Pervasive profanity and sexual harassment, V15, #4
1) Based on the facts in the case and your understanding of Title VII, do you think Reeves' experienced "hostile work environment" sexual harassment? Why or Why not?
2) Now that we are more familiar with the term summary judgment, why do you think a summary judgment was made at the lower court?
3) As leaders in higher education, how can we use our understanding of this case to better inform how we provide oversight to our areas?
4) Why did the appellate court consider (1) the comments to be gender-specific, (2) the comments to be pervasive, (3) the comments to alter the terms or conditions of employment, and (4) the comments to be unwanted?
Based on Title VII, it's clear she had a case. I think it's fair to say that the work environment in blue-collar jobs is dissimilar to that which most of us are accustomed to, so I'm not sure how applicable this case would be to our own areas (question 3).
While I don't think the men in her office were specifically or intentionally harassing her, it seems that they'd be more sensitive to the presence of women in the workplace in the 21st century...we've been around a while now. It sounds like they apologized often, but that there was no follow up from the employer, which is as disappointing as the behavior itself.
I'd be interested in finding out what kind of job Ms. Reeves has since pursued. I hope she's spending her days with a classier crew.
In short, men are pigs. How's that for gender-specific?
There is no doubt that the CH Robinson Alabama office demonstrated a hostile work environment for Reeves or any other woman. All five legal standards identifying a hostile work environment were demonstrated in this case. The harassment experienced by Reeves was based on sex and clearly degrading to women. Title VII would not be a question for a case dealing with claims of vulgar language. It was the daily stream of sexually derogatory comments that justified Reeves’ argument. That’s why the argument offered by the CH Robinson Company in their defense of this claim was weak. I still can’t believe this happened as recently as 2004. As time moves on it seems ridiculous that people don’t move with it. Awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace is not a new concept and has been regularly taught and enforced in all work environments. It is ludicrous that a company of this magnitude with 7,300 employees and a multinational presence in places like Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East would not be better at enforcing sexual harassment policies (http://www.chrobinson.com/).
Working in higher ed and K-12 education for all of my career, I have found this type of thing to be so taboo in most of the places I have worked. Profanity and "off color" jokes get cringes if they are ever heard and I have learned that when I walk through the doors of my office or classroom, that type of thing just "shuts down" in my brain due to fear of offending someone. I sometimes "let my hair down" in the office with close co-workers but I still filter everything I say it seems since I have been programmed to be careful what I say and do. I can honestly say, I have not run into many who violate this rule. I have always worked in a female-dominated setting so seem to be sensitive to that....plus I grew up between two sisters so I learned very fast what was appropriate and what was not...I reserved "guy talk" for the lockeroom usually!
Thank you all for your posts. Perhaps it is because we are all in higher education that we find this to be pretty obvious as a constituting a violation of Title VII.
However, why do you think it is it the lower court found differently? Also, why was it a summary judgment?
Also, I am not surprised because this kind of thing still exists in my experience, even at the great university. Not to this extreme, of course, but I did have to file a complaint at a previous institution because I (and my fellow female co-workers) was told to "wear my skirts shorter" by my direct boss when I went to be trained by the main campus boss (who is male) so that he would be happy with our campus. I (and all of my co-workers) was also told, on my first day of employment, that I "better not get pregnant" or I might end up like a few other women who had worked there but gotten fired. These are two of the most direct examples that were tied directly to the terms and conditions of my employment. Luckily, I was able to resolve my issues internally with the company and my boss was asked to resign.
The issues tend to be with those who are much older than I am, baby boomers. With the workplace likely to have boomers remaining, I think it is still important for regular (annual) sexual harassment training to take place. Times were different when some in the workplace were growing up and they could use regular reminders since it is engrained in how they developed.
I'm not sure, but because the langauge wasn't directly aimed at her (which is probably how most of us think of harassment; similar to your experience) and was not initiated because of her presence, it makes the case, perhaps, less cut and dry.
And (okay, I'll go there) the lower court's decision may have been reflective of the overall culture or "personality" of that area. Change is slow...and slower in some places than others.
I am particularly glad that the 11th Circuit over ruled the Trial Court in this case. The Trial Court opined that summary judgement (no genuine issue of material fact for the trier of fact to decide) was proper because the "language and sexual comments were not directed at Reeves specifically" and thus, the offensive behavior was not motivated by gender. Even if counsel produced enough evidence to support that Reeves' colleagues weren't specifically talking to Reeves, the very nature of the words are typically used to describe women. Consequently, how could one ascertain whether they were talking about her or not? Irrespective of whether the comments were within ear-shot or not, one can not state with definitiveness whether Reeves' co-workers were talking about her or not. I believe this, in and of itself, produces a genuine issue of material fact that the jury would need to decide. As such, I am not sure how the court deemed there was no genuine issue of material fact.
Furthermore and in my opinion, more importantly, they were saying you have to be a part of a protected class in order to be afforded protection from sexual harrassment. I am not sure who was on the Trial court, but I guess I would ask them what happen to civility towards humans in general? The derogatory words/terms utilized by Reeves' co-workers were inhumane and inappropriate to describe or characterize any individual. Regardless of whether the intended target is a man or a woman, why would an individual have to listen to vulgarity as it inappropriately characterizes any human?
As Jennifer has already stated, I believe the Trial Court's ruling reflects the tenor of the court and the value they placed on human beings, irrespective of gender. It is extremely disheartening to know there are current judges interpreting laws in this fashion and absent an astute appellate courts, they unfortunately shape policy.
The more I contemplate the Trial Courts decision, I am saddened by this type of contextualistic interpretation of the law because rulings such as the Trial court's, in this case, obstruct progression in the US. One can only imagine where this country would be if the Supreme Court only followed contextualistic interpretations of the Constitution or Federal Statutes. For example, while Title VII does not specifically denote the term "harrassment" as it relates to hostile work environment, the U.S. Supreme Ct. had enough wisdom to interpret Title VII to mean that a hostile work environment would violate Title VII. Note, they framed it as a hostile work "environment" and not "predicament" (individualistic). I think the Trial Court would have benefited from seeking the intent of the law and not the strict construction of the law. Optimistically, we might have had a different ruling at the lower court.
I agree with a majority of Jennifer's comments. I was actually surprised when I read about how the lower court ruled against Reeves solely based upon one reason. Although the behavior was not directly targeted at one person, there were numerous "gender specific" derogatory comments/references made towards women. The fact that she was basically only one woman in an office full of men also made it inappropriate in my opinion. It has been my understanding that when a person has been proactive to discuss his/her concerns regarding inappropriate behavior on numerous occasions and it continues then sexual harassment is evident. I applaud Reeves for attempting to professionally resolve this situation with her co-workers, supervisor, and executives. When nothing was resolved what other option did she have but to leave? I understand it may have been a different professional environment and may have been the standard before Reeves hiring, but based upon the frequency level of the incidents I think it can constitute as a hostile work environment
I was also surprised by the lower courts decision in the Reeves case perhaps because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, its hard for most of us to imagine this type of behavior in our work environments in higher education settings. But, I guess its important to remember that these cases are decided based on the law not emotion and the fierce protection of free speech by the courts is a noble and important thing thing for us all even if it sometimes is not pretty...
Pervasive profanity and sexual harassment, V15, #4
ReplyDelete1) Based on the facts in the case and your understanding of Title VII, do you think Reeves' experienced "hostile work environment" sexual harassment? Why or Why not?
2) Now that we are more familiar with the term summary judgment, why do you think a summary judgment was made at the lower court?
3) As leaders in higher education, how can we use our understanding of this case to better inform how we provide oversight to our areas?
4) Why did the appellate court consider (1) the comments to be gender-specific, (2) the comments to be pervasive, (3) the comments to alter the terms or conditions of employment, and (4) the comments to be unwanted?
Based on Title VII, it's clear she had a case. I think it's fair to say that the work environment in blue-collar jobs is dissimilar to that which most of us are accustomed to, so I'm not sure how applicable this case would be to our own areas (question 3).
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't think the men in her office were specifically or intentionally harassing her, it seems that they'd be more sensitive to the presence of women in the workplace in the 21st century...we've been around a while now. It sounds like they apologized often, but that there was no follow up from the employer, which is as disappointing as the behavior itself.
I'd be interested in finding out what kind of job Ms. Reeves has since pursued. I hope she's spending her days with a classier crew.
In short, men are pigs. How's that for gender-specific?
(Kidding, of course...sort of)
There is no doubt that the CH Robinson Alabama office demonstrated a hostile work environment for Reeves or any other woman. All five legal standards identifying a hostile work environment were demonstrated in this case. The harassment experienced by Reeves was based on sex and clearly degrading to women. Title VII would not be a question for a case dealing with claims of vulgar language. It was the daily stream of sexually derogatory comments that justified Reeves’ argument. That’s why the argument offered by the CH Robinson Company in their defense of this claim was weak. I still can’t believe this happened as recently as 2004. As time moves on it seems ridiculous that people don’t move with it. Awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace is not a new concept and has been regularly taught and enforced in all work environments. It is ludicrous that a company of this magnitude with 7,300 employees and a multinational presence in places like Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East would not be better at enforcing sexual harassment policies (http://www.chrobinson.com/).
ReplyDeleteWorking in higher ed and K-12 education for all of my career, I have found this type of thing to be so taboo in most of the places I have worked. Profanity and "off color" jokes get cringes if they are ever heard and I have learned that when I walk through the doors of my office or classroom, that type of thing just "shuts down" in my brain due to fear of offending someone. I sometimes "let my hair down" in the office with close co-workers but I still filter everything I say it seems since I have been programmed to be careful what I say and do. I can honestly say, I have not run into many who violate this rule. I have always worked in a female-dominated setting so seem to be sensitive to that....plus I grew up between two sisters so I learned very fast what was appropriate and what was not...I reserved "guy talk" for the lockeroom usually!
ReplyDeleteThank you all for your posts. Perhaps it is because we are all in higher education that we find this to be pretty obvious as a constituting a violation of Title VII.
ReplyDeleteHowever, why do you think it is it the lower court found differently? Also, why was it a summary judgment?
Also, I am not surprised because this kind of thing still exists in my experience, even at the great university. Not to this extreme, of course, but I did have to file a complaint at a previous institution because I (and my fellow female co-workers) was told to "wear my skirts shorter" by my direct boss when I went to be trained by the main campus boss (who is male) so that he would be happy with our campus. I (and all of my co-workers) was also told, on my first day of employment, that I "better not get pregnant" or I might end up like a few other women who had worked there but gotten fired. These are two of the most direct examples that were tied directly to the terms and conditions of my employment. Luckily, I was able to resolve my issues internally with the company and my boss was asked to resign.
The issues tend to be with those who are much older than I am, baby boomers. With the workplace likely to have boomers remaining, I think it is still important for regular (annual) sexual harassment training to take place. Times were different when some in the workplace were growing up and they could use regular reminders since it is engrained in how they developed.
I'm not sure, but because the langauge wasn't directly aimed at her (which is probably how most of us think of harassment; similar to your experience) and was not initiated because of her presence, it makes the case, perhaps, less cut and dry.
ReplyDeleteAnd (okay, I'll go there) the lower court's decision may have been reflective of the overall culture or "personality" of that area. Change is slow...and slower in some places than others.
I am particularly glad that the 11th Circuit over ruled the Trial Court in this case. The Trial Court opined that summary judgement (no genuine issue of material fact for the trier of fact to decide) was proper because the "language and sexual comments were not directed at Reeves specifically" and thus, the offensive behavior was not motivated by gender. Even if counsel produced enough evidence to support that Reeves' colleagues weren't specifically talking to Reeves, the very nature of the words are typically used to describe women. Consequently, how could one ascertain whether they were talking about her or not? Irrespective of whether the comments were within ear-shot or not, one can not state with definitiveness whether Reeves' co-workers were talking about her or not. I believe this, in and of itself, produces a genuine issue of material fact that the jury would need to decide. As such, I am not sure how the court deemed there was no genuine issue of material fact.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore and in my opinion, more importantly, they were saying you have to be a part of a protected class in order to be afforded protection from sexual harrassment. I am not sure who was on the Trial court, but I guess I would ask them what happen to civility towards humans in general? The derogatory words/terms utilized by Reeves' co-workers were inhumane and inappropriate to describe or characterize any individual. Regardless of whether the intended target is a man or a woman, why would an individual have to listen to vulgarity as it inappropriately characterizes any human?
As Jennifer has already stated, I believe the Trial Court's ruling reflects the tenor of the court and the value they placed on human beings, irrespective of gender. It is extremely disheartening to know there are current judges interpreting laws in this fashion and absent an astute appellate courts, they unfortunately shape policy.
The more I contemplate the Trial Courts decision, I am saddened by this type of contextualistic interpretation of the law because rulings such as the Trial court's, in this case, obstruct progression in the US. One can only imagine where this country would be if the Supreme Court only followed contextualistic interpretations of the Constitution or Federal Statutes. For example, while Title VII does not specifically denote the term "harrassment" as it relates to hostile work environment, the U.S. Supreme Ct. had enough wisdom to interpret Title VII to mean that a hostile work environment would violate Title VII. Note, they framed it as a hostile work "environment" and not "predicament" (individualistic). I think the Trial Court would have benefited from seeking the intent of the law and not the strict construction of the law. Optimistically, we might have had a different ruling at the lower court.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with a majority of Jennifer's comments. I was actually surprised when I read about how the lower court ruled against Reeves solely based upon one reason. Although the behavior was not directly targeted at one person, there were numerous "gender specific" derogatory comments/references made towards women. The fact that she was basically only one woman in an office full of men also made it inappropriate in my opinion. It has been my understanding that when a person has been proactive to discuss his/her concerns regarding inappropriate behavior on numerous occasions and it continues then sexual harassment is evident. I applaud Reeves for attempting to professionally resolve this situation with her co-workers, supervisor, and executives. When nothing was resolved what other option did she have but to leave? I understand it may have been a different professional environment and may have been the standard before Reeves hiring, but based upon the frequency level of the incidents I think it can constitute as a hostile work environment
ReplyDeleteI was also surprised by the lower courts decision in the Reeves case perhaps because, as I mentioned in an earlier post, its hard for most of us to imagine this type of behavior in our work environments in higher education settings. But, I guess its important to remember that these cases are decided based on the law not emotion and the fierce protection of free speech by the courts is a noble and important thing thing for us all even if it sometimes is not pretty...
ReplyDelete