In the presented case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore services. Inc., Joseph Oncale who is the plaintiff was an employee of Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. the defendant. Oncale was a victim of continuous sexual, physical, and mental harassment by three of his co-workers, two of whom were in a superior position than him at work. He was working in a team containing eight men of which the three that were making his life miserable were part of. The three co-workers were humiliating and assaulting Oncale sexually to the point where one of them essentially threatened to even rape him. Oncale reported the issue to his supervisor but nothing was done or there were no actions taken against the co-workers that were harassing him. Therefore, …show more content…
Oncale continued to be harassed and embarrassed by his employer.
Finally, Oncale decided to quit his job because of the constant harassment that he was facing and filed a lawsuit under Title VII. The District court decided or ruled that Oncale the petitioner did not have a cause of action under Title VII for being harassed by people of the same sex as him meaning that he had no cause since he is a male being harassed by other male coworkers. The court of appeals for Fifth Circuit supported or affirmed the decision. However, the Supreme Court completely overturned the decision, saying that harassment can happen between two people of the same sex whether there is sexual desire or not. The Supreme Court’s decision on the Oncale case does not transform Title VII into a general civility code for the American Workplace. Rather, I believe that it might make people in the …show more content…
workplace behave well. The Supreme Court decision add to what sexual harassment is seen as and making employees feel safe at the workplace because it points to a more practical and clear implementation of the law. Justice Scalia argues that it’s not only giving importance to concerns that allows same-sex harassment cases that could transform Title VII into a general into a civility code but it can also happen with other harassment lawsuits that are more traditional. Therefore, paying close attention to the requirements of the statute can help decide which case applies. 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 (Twomey, 2013, p. 442). Also, Justice Scalia talked about another condition that stops Title VII from transforming 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" (Twomey, 2013, p. 442). Justice Scalia highlights that harassment cases brought under Title VII are indeed discrimination cases and therefore should prove that the victim essentially experienced a different treatment by his/her employer. Consequently, it’s not every harassment that occurs in the workplace that is actionable under Title VII despite the use of words with sexual content or implications. The standard that should apply in judging whether the conduct in question amount to sexual harassment should be based on whether a reasonable person put in the position of the plaintiff would consider the actions harassment or not considering all the circumstances.
According to Twomey, 2013 we have emphasized, moreover, that the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering “all the circumstances” (p. 443). The text gives an example of a football coach smacking his player’s buttocks when going into the field. The coach’s act is not considered harassment consideration their line of work but if the coach did that to another worker or secretary it will be way out of line. Common sense, and an appropriate sensitivity to social context, will enable courts and juries to distinguish between simple teasing or roughhousing among members of the same sex, and conduct which a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would find severely hostile or abusive (Twomey 2013,
p.443). There is no justification that exists from the language of Title VII excluding same-sex harassment from being protected under the law. We see no justification in the statutory language or our precedents for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from coverage of Title VII….(Twomey 2013, p. 442). Even though the supreme court ruled that Oncale suffered sexual harassment, it was mostly due to the severity of the harassment. Title VII forbids discrimination due to sex. This covers or protect people from some levels of harassment, but only if the harassment is only based on their sex and this was not occurring to people of opposite sex. Nevertheless, if a supervisor at work is mistreating all of employees the same way, a complaint under Title VII will not stand. In the same way, if someone is harassed because of their sexual orientation, as in the case of Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, a Title VII complaint does not stand or exist. According to Twomey 2013, 21 states as well as the District of Columbia and more than 130 localities have laws and ordinances protecting individuals from workplace sexual orientation discrimination (p. 430).
I agree with the ruling because everyone should know that they can report sexual harassment and should report it without fear. The ruling found that employers could be held responsible for the actions of their employees who sexually harassed other employees based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case insured that employers will hold training sessions on sexual harassment and not just look the other way or laugh off the actions of a particularly aggressive employee who insists on harassing other employees. The ruling provides remedies if employers do not take it seriously. Unfortunately, it has probably become a “boy who cried wolf” accusation, but probably better to be over cautious than under cautious.
One of the issues in the case EEOC v. Target Corp. is that the EEOC alleged that Target violated the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by engaging in race discrimination against African-American applicants who were interested in management positions. It is argued that Target did not give the opportunity to schedule an interview to plaintiffs, Kalisha White, Ralpheal Edgeston and Cherise Brown-Easley, because of racial discrimination. On the other hand, it argues that Target is in violation of the Act because the company failed to retain and present records that would determine if there was reason to believe that an unlawful practice had been committed.
My Response. I think the court made the right decision by granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgement as to the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim, since her gender was not a contributing factor in this case. However, regarding the law in this case, I find it strange that just because Lynch treated both men and women equally badly, this would nullify Smith’s claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment, when such harassment clearly took place. Why does the harassment have to be towards one sex only for there to be a valid legal case? Should it not be enough that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment?
Nonetheless, the case of Mary Myers vs. New York Transit Authority questions, whether a violation the Title VII for an employer to refuse to accommodate Mary Myer’s Sabbath observance? Also, would the accommodation cause the employer to infringe an agreement in collective bargaining?
...d to the appellant , yet the defendant company itself had no appropriate measures or policy for dealing with the sexual harassment.
Nurse finders later assigned Drummond to work at a Kaiser facility as a medical assistant. The Plaintiff Sara Montegue was a medical assistant at Kaiser. Drummond and Montague had a disagreement, Montague didn’t think it was much of a big argument to report it. Both Drummond and Montague had a discussion about misplaced lab slips where Drummond raised her voice. A few weeks after the discussion, Montague left her water bottle at work. Montague later drank from her water bottle and her tongue and throat started to burn and she vomited. Drummond admitted that she had poured carbolic acid found in a Kaiser examination room into Montague’s water
The Court held that failing to accommodate a potential employee or an employee was enough to bring up a disparate treatment claim. It held that in order to make a claim based on disparate impact the plaintiff needs only to prove that the need for accommodation was the motive behind the employer’s refusal to hire them, not whether the employer knew about this need. Therefore, the Court determined that rather than imposing a knowledge standard, like the 10th Circuit Court did, motive was enough to violate Title VII since Abercrombie knew or suspected that Elauf wore the headscarf for religious reasons and did not want to accommodate her. “An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” (EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., 2015). Finally, the Court held because of the description that Title VII gives for religion, it places religion as a protected class and therefore asks that it be given favored treatment over other
Bennett, Alexander, Hartman (2003), Employment Law for Business, Fourth Edition II. Regulation of Discrimination in Employment 3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Disparate Impact arises when an employer's practices unintentionally excludes a protected class disproportionately (Player, Shoben and Lieberwitz, 1995). A "protected class" is a group of people, with common characteristics, which Congress has determined must be protected from inequality ("On-the-Job Discrimination: Gender Discrimination," 2004). This paper will analyze the landmark disparate impact case of Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424, 1971) from its beginning to its conclusion in the Supreme Court. Included will be the facts of the case and the issues detailed, as well as the history of the case from initial filing to final ruling.
In today’s world, the American still has barriers to overcome in the matter of racial equality. Whether it is being passed over for a promotion at the job or being underpaid, some people have to deal with unfair practice that would prevent someone of color or the opposite sex from having equal opportunity at the job. In 2004, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Incorporation was a civil rights class-action suite that ruled in favor of the women who worked and did not received promotions, pay and certain job assignments. This proves that some corporations ignore the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects workers from discrimination based on sex, race, religion or national origin.
...ith them by touching her breasts and other body parts and secondly he even threatened them to go on a date else he would get them fired. Both these instances come under the ambit of this law of sexual harassment. The civil rights law forbids the employer to discriminate on the basis of sex (Title VII Statute, n.d.).
Roberts, Barry S. and Richard A. Mann. ?Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Primer.? n.pag. On-line. Internet. 5 Dec 2000. Available WWW:
Anna’s claim comes under the broad rubric of the unlawful employment practice of sexual harassment which has become known as “hostile work environment” developed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Religious Discrimination as part of the Civil Rights Act is the subject of this term paper.
For instance some of the sign of the sexual harassment can be from small comments on women's breast, unwanted body contact, offensive graphic pictures being sent directly to any individual. Sexual harassment can happen in a form of belittling remarks regarding specific ge...