; (B) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions ; or (C) the conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment ; (7) the Commission further explained that, with respect to the evidence required to support a finding of unlawful harassment, it will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred and emphasized that the determination of the legality of a particular action will be made from the facts, on a case by case basis ; (8) six years later, the Supreme Court in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), recognized that the protections under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not limited to discrimination that causes economic or tangible loss, and held that the phrase terms, conditions, or privileges of employment in title VII of such Act is an expansive concept that sweeps within its protective ambit the practice of creating a hostile work environment based on discrimination in the form of harassment; (9) in reaching this conclusion in the Meritor decision, the Supreme Court cited and approved the Guidelines; (10) in the Meritor decision, the Supreme Court cited with approval lower court decisions that concluded that a hostile work environment based on race, religion, or national origin violates the prohibition of discrimination in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which decisions included— (A) Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d 234 (5th Cir. 1971); (B) Firefighters Institute for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 549 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1977); (C) Gray v. Greyhound Lines, 545 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1976); (D) Compston v. Borden, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 157 (S.D. Ohio 1976)