logo

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, O NCALE V. Sundowner O FFSHORE S ERVICES

3 Pages1454 Words184 Views
   

Added on  2019-09-20

About This Document

He filed a complaint against his employer, claiming that sexual harassment directed against him by coworkers in their workplace constituted “ discrimination ... because of ... sex ” prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the district court held that Oncale, a male, had no Title VII cause of action for harassment by male cow-orkers. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “ [it shall be an unlawful employment

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, O NCALE V. Sundowner O FFSHORE S ERVICES

   Added on 2019-09-20

ShareRelated Documents
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services,O NCALE V . S UNDOWNER O FFSHORE S ERVICES , I NC . S UPREME C OURT OF THE U NITED S TATES , 523 U.S. 75 (1998).[Joseph Oncale worked for Sundowner Offshore Ser-vices, Inc., as a roustabout on an oil platform in theGulf of Mexico. On several occasions, he was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions by three male crew members, two of whom had supervisory authority over him. Oncale ’ s complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action. Oncale eventually quit because of the sexual harassment. He filed a complaint against his employer, claiming that sexual harassment directed against him by coworkers in their workplace constituted “ discrimination ... becauseof ... sex ” prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Relying on Fifth Circuit precedent, the district court held that Oncale, a male, had no Title VII cause of action for harassment by male cow-orkers. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.] SCALIA, J ... . Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides, in relevant part, that “ [it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual ’ s race, color, religion, sex,or national origin. ” 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). We have held that this not only covers “terms” and “ conditions ” in the narrow contractual sense, but “ evinces a congressional intent to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women in employment. ” Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 64 (1986). “ When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim ’ s employment and create an abusive working environment, Title VII is violated. ” Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).Title VII ’ s prohibition of discrimination “ because of ... sex ” protects men as well as women, Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462U.S. 669, 682 (1983) ... . ... In the context of a “ hostile environment ” sexual harassment claim, the state and federal courts have taken a bewildering variety of stances. Some, like the Fifth Circuit in this case, have held that same sex sexual harassment claims are never cognizable under Title VII. See also, e.g., Goluszek v. H.P. Smith, 697F. Supp. 1452 (ND Ill. 1988). Other decisions say that such claims are actionable only if the plaintiff can prove that the harasser is homosexual (and thus presumably motivated by sexual desire). Compare McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (CA4 1996), with Wrights on v. Pizza Hut of America, 99 F.3d 138 (CA4 1996). Still others suggest that workplace harassment that is sexual in content is always actionable, regardless of the harasser ’ s sex, sexual orientation, or motivations. See Doe v.Belleville, 119 F.3d 563 (CA7 1997).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 ... .Our holding ... must extend to sexual harassment of any kind that meets the statutory requirements. Respondents and their amici contend that recognizing liability for same-sex harassment will transform Title VII into a general civility code for the American workplace. But that risk is no greater for same-sex than for opposite sex harassment, Copyright | CENGAGE Learning | Labor and Employment Law | Edition 15 | francistax@aol.com | Printed from www.chegg.comsame-sex than for opposite sex harassment, and is adequately met by careful attention to the require-ments of the statute. Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace; it is directed only at “ discrimination ... because of ... sex. ” We have never held that workplace harassment,
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, O NCALE V. Sundowner O FFSHORE S ERVICES_1

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Sexual Discrimination at Workplace: Ellingsworth v Hartford Fire Ins. Co.
|4
|684
|194