Do any employees at your company play radio programs by shock jocks such as Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, or Opie and Anthony? If so, it could create a problem. A federal appeals court has ruled regular exposure to language and radio programs that are particularly offensive to women but not targeted at a particular worker may still support a hostile work environment claim.
Ingrid Reeves was one of only two women who worked for C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW). Reeves worked in a cubicle environment, surrounded by men in other cubes (the other woman didn’t work near her).
Reeves alleged that sexually offensive language permeated the work environment near her cube at CHRW every day. She also claimed that sexually explicit radio programs played on a daily basis (the text of the lawsuit never mentions the name of the show).
The comments included three derogatory terms used to refer to women and other crude sexual terms (if you want to know exactly how far the comments went, you can read a PDF of the court’s decision here).
Reeves said she complained to her co-workers and supervisor many times, but the comments, which weren’t directed at her, continued.
Reeves was also offended by a radio program that was played every morning on the stereo in the office. She said discussions on the program about female anatomy and sexual topics offended her.
When Reeves complained about the radio program, she was often told she could play her own music or change the station. However, she testified that if she did so, the other employees would soon change the radio back to the program that offended her.
CHRW’s branch manager testified that he agreed with Reeves’ accounts of some words being used in the office. He also said he had one or two talks with one of Reeves’ co-workers about language and mentioned language to others during performance evaluations after Reeves complained.
Reeves resigned from her job and filed a complaint against CHRW two years later alleging that the use of sexually offensive language (including that heard on the radio) created a hostile work environment in violation of federal law.
She argued that even though the language wasn’t directed at her, it created a hostile work environment.
CHRW argued that the lawsuit should be thrown out because men and women were subjected to the same behavior in the office.
Previous decision on race pertains to gender
The Eleventh Circuit court noted that it’s well established that racially offensive language need not be targeted at the plaintiff to support a hostile work environment claim.
CHRW argued that the court shouldn’t look to race cases in connection with this one because “race is different” than gender.
But the court disagreed. It said the conversations and jokes that allegedly permeated the office on a daily basis were more degrading to women than men, and that the radio program claims were similar. So even if men and women were equally exposed, the language had a discriminatory effect on Reeves because of its degrading nature.
The court said a jury could reasonably find that the offensive language and radio program interfered with Reeves’ job performance, even though the conduct wasn’t directed specifically at her. It sent the case back to a lower court for trial.
What do you think of the court’s decision? Does this raise the bar for companies trying to prevent themselves from being perceived as having a hostile work environment? Let us know that you think.
