Analysis of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Supreme Court Case

The provided document presents a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court case Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. The case revolves around a male employee, Joseph Oncale, who was subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions by male coworkers on an oil platform. Oncale filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment, claiming it constituted discrimination based on sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court initially dismissed the case, relying on Fifth Circuit precedent that did not recognize same-sex harassment claims. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision, ruling that Title VII's prohibition of sex discrimination applies to same-sex harassment. The Court emphasized that the critical issue is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed, and that harassment must be severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment. The decision clarified that same-sex harassment is actionable under Title VII, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision and remanding the case for further proceedings. The analysis includes the Court's reasoning, the statutory language, and the implications of the ruling, addressing whether the decision transforms Title VII into a general civility code, the standard to apply in judging sexual harassment, and the justification for excluding same-sex harassment claims.

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 … 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. 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 | [e-mail] | Printed from www.chegg.com
same-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,

even harassment between men and women, is automatically discrimination because of sex merely
because the words used have sexual content or con-notations. “ The critical issue, Title VII ’ s text indi-
cates, is whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of
employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed. ” Harris, supra, at 25 (GINSBURG, J.,
concurring) … .And there is another requirement that prevents Title VII from expanding into a general
civility code: … the statute does not reach genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and
women routinely interact with members of the same sex and of the opposite sex. The prohibition of
harassment on the basis of sex requires neither a sexuality nor androgyny in the workplace; it forbids
only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the “ conditions ” of the victim ’ s employment. “
Conduct that is not severe continued Copyright | CENGAGE Learning | Labor and Employment Law |
Edition 15 | [e-mail] | Printed from www.chegg.com
or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environment
that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive — is beyond Title VII ’ s purview. ” Harris, 510
U.S., at21, citing Meritor, 477 U.S. at 67. We have always regarded that requirement as crucial, and as
sufficient to ensure that courts and juries do not mistake ordinary socializing in the workplace — such as
male-on-male horseplay or intersexual flirtation — for discriminatory “ conditions of employment. ” We
have emphasized, moreover, that the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the per-
spective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff ’ s position, considering “ all the circumstances. ” Harris,
supra, at 23. In same-sex (as in all) harassment
cases, that inquiry requires careful consideration of the social context in which particular behavior
occurs and is experienced by its target. A professional foot-ball player ’ s working environment is not
severely or pervasively abusive, for example, if the coach smacks him on the buttocks as he heads onto
the field — even if the same behavior would reasonably be experienced as abusive by the coach ’ s
secretary (male or female) back at the office. The real social impact of workplace behavior often
depends on a constellation of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships which are not
fully captured by a simple recitation of the words used or the physical acts per-formed. Common sense,
and an appropriate sensitivity to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between
simple teasing or rough housing among members of the same sex, and conduct which a reasonable
person in the plaintiff ’ s position would find severely hostile or abusive .Because we conclude that sex
discrimination consisting of same-sex harassment is actionable under Title VII, the judgment of the Court
of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. It is so ordered. JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring … . I concur because the Court stresses
that in every sexual harassment case, the plaintiff must plead and ultimately prove Title VII ’ s statutory
requirement that there be discrimination “ because of … sex. ”
Case Questions 1.
Does the Oncale decision transform Title VII into a general civility code for the American workplace?

2. What standard should apply in judging whether the conduct in question amounted to sexual
harassment?
3. What justification exists in the statutory language or Supreme Court precedents for a categorical rule
excluding same sex harassment claims from coverage of title V11-
Copyright | CENGAGE Learning | Labor and Employment Law | Edition 15 |