On March 4, 1998, the United States Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuits by holding that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 1998 WL 88039 (U.S. 1998). In Oncale, a male employee who worked on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico as part of an eight man crew sued his employer alleging sex harassment by his male supervisor and co-workers. On several occasions plaintiff’s supervisor subjected him to sex-related and humiliating actions. He was also physically assaulted and threatened with rape. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court said "[w]e 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." The Court also noted that, contrary to the prior holdings in the Fourth Circuit, same-sex harassment does not need to be motivated by sexual desire to be actionable. Instead, a plaintiff must simply prove that "the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive sexual connotations, but actually constituted ‘discrimina[tion] . . . because of . . . sex.’" The Court went on to make clear, however, that this decision is not intended to expand Title VII into a "general civility code," or in any way to change the requirements that the prohibition of sex harassment "forbids only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the 'conditions' of the victim's employment." Clearly, Oncale is a significant case that will expand actionable harassment under Title VII a great deal. In its wake, our own Fourth Circuit will struggle to apply this new ruling to the onslaught of cases sure to follow.
Workplace Labor Update - Same-Sex Harrassment Actionable Under Title VII – March 1998
2 min
On March 4, 1998, the United States Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuits by holding that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 1998 WL 88039 (U.S. 1998). In Oncale, a male employee who worked on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico as part of an eight man crew sued his employer alleging sex harassment by his male supervisor and co-workers. On several occasions plaintiff’s supervisor subjected him to sex-related and humiliating actions. He was also physically assaulted and threatened with rape. In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court said "[w]e 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." The Court also noted that, contrary to the prior holdings in the Fourth Circuit, same-sex harassment does not need to be motivated by sexual desire to be actionable. Instead, a plaintiff must simply prove that "the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive sexual connotations, but actually constituted ‘discrimina[tion] . . . because of . . . sex.’" The Court went on to make clear, however, that this decision is not intended to expand Title VII into a "general civility code," or in any way to change the requirements that the prohibition of sex harassment "forbids only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the 'conditions' of the victim's employment." Clearly, Oncale is a significant case that will expand actionable harassment under Title VII a great deal. In its wake, our own Fourth Circuit will struggle to apply this new ruling to the onslaught of cases sure to follow.