HRMG 5700

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Service

In late October 1991, Joseph Oncale was working for the Sundowner Offshore Service on a Chevron USA company, an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight man crew. Mr. Oncale on several occasions was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by his co-workers in the presence of the rest of the crew. Mr. Oncale was also sodomized with a bar of soap and was threatened with rape. Mr. Oncale complained to his supervisor of the harassment to which no action of discipline was taken. Mr. Oncale eventually quit but was asking that his pink slip indicate that he “voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse. Mr. Oncale filed a complaint against Sundowner in the United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana alleging that he was discriminated against in his employment because of his sex. The District court granted summary of judgement to the defendant, writing that Mr. Oncale, a male, has no cause of action under Title VII for harassment by a male co-workers. Mr. Oncale appealed, the United States Courts of Appeals for Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with the instruction that a male can be discriminated against by member of the same sex under Title VII.

Does the Oncale decision transform Title VII in a general Civility code for the American workplace?
Yes, recognizing liability for same sex harassment will transform Title VII into a general civility code for the American workplace. The risk is no greater for same –sex then for opposite’s sex harassment, and is adequately met by careful attention to the requirements of the statue. Title VII does not prohibit all verbal or physical harassment in the workplace.
What standard should apply in judging whether the conduct in question amounted to sexual harassment?
The nature of the sexual advances" and "the context in which the alleged incidents occurred." unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. . . when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
What justification exits in the statutory language or Supreme Court precedents for a categorical rule excluding same sex harassment claims for coverage of title VII?
Justice Scalia and (Justice Thomas concurring) reversed decision of the district courts and remanded the case for further proceedings in accordance with the instruction that a male can be discriminated by a member of the same sex under Title VII.

Reference:

Twomey, David (2012-05-08). Labor and Employment Law: Text & Cases (South-Western Legal Studies in Business Academic) (Chapter 12, case 12.8) http:caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court “Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.” Oyez-Kent College of Law at Illinois, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1997/96/-568