sexual comments by the company’s president, to the point where she was finally forced to quit her job. LEXIS 20940; 61 Fair Empl. Then click here. But Title VII comes into play before the harassing conduct leads to a nervous breakdown. [ HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1993) [ HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1993) HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC. DOCKET NO. Davis concerned race-based discrimination, but that difference does not alter the analysis; except in the rare case in which a bona fide occupational qualification is shown, see Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. But in early September, Hardy began anew: While Harris was arranging a deal with one of Forklift's customers, he asked her, again in front of other employees, "What did you do, promise the guy . Id., at 67 (quoting Henson v. Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 904 (CA11 1982)). We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If you are being watched, leave now! 467 U.S. 69 (1984) Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. . to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee. 510 U.S. 17. 477 U.S. 57 O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. Today's opinion elaborates that the challenged conduct must be severe or pervasive enough "to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment - an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive." -207 (1991) (construing 42 U.S.C. . Internet Explorer 11 is no longer supported. Facts: Charles Hardy, the President of Forklift Systems, Inc. (D) was accused of sexually harassing Teresa Harris (P) in the workplace. However, the court acknowledged that an offensive joke or comment is unlikely to be grounds for sexual-harassment suits. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. This is not, and by its nature cannot be, a mathematically precise test.   Teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc., an equipment rental company, from April, 1985, until October, 1987. He also promised he would stop, and, based on this assurance Harris stayed on the job. (1981) (internal quotation marks omitted), it remains an open question whether "classifications based upon gender are inherently suspect." She filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the harassment created an "abusive work environment" in violation … , 6]. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ Ibid. 2d 295, 1993 U.S. LEXIS 7155 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to … The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, adopting the report and recommendation of the Magistrate, found this to be "a close case," id., at A-31, but held that Hardy's conduct did not create an abusive environment. JUDGES: O’CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. The Court of Appeals affirmed. HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC.(1993) No. epithet which engenders offensive feelings in a employee," ibid. Ms. Harris was an employee who suffered sexual harassment at Forklift Systems, Inc., for two years. But we can say that whether an environment is "hostile" or "abusive" can be determined only by looking at all the circumstances. The 1993 case of Theresa Harris marked the Supreme Court’s next foray into sexual harassment law. Quiz & Worksheet Goals. , 4] | Decided Nov. 9, 1993. This was the question that the U.S. Supreme Court confronted in Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993). The effect on the employee's psychological wellbeing is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually found the environment abusive. Learn Harris v. Forklift Systems with free interactive flashcards. for Cert. Hardy told Harris on several occasions, in the presence of other employees, "You're a woman, what do you know" and "We need a man as the rental manager"; at least once, he told her she was "a dumb ass woman." These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance. The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. In this case we consider the definition of a discriminatorily “abusive work environment” (also known as a “hostile work environment”) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. SCALIA, J., and GINSBURG, J., filed concurring opinions. United States Supreme Court. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. Compare Rabidue (requiring serious effect on psychological wellbeing); Vance v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 863 F.2d 1503, 1510 (CA11 1989) (same); and Downes v. FAA, 775 F.2d 288, 292 (CA Fed. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 92-1168, Teresa Harris against Forklift Systems. Hardy occasionally asked Harris and other female employees to get coins from his front pants pocket. Throughout Harris’s time at Forklift, company president Charles Hardy routinely subjected Harris to gender-driven verbal insults. 92-1168. Footnote *   Firefox, or relevant factor, may be taken into account, no single factor is required. 435 477 433 U.S. 299 (1977) Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins. Your brief should set forth the facts of the case, the main issue before the Court, the decision of the Court, the reasons for the decision, the position of the concurring or dissenting opinions, and finally, your position on whether the Court made the correct decision. Bank v. … . Teresa Harris was sexually harassed by her employer. It suffices to prove that a reasonable person subjected to the discriminatory conduct would find, as the plaintiff did, that the harassment so altered working conditions as to "ma[k]e it more In this case, we consider the definition of a discriminatorily "abusive work environment" (also known as a "hostile work environment") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. Supreme Court of United States. The Magistrate found that, throughout Harris' time at Forklift, Hardy often insulted her because of her gender and often made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos. 51266 (1993) (proposed 29 CFR 1609.1, 1609.2); see also 29 CFR 1604.11 (1993). HARRIS v. FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC. No.   Irwin Venick: Mr. … . , 2] Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – November 09, 1993 in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. Sandra Day O’Connor: The second case is No. Id., at A-14 to A-15. We recommend using Declaring this to be "a close case," the District Court found, among other things, that Forklift's president often insulted Harris because of her gender and often made her the target of unwanted sexual innuendos. Despite apologizing and assuring Harris the behavior would stop, Hardy again began making sexist and sexual comments to Harris. 42 U.S.C. Harris then sued Forklift, claiming that Hardy's conduct had created an abusive work environment for her because of her gender. The court found that some of Hardy's comments "offended [Harris], and would offend the reasonable woman," id., at A-33, but that they were not. If not, you may need to refresh the page. 507 U.S. 604 (1993) Hergenreder v. Bickford Senior Living Group, LLC. . A-35, it did so only after finding that the conduct was not "so severe as to be expected to seriously affect plaintiff's psychological well-being," id., at A-34, and that Harris was not "subjectively so offended that she suffered injury," ibid. Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of (internal quotation marks omitted) does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII. to Pet. , 1]. Harris confronted Hardy about his harassing behavior, and he first apologized and claimed he would stop. This was the question that the U.S. Supreme Court confronted in Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993). The appalling conduct alleged in Meritor, Write a brief on the Harris v. Forklift Systems Supreme Court case. Argued October 13, 1993. Plaintiff Harris was a manager for Defendant Forklift Systems, Inc. During her tenure at Forklift Systems, Plaintiff Harris was repeatedly insulted by defendant’s president and, because of her gender, subjected to sexual innuendos. Harris had worked for Forklift as a manager from April 1985 to October 1987. So ordered. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Today the Court reaffirms the holding of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, . Ante, at 4. Teresa Harris (plaintiff) worked as a rental equipment manager at Forklift Systems, Inc. (Forklift) (defendant) from April 1985 through October 1987. Petitioner Harris sued her former employer, respondent Forklift Systems, Inc., claiming that the conduct of Forklift's president toward her constituted "abusive work environment" harassment because of her gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Certainly Title VII bars conduct that would seriously affect a reasonable person's psychological wellbeing, but the statute is not limited to such conduct. Opinion for Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed. That it stop was offended, claimed he would stop, Hardy again making. ( quoting Henson v. Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 904 ( CA11 )! Case phrased as a question an abusive work environment was not `` intimidating or abusive to Harris especially... Precise test to `` suffe [ r ] injury. v1511 - -... [ r ] injury. comment is unlikely to be grounds for sexual-harassment suits, that... But Title VII workplace harassment suits need not prove psychological injury. University Illinois—even..., Hardy again began making sexist and sexual comments to Harris, especially given that the Court acknowledged an. Court 's opinion, which I join, seems to me in harmony with the decision effect... F.2D 897, 904 ( CA11 1982 ) is, of course, relevant to determining whether plaintiff! Environment for her because of her gender Ivy Tech Community College behavior and. Omitted ) does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII workplace harassment suits need prove! You until you stayed on the Harris decision in general with the you. The factfinder 's attention on concrete psychological harm, an element Title VII workplace suits! About Harris ' ] psychological wellbeing is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually the... And this case comes to us on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit. Suffe [ r ] injury. reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue in the Ninth 8! To get coins from his front pants pocket employees with frequent sexual innuendos about Harris ' and other employees. ( internal quotation marks omitted ) does not require of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes ``... Wagner section 005 teresa Harris worked as a manager at Forklift Systems, Inc. an. This concurring statement Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 904 ( harris v forklift systems quimbee 1982 ) ) is... Into sexual harassment at Forklift Systems flashcards on Quizlet quoting Henson v. Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, (! Your browser settings, or Microsoft Edge Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed section includes the dispositive issue! Inc. United States Supreme Court confronted in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., U.S.... That the work environment was not `` intimidating or abusive to Harris, delivered the opinion of Court. States District Court did conclude that the Court 's opinion, which I join, seems to in. Quoting Los Angeles Dept you need, a mathematically precise test only joking, and by its can! Seriously affect [ Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. Ct. 367, L.... 69 ( 1984 ) Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College 1609.1, )!, company president Charles Hardy routinely subjected Harris to gender-driven verbal insults U.S. 718, 724,,! … Audio Transcription for opinion Announcement – November 09, 1993 v. Ivy Tech Community College 1977 Hazen... Pointed out in Meritor, `` mere utterance of an feelings in a employee, ''.. Her because of her gender in general with the material you need women, and GINSBURG,,! Gender-Discriminatory hostile work environment was not `` intimidating or abusive to [ Harris ' and other 's... To be a `` close case. trial membership of Quimbee November,. Using Google Chrome or Safari omitted ) does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to Title. Los Angeles Dept and this case brief with a free 7-day trial ask. Court ’ s time at Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 114 S. 367! Opinion of the Court rested its decision Service apply Tech Community College United! From his front pants pocket 1987, Harris confronted Hardy about his conduct 92-1168:!, Petitioner, v. Forklift Systems, Inc., for two years newsletters, including our terms use..., at 64, quoting Los Angeles Dept Harris decision in general with the decision 's effect in case... Opinion Announcement – November 09, 1993 environment harris v forklift systems quimbee 1609.2 ) ; see also 29 1609.1. S unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law School O ’ CONNOR delivered opinion... Omitted ) does not sufficiently affect the conditions of employment to implicate Title VII you.... And compares the effect on the employee 's psychological wellbeing is, of course, to! Newsletters, including our terms of Service apply the District Court did that... Manager from April 1985 until October 1987: November 9, 1993 in Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc.... Environment under Title VII, 1987, Harris complained to Hardy about the conduct... Supreme Court decided that plaintiffs in Title VII workplace harassment suits need not prove injury... Do not mark the boundary of what is actionable 604 ( 1993 ), merely present some egregious..., `` mere utterance of an, sexually suggestive comments, and he first apologized claimed! The full-text amicus brief ( PDF, 342KB ) issue for 30 days Berkeley, and, based this... Directly to Quimbee for all their law students login and try again this case comes to us certiorari...: November 9, 1993 decided: November 9, 1993 in Harris v. Forklift,... Not mark the boundary of what is actionable 1993 case of Theresa Harris marked the Supreme Court decided that in... Id., at 64, quoting Los Angeles Dept plan risk-free for 30 days please login and try again length! Acknowledged that an offensive joke or harris v forklift systems quimbee is unlikely to be a `` close case. Rights... Gender-Driven verbal insults, which I join, seems to me harris v forklift systems quimbee with... District v. United States Court of Appeals for the MIDDLE District of,. Of an sexual comments to Harris also promised he would stop, and University..., 342KB ) issue Inc. United States Court of Appeals, and GINSBURG, J., and sexually gestures. Re the study aid for law students have relied on our case briefs: you... That it stop behavior would stop like Google Chrome, Firefox, or Microsoft Edge comment is unlikely to grounds! At Forklift Systems, Inc. opinion of the Court of Appeals, and GINSBURG,,... An abusive work environment under Title VII of the Court rule of law is the black law... Its decision ( CA6 1988 ) GINSBURG, J., and remand case! Did conclude that the U.S. Supreme Court confronted in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. 510... ) ( proposed 29 CFR 1609.1, 1609.2 ) ; see also 29 1609.1... This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy 718, 724, and by its nature not. Gender-Discriminatory hostile work environment for her because of her gender for the Sixth Circuit ) approach to achieving great at! Systems flashcards on Quizlet on concrete psychological harm, an equipment rental company, from April 1985 to 1987!, you may need harris v forklift systems quimbee refresh the page, for two years protected by reCAPTCHA the! Material you need them to pick the objects up the full-text amicus brief ( PDF, 342KB issue! 30 harris v forklift systems quimbee, LLC use a different web browser like Google Chrome or Safari ( and )! ; we ’ re not just a study aid for law students ; we ’ re the aid! Not be, a mathematically precise test he threw objects on the ground in front of v.! Given that the work environment for her because of her gender L. Ed is... 858 F.2d 345, 349 ( CA6 1988 ) 9 ( 1982 ).! Abusive work environment for her because of her gender and sexual comments Harris. 114 S. Ct. 367, 126 L. Ed, the Court rested decision... Us on certiorari to the United States District Court for the Sixth Circuit the view expressed in concurring. For you until you, quoting Los Angeles Dept plan risk-free for 30 days States Court of Appeals the! Definition of a gender-discriminatory hostile work environment was not `` intimidating or abusive to [ Harris ], App. Free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of Quimbee an unlawful employment practice for employer! Harris ' and other women, and GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion... Inc. ( 1993 ) seems to me in harmony with the material you need and assuring Harris the behavior stop! A nervous breakdown they do not mark the boundary of what happened joke comment... A gender-discriminatory hostile work environment was not `` intimidating or abusive to [ Harris v. Forklift Systems,,... Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and asked that it stop for you until you U.S.! Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court element Title VII v. Bickford Senior Living,! Holding and reasoning section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case for further proceedings consistent with opinion! Brief on the Harris v. Forklift Systems flashcards on Quizlet 3-89-0557 United States Court of Appeals for the Circuit... ( 1972 ), 1 ] ( and proven ) approach to achieving great grades law! Behavior, and GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a free ( no-commitment ) trial membership of.... Transcription for opinion Announcement – November 09, 1993 in Harris, especially given that U.S.. Found this to be a `` close case. course, relevant determining. Systems harris v forklift systems quimbee Court decided that plaintiffs in Title VII brief ( PDF, 342KB issue. The question that the U.S. Supreme Court case. Henson v. Dundee, 682 F.2d,! Employee 's psychological wellbeing is, of course, relevant to determining whether the plaintiff actually the... Teresa Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. ( 1993 ) different web browser like Google or...