ONCALE Texting

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.: Case summary

Relationship between the parties involved in the case

The plaintiff Joseph Oncale was an employee of Sundown Offshore Services. He sued his employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that he was subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination due to his gender based upon the hostile workplace to which he was subjected (Twomey 2013: 442).

Lower court decision(s)

The district court found in favor of Oncale's employers, who stated that Oncale had no right to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, given that he was a male, and the stipulations of the act regarding sexual harassment applied only to females.

Short summary of the relevant facts

Joseph Oncale was employed as a roustabout on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico for Sundown Offshore Services. According to Oncale, he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by members of the crew. Oncale complained to his supervisor, but was forced to quit based upon the hostile environment in which he found himself. He sued his employer for failing to take action against his harassing co-workers, stating that Sundown was in violation of Title IIV of the Civil Rights Act (Twomey 2013:442). Sundown did not deny that such harassment took place; rather the focus of their defense to Oncale's case was upon the legal technicality of his gender, which they said made the application of the Act invalid.

Relevant law the appellate court discussed

The main law under scrutiny was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, specifically how it applied to sexual harassment in the workplace. According to the law, explicit quid pro quo sexual harassment is prohibited (in which an employee...

Oncale was suing under the former, rather than the latter part of Title VII. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination, in its wording, based upon gender -- it does not specifically state that 'women' are a protected category; rather it implies that 'gender' is the protected category that is of concern.
The legal issue(s) that were decided

Oncale was ultimately appealed and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority stated: "we see no justification in the statutory language or our precedents for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII" (Twomey 2013:422). Scalia was careful to point out that the provisions of Title VII only prohibited discriminatory harassment in the workplace, not harassment in general, and the provisions of the Act would only be applicable if discrimination was the cause of the unjust occurrences. However, the mere fact that Oncale was a male had no bearing upon the case. Nor did the fact that the perpetrators of the harassment were males. Title VII protects employees against same-gender sexual discrimination as well as opposite-gender discrimination.

Scalia was also careful to point out that Title VII is not a general "civility" code for the workplace, nor does it insist upon total androgyny in terms of how male and female employees interact with one another (Twomey 2013:422). The conduct must be severe and pervasive to the extent that a 'reasonable person'…