Case Study: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.

HRMG 5700 QD F2

In the case of Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., Joseph Oncale was the victim of repeated harassment, sexual, physical and mental, from at least three members of the work crew, of which two had a supervisory position over him. When Oncale brought his complaints to the supervisors, they took no noticeable actions against the harassers and, after he had experienced enough harassment, Oncale quit his position. When Oncale filed the sexual harassment complaint against Sundowner, the district court, relying on the precedent set by the Fifth Circuit courts, “. . . held that Oncale, a male, had no Title VII cause of action for harassment by male coworkers. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.” (Twomey, 442) In 1998, the case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States, where that decision was reversed, and same-sex harassment was ruled actionable under Title VII.

The Supreme Courts decision concerning sexual harassment does not transform Title VII into a general civility code for workplaces. If anything, it just further defines what sexual harassment can be, allowing workers to feel safer in the work environment. As Justice Scalia addressed this argument during his decision, “The prohibition of harassment on the basis of sex requires neither asexuality or androgyny in the workplace; it forbids only behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the ‘conditions’ of the victims employment. ‘Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment-an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive-is beyond Title VII’s purview.’” (Twomey 442-443)

When judging whether the conduct in question amounted to any sort of sexual harassment, there is a simple standard that should be applied: would a reasonable person, in the complainant's position, and taking into account all surrounding circumstances, consider the actions harassment? For example, a drill instructor getting in a recruit’s face and yelling at them as a means of teaching a lesson to the group would not be considered harassment, so long as that drill instructor kept their tirade relevant to the situation at hand. However, if that drill instructor were to get in the face of a department store employee and yell at them in the same manner, that would be grossly inappropriate. The example given in the text was a football coach smacking player’s bottoms as they went onto the field. Given the circumstances and their line of work, that would not be considered harassment. However, if that coach did that to a secretary or other worker, that would be well out of line.

While Title VII does protect a large number of employees, the language concerning sexual harassment can still be seen as exclusionary when it comes to same-sex harassment. While the Supreme Court in this case did rule that Oncale suffered harassment “based on sex” it was due, in part to the severity of his harassment. This does protect individuals from certain levels of harassment, but only if they are being harassed based solely on their sex, and this action was not happening to member’s of the opposite sex. However, if a manager treats all employees with equal disregard for their feelings, a Title VII complaint does not exist. Similarly, if an individual is being harassed based on their sexual orientation, as shown in Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, a Title VII complaint does not exist. Fortunately though, this loophole in Title VII has been closed in 21 states as well as the District of Columbia, as they have passed laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. (Twomey, 430)

References

Twomey, D. P. (2013). Discrimination Laws: Protected Classes Under Title VII and the Constitution. Labor & Employment Law (Fifteenth Edition ed., pp. 428, 430, 442,443). Mason, OH: South-Western.