Hostile work environment

Last updated

In United States labor law, a hostile work environment exists when one's behavior within a workplace creates an environment that is difficult or uncomfortable for another person to work in, due to illegal discrimination. [1] However, a working environment that is unpleasant and frightening for the victim due to sexual advances that have been denied by the victim, is what constitutes hostile work environment sexual harassment. [2] Common complaints in sexual harassment lawsuits include sexual gossip unrelated to work, jokes about physical contact inappropriate in workplace, commentary on physical appearance/attractiveness, joking about sex acts, fondling, suggestive remarks, sexually-suggestive photos displayed in the workplace, use of sexual language, or off-color jokes. [3] Small matters, annoyances, and isolated incidents are usually not considered to be statutory violations of the discrimination laws. For a violation to impose liability, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to a reasonable person. An employer can be held liable for failing to prevent these workplace conditions, unless it can prove that it attempted to prevent the harassment and that the employee failed to take advantage of existing harassment counter-measures or tools provided by the employer. [4]

Contents

A hostile work environment may also be created when management acts in a manner designed to make an employee quit in retaliation for some action. For example, if an employee reported safety violations at work, was injured, attempted to join a union, or reported regulatory violations by management, and management's response was to harass and pressure the employee to quit. Employers have tried to force employees to quit by imposing unwarranted discipline, reducing hours, cutting wages, or transferring the complaining employee to a distant work location.

The United States Supreme Court stated in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. [5] that Title VII is "not a general civility code". Thus, federal law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. Rather, the conduct must be so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the individual's employment. The conditions of employment are altered only if the harassment culminates in a tangible employment action or is sufficiently severe or pervasive.

Workplace Harassment Precedent for the Reasonable Woman

The intricacy of workplace sexual harassment is not well represented by the reasonable woman criterion. It falls under the impression that a ‘reasonable woman’ does not get sexually harassed at work, thus creating a hostile workplace. Still, the article goes against the fact that that definition of a ‘reasonable woman’ is not entirely true to reality. The truth is that many women are dealing with hostile workplace environments. There are court cases that adopted the idea that sexual harassment creates a hostile workplace environment. The court case that shifted us from ‘reasonable person’ to ‘reasonable woman’ was Ellison v. Brady, 1991. This case is extremely important because it gave new meaning to the word. The new standard was behavior a reasonable woman would think was extreme enough to change the terms of employment and establish a hostile work environment. [6]

Burdens of proof

Where a hostile environment is alleged, the legality of behaviors must be determined on a case by case basis. In the workplace, such a claim focuses on the working conditions that must be experienced by the victim as a condition of employment, rather than on tangible job changes. To establish whether the situation is actionable the "totality of circumstances" must be weighed with an eye to determining "that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment in that it was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the condition of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment". [7]

Relation to other laws

In many United States jurisdictions, a hostile work environment is not an independent legal claim. That is, an employee could not file a lawsuit on the basis of a hostile work environment alone. Instead, an employee must prove they have been treated in a hostile manner because of their membership in a protected class, such as gender, age, race, national origin, disability status, and similar protected traits. [4] Importantly, the hostile work environment is gender neutral, that is, men can sexually harass men or women and women can sexually harass men or women.

Likewise, a hostile work environment can be considered the "adverse employment action" that is an element of a whistleblower claim or a reprisal (retaliation) claim under a civil rights statute. When an employee claims that a hostile work environment is an adverse employment action, the legal analysis is similar to the burdens of proof described above. However, to recover damages, the employee must also establish all other elements of the claim, such as that the employee engaged in protected conduct such as making a report of discrimination or reporting an employer's violation of law, and also establish that the employer created the hostile work environment, at least in part, because the employee engaged in the protected activity.

Cases

Related Research Articles

<i>Quid pro quo</i> Latin phrase meaning "something for something"

Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favor for a favor". Phrases with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat", "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours", "this for that," and "one hand washes the other". Other languages use other phrases for the same purpose.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual harassment</span> Unwanted sexual attention or advances

Sexual harassment is a type of harassment involving the use of explicit or implicit sexual overtones, including the unwelcome and inappropriate promises of rewards in exchange for sexual favors. Sexual harassment can be physical and/or a demand or request for sexual favors, making sexually colored remarks, showing pornography, and any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment includes a range of actions from verbal transgressions to sexual abuse or assault. Harassment can occur in many different social settings such as the workplace, the home, school, or religious institutions. Harassers or victims can be of any gender.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), is a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court. The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer. The Court held that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applied to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex.

<i>Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co.</i> U.S. class-action sexual harassment lawsuit

Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 130 F.3d 1287, was the first class-action sexual harassment lawsuit in the United States. It was filed in 1988 on behalf of Lois Jenson and other female workers at the Eveleth Taconite mine in Eveleth, Minnesota on the state's northern Mesabi Range, which is part of the Iron Range.

Pregnancy discrimination is a type of employment discrimination that occurs when expectant women are fired, not hired, or otherwise discriminated against due to their pregnancy or intention to become pregnant. Common forms of pregnancy discrimination include not being hired due to visible pregnancy or likelihood of becoming pregnant, being fired after informing an employer of one's pregnancy, being fired after maternity leave, and receiving a pay dock due to pregnancy. Pregnancy discrimination may also take the form of denying reasonable accommodations to workers based on pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. Pregnancy discrimination has also been examined to have an indirect relationship with the decline of a mother's physical and mental health. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women prohibits dismissal on the grounds of maternity or pregnancy and ensures right to maternity leave or comparable social benefits. The Maternity Protection Convention C 183 proclaims adequate protection for pregnancy as well. Though women have some protection in the United States because of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it has not completely curbed the incidence of pregnancy discrimination. The Equal Rights Amendment could ensure more robust sex equality ensuring that women and men could both work and have children at the same time.

Negligence in employment encompasses several causes of action in tort law that arise where an employer is held liable for the tortious acts of an employee because that employer was negligent in providing the employee with the ability to engage in a particular act. Four basic causes of action may arise from such a scenario: negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision and negligent training. While negligence in employment may overlap with negligent entrustment and vicarious liability, the concepts are distinct grounds of liability. The doctrine that an employer is liable for torts committed by employees within the scope of their employment is called respondeat superior.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), is a US labor law case, where the United States Supreme Court, in a 9–0 decision, recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was the first of its kind to reach the Supreme Court and would redefine sexual harassment in the workplace.

Harassment is a topic which, in the past few decades, has been taken increasingly seriously in the United Kingdom, and has been the subject of a number of pieces of legislation.

Harassment covers a wide range of behaviors of offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behavior that demeans, humiliates, and intimidates a person, and it is characteristically identified by its unlikelihood in terms of social and moral reasonableness. In the legal sense, these are behaviors that appear to be disturbing, upsetting or threatening. Traditional forms evolve from discriminatory grounds, and have an effect of nullifying a person's rights or impairing a person from benefiting from their rights. When these behaviors become repetitive, it is defined as bullying. The continuity or repetitiveness and the aspect of distressing, alarming or threatening may distinguish it from insult, It also constitutes a tactic of coercive control, deployed by an abusive spouse in a context of domestic violence. Harassment is a specific form of discrimination, and occurs when a person is the victim of unwanted intimidating, offensive, repeated or humiliating comments or behavior. To qualify as harassment, there must be a connection between the harassing behavior and a person's protected personal characteristics or prohibited grounds of discrimination, and the harassment must occur in a protected area. Although harassment typically involves behavior that persists over time, serious and malicious one-off incidents are also considered harassment in some cases.

Workplace harassment is the belittling or threatening behavior directed at an individual worker or a group of workers.

<i>Blakey v. Continental Airlines, Inc.</i>

Blakey v. Continental Airlines, 992 F.Supp. 731 and 164 N.J. 38 (2000), is a case concerning whether an employer must be held liable for harassment that can potentially occur on an internal internet bulletin board. The plaintiff brought action under the federal district court for claiming a hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Concurrently, the plaintiff brought action under the New Jersey state court alleging that employer was liable for hostile work environment arising from allegedly defamatory statements. While the case began as a sexual harassment lawsuit, the unusual circumstances involving the piloting forum where much of the harassment took place forced the courts to explore important questions concerning liabilities for content posted in a decentralized, electronic manner as is frequently the case on the internet.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court identified the circumstances under which an employer may be held liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the acts of a supervisory employee whose sexual harassment of subordinates has created a hostile work environment amounting to employment discrimination. The court held that "an employer is vicariously liable for actionable discrimination caused by a supervisor, but subject to an affirmative defense looking to the reasonableness of the employer's conduct as well as that of a plaintiff victim."

<i>Majrowski v Guys and St Thomas NHS Trust</i>

Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 is a UK labour law case holding that an employer will be vicariously liable for the harassment of an employee by another.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT employment discrimination in the United States</span>

LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Prior to the landmark cases Bostock v. Clayton County and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2020), employment protections for LGBT people were patchwork; several states and localities explicitly prohibit harassment and bias in employment decisions on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, although some only cover public employees. Prior to the Bostock decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpreted Title VII to cover LGBT employees; the EEOC determined that transgender employees were protected under Title VII in 2012, and extended the protection to encompass sexual orientation in 2015.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013</span> Act of the Parliament of India

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 is a legislative act in India that seeks to protect women from sexual harassment at their place of work. It was passed by the Lok Sabha on 3 September 2012. It was passed by the Rajya Sabha on 26 February 2013. The Bill got the assent of the President on 23 April 2013. The Act came into force from 9 December 2013. This statute superseded the Vishaka Guidelines for Prevention Of Sexual Harassment (POSH) introduced by the Supreme Court (SC) of India. It was reported by the International Labour Organization that very few Indian employers were compliant to this statute. Most Indian employers have not implemented the law despite the legal requirement that any workplace with more than 10 employees need to implement it. According to a FICCI-EY November 2015 report, 36% of Indian companies and 25% among MNCs are not compliant with the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013. The government has threatened to take stern action against employers who fail to comply with this law.

<i>Vishakha and others v. State of Rajasthan</i> 1997 Indian Supreme Court

Vishaka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan was a 1997 Indian Supreme Court case where various women's groups led by Naina Kapur and her organisation, Sakshi filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the state of Rajasthan and the central Government of India to enforce the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petition was filed after Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, was brutally gang raped for stopping a child marriage.

Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, was a D.C. Circuit opinion, written by Judge Skelly Wright, that held that workplace sexual harassment could constitute employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), is a landmark employment law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment for employees. Ellerth also introduced a two-part affirmative defense allowing employers to avoid sex discrimination liability if they follow best practices. Ellerth is often considered alongside Faragher.

Sexual harassment in the workplace in US labor law has been considered a form of discrimination on the basis of sex in the United States since the mid-1970s. There are two forms of sexual harassment recognized by United States law: quid pro quo sexual harassment and behavior that creates a hostile work environment. It has been noted that a number of the early sexual harassment cases were brought by African American women and girls.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993), is a US labor law case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the definition of a "hostile" or "abusive" work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that a determination about whether a work environment is hostile or abusive requires a consideration of all relevant circumstances.

References

  1. ↑ "Berry, John, Establishing a Hostile Work Environment (EEO Law Blog 2017)". Archived from the original on 2017-12-15. Retrieved 2017-12-14.
  2. ↑ Cortina, Lilia M.; Wasti, S. Arzu (January 2005). "Profiles in Coping: Responses to Sexual Harassment Across Persons, Organizations, and Cultures". Journal of Applied Psychology. 90 (1): 182–192. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.182. PMID   15641899.
  3. ↑ Fundamentals of Human Resource Management (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. October 4, 2010. pp.  78. ISBN   978-0073530468.
  4. 1 2 "Harassment". Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved August 15, 2017.
  5. ↑ , Oncale v. Sundowner, Case Text
  6. ↑ Hoffmann, Elizabeth A. (April 2004). "Women treated differently: why the 'reasonable woman' standard might not be reasonable". Equal Opportunities International. 23 (3/4/5): 67–79. doi:10.1108/02610150410787738.
  7. ↑ Pellicciotti, Joseph M. Title VII Iiability for sexual harassment in the workplace. Alexandria, Va. International Personnel Management Association, 1988.
  8. ↑ "MMNA and EEOC reach voluntary agreement to settle harassment suit" Archived 2009-08-13 at the Wayback Machine , EEOC press release, June 11, 1998
  9. ↑ Baker, Carrie N. (2007). The Women's Movement against Sexual Harassment. doi:10.1017/9780511840067. ISBN   978-0-521-87935-4.[ page needed ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.