What constitutes a hostile work environment under Title VII has frequently presented a challenge for the federal courts.  Words alone have typically been held to be not enough to constitute a hostile work environment.  In a landmark decision rendered last week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Atlanta, held that the pervasive use of gender-specific vulgarities such as "bitch", "whore" and “cunt” can create a hostile workplace for women, even when the profanities are not directed specifically at those female employees. 

In Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, the female plaintiff had been subjected to a work environment in which her male co-workers referred to people as “bitch”, “whore”, “fucking whore” and “cunt” on a daily basis and talked about masturbation and other sexual practices.  After resigning, the plaintiff sued the employer for subjecting her to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.  The federal district ruled in favor of the employer, holding that the language and sexual comments were not directed at her specifically, so the offensive behavior was not motivated by her gender.

In a unanimous ruling, the 11-member appellate court reversed the district court, finding that a jury could reasonably find that the offensive language was "humiliating and degrading" to women specifically.  Although the appellate court did not think that all vulgar, profane or sexual language in the workplace constitutes discrimination, "a plaintiff can prove a hostile work environment by showing severe or pervasive discrimination directed against her protected group, even if she herself is not individually singled out in the offensive conduct."   According to the appellate court’s opinion, "[i]t is enough to hear co-workers on a daily basis refer to female colleagues as 'bitches,' 'whores' and 'cunts,' to understand that they view women negatively, and in a humiliating or degrading way . . . The harasser need not close the circle with reference to the plaintiff specifically."   As a consequence of the degrading language, a jury could reasonably find that the employer’s workplace was one that exposed the plaintiff to “disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex were not exposed”, conduct which Title VII was meant to prevent.

This newsletter is a publication of Nochumson P.C. and is intended for general information only. It should not be construed as legal advice with respect to any particular situation, and readers should not act upon information contained in this newsletter without first consulting an attorney. Copyright © 2009.