The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a decision which finding that the U.S. District Court of for the Northern District of Alabama has erred in granting summary judgment in a sexual harassment case in which the harassment was not directed specifically at the plaintiff. Though this case does not involve a federal agency, the precedent the Eleventh Circuit set, that an employer is liable for a hostile work environment even if the harassment is not directed at the plaintiff, is applicable to federal employees and expands employees' rights to challenge hostile environments.
The plaintiff’s sexual harassment attorney claimed that the employer allowed a hostile work environment because male co-coworkers referred to other individuals using gender-derogatory language. Also, the offending employees turned the office radio to offensive programs; and displayed pornographic images on their computers.
The plaintiff attempted to take action to change the hostile work environment by changing the radio to National Public Radio and by letting her co-workers know that their language was unacceptable. When this was to no avail, she complained to her manager and to top Executives. When she received no relief to her complaints, the plaintiff resigned from her position and filed a sexual harassment case.
The U.S. District Court found the employer not liable explaining that "the offensive conduct was not motivated by the plaintiff’s sex, because the derogatory language in the office was not directed at her specifically." The court reasoned that "because the language was used and the radio program was played in the presence of all employees," "both men and women were afforded like treatment," and the plaintiff was not "intentionally singled out for adverse treatment because of her sex."
Upon appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, deciding that "a member of a protected group cannot be forced to endure pervasive, derogatory conduct and references that are gender-specific in the workplace, just because the workplace may be otherwise rife with generally indiscriminate vulgar conduct. Title VII does not offer boorish employers a free pass to discriminate against their employees specifically on account of gender just because they have tolerated pervasive but indiscriminate profanity as well."
This decision prevents employers from avoiding liability because sexually discriminating or harassing language is used towards a large ground, while not directed at someone in particular. Though the definition of "sexual harassment" and the standards that need to be met in the workplace are progressing, this decision by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affords employees much greater workplace protections. If you have been affected by such treatment in your workplace, you owe it to yourself and everyone who works with you to contact a sexual harassment lawyer.
