Oncale Texting Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,

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 is forced to trade sexual actions for pay, promotion, or job security) as well as the creation of a harassing environment (in which there is no quid pro quo stipulation, but the employee is subjected to sexually harassing language and other negative influences which make it impossible for him or her to do the job effectively). 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' would find the conduct abusive (Twomey 2013:423). Scalia was clear about this fact so that harmless workplace flirting or male-to-male joking was not found to fall under the provisions of Title IV (Twomey 2013:424).

Scalia's decision admits that to some extent there is a problem with the subjective nature of what constitutes a sexually harassing or threatening environment. The 'reasonable person' standard is vague (intentionally so, it would seem, given Scalia's language) and may vary from workplace to workplace. For example, in a football locker room some physical touching is acceptable while in a traditional office setting, patting a co-worker on the behind would not be seen as the norm. Mild flirting between actors on a set might be simply part of getting 'in character' while flirting between a boss and a female intern would not be viewed as such. "The real social impact of workplace behavior often depends on a constellation of social circumstances, expectations, and relationships which are not fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used and physical acts performed" (Twomey 2013:424).

Scalia called for 'common sense' regarding how sexual harassment was viewed, regardless of whether men or women had been subjected to advances. However, he (and the rest of the court) found in favor of Oncale, and stated that the case should be remanded for further proceedings to determine if what Oncale had endured was indeed harassment, based upon all of the caveats outlined by Scalia in the Court's judgment. In short, the Court did not conclude that Oncale had been subjected to sexual harassment, but did deny the employer's contention that Oncale had no grounds to sue based upon the employee's gender and the fact that the case was male-on-male sexual harassment. Justice Thomas concurred that the plaintiff must prove that the discriminatory harassment occurred directly because of sex.

Analysis of the decision