Same-sex sexual harassment and Title VII workplace protection

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.

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.

2. On what basis did the District Court and the Court of Appeals reject Oncale's complaint?

The District Court relied on a Fifth Circuit precedent in Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America and held that Oncale, a male, had no Title VII cause of action for harassment by male coworkers. The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the basis of the same precedent.

3. Is the motivation behind same sex harassment an issue in application of Title VII to harassment cases?

No. In the Oncale holding the Supreme Court has clarified that the motivation or sexual orientation of the harasser is not an issue in cases of same-sex workplace harassment.

4. Does the Oncale ruling also prohibit discrimination in the workplace because of sexual orientation?

No. U.S. Federal law still does not forbid employment discrimination based on sexual orientation although some U.S. States have enacted their own State laws, prohibiting such discrimination in the workplace.

5. What needs to be proved by the appellant in cases of same sex harassment?

According to the Oncale judgment, the appellant has to prove that the behavior of the harasser was so objectively offensive as to alter the "conditions" of the victim's employment. The severity of harassment is to be judged by the "reasonable person" standard. ("Same Sex Harassment" 2002)