Employment law principles and practices

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services

STATUATE SUMMARY

The case presents the question whether workplace harassment violates Title VII's prohibition to "discriminate . . . because of . . . sex" when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex.

COURT DECISION BRIEF

The Petitioner, Joseph Oncale worked as a roustabout on an eight-man crew for Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U.S.A oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico from August to November 1991. The crew included the respondents, John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson.

Lyons, Pippen and Johnson on several occasions, forcibly subjected Oncale to sex-related, humiliating actions in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assaulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape. Specifically, Lyons placed his penis on Oncale's neck on one occasion and on his arm on another occasion. Lyons also forcefully pushed a bar of soap into Oncale's anus while Pippen restrained Oncale as he was showering on Sundowner premises. ("Oncale v Sundowner ... " Equal Rights Advocate 2005)

Oncale complained to company's supervisory personnel but to no avail. In fact, Sundowner's Safety Compliance Clerk told Oncale that Lyons and Pippen picked on him too, calling him a name that suggested homosexuality. Oncale finally quit his job, requesting that his pink slip indicate that he voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse. During his deposition, Oncale stated: "I felt that if I didn't leave my job, I would be raped or forced to have sex."

Joseph Oncale filed a Title VII action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The District Court, relying on the Fifth Circuit's decision in Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America (1994) held that "... A male, has no cause of action under Title VII for harassment by male co-workers." On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Oncale filed his petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which was granted by the Court.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that discrimination "based on ... sex" even if consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion. ("U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-568," 1998-Text of judgment from FindLaw)

IMPLICATIONS ANALYSIS

Being the first case in which same-sex sexual harassment was held actionable under Title VII, Oncale v Sundowner is considered to be a landmark ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to Oncale, the state and federal courts in the United States had taken "a bewildering array of stances" while ruling in sexual harassment cases. Some decisions, like Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America, flatly rejected the application of Title VII to same-sex sexual harassment. Others, like McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (CA 4, 1996) ruled that claims of same-sex sexual harassment are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual. Still others suggested that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser's sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. ("U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-568," 1998)

Hence, the decision in Oncale at least made one thing clear: Title VII applied to same sex sexual harassment. It also clarified that sexual orientation of the harassed or the harasser was not an issue in cases of sexual harassment. The parties involved may be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual and whether the motivation behind same-sex harassment is sexual desire or not; if sexual harassment has taken place, it is actionable under Title VII.

The ruling clarified that recognizing liability for same-sex harassment will not transform Title VII into a general civility code for the American workplace since Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at "discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex." Therefore, in order for Title VII to apply, the plaintiff in a sexual harassment case must prove that the conduct of the offender was not just sexually offensive in nature but actually constituted "discrimina[tion] . . . because of . . . sex." The Court also observed in the ruling that Title VII forbids only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the "conditions" of the victim's employment.

The Oncale decision is problematic to the extent that it is difficult to determine whether any particular case of same-sex harassment is "because of sex." Since employment discrimination based on "sexual orientation" is not forbidden by U.S. Federal law, courts also have difficulty in determining whether a case of harrassment was due to sexual orientation or not. ("Oncale v Sundowner ... " 2005, Wikipedia)

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Onacle ruling means that men are capable of sexually harassing men and women are capable of doing the same to women. Employees need to be aware of the law that sexual harassment means sexual discrimination regardless of the sex of either party. The employers are also responsible for educating their employees about what constitutes sexual harassment and take steps to ensure that a hostile work environment is not created in which sexual discrimination may occur. In case of Onacle, both the employers and the employees were responsible in creating a hostile environment in which aggressive horseplay degenerated into overt sexual harassment.

CASE QUESTIONS

1. What was the basis of Mr. Oncale's initial complaint in the District Court?

Joseph Oncale filed a complaint in the District Court of Eastern District, Louisiana alleging that he was sexually harassed in the workplace by his co-workers and their action(s) constituted "discriminat[ion] . . . because of . . . sex" prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.