March 21, 2025 • 21 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
What's the real difference between a difficult workplace and one that's legally "hostile"? This episode cuts through the legalese to reveal the actual standards courts use when determining if harassment crosses the line from unpleasant to unlawful.
We unpack decades of landmark Supreme Court decisions that have shaped workplace discrimination law, from Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson establishing sexual harassment as discrimination, to the groundbreaking Bostock v. Clayton County extending protections to LGBTQ+ workers. Through clear explanations of key legal concepts like "severe or pervasive" and "reasonable person standard," we demystify what makes harassment actionable under federal law.
The conversation moves beyond theory into practical territory, examining what documentation employees should maintain, how reporting systems affect liability, and when employers become responsible for harassment from supervisors, coworkers, or even customers. We explore nuanced questions about online harassment in remote work settings and how intersectionality affects discrimination cases when someone faces multiple forms of bias simultaneously.
Whether you're an employee wondering if your workplace crosses legal boundaries, a manager seeking to understand your responsibilities, or simply curious about this evolving area of law, this episode provides a comprehensive yet accessible roadmap to navigating hostile work environment claims. Take away clear guidance on documentation strategies, reporting options including the EEOC, and how changing workplace dynamics continue to shape these critical legal protections.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, so today we're going deep on something I think
pretty much anyone who's everhad a job can relate to hostile
work environments.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Yeah, for sure.
It's something that,unfortunately, a lot of people
have experienced at some point.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Absolutely and you know it's not always clear cut
what actually crosses that linelegally right, exactly.
Luckily, you guys have sent insome really interesting stuff
for us to dig into Some AIresearch that breaks down some
big legal cases and concepts,some AI research that breaks
down some big legal cases andconcepts.
Plus, we've got actual excerptsfrom Supreme Court rulings like
Bostock v Clayton County and OnKale v Sundan or offshore
(00:32):
services.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, those are some big ones.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
They are.
So our goal today is to makesense of all this dense legal
stuff and really give you asolid grasp on what actually
defines a hostile workenvironment under the law.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Totally, because it goes way beyond just personality
clashes or the occasional badday at the office.
Right, there's this whole legalframework built up over decades
through laws and core positions, and we want to pull out the
most important parts so you canreally get the core principles.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
OK, so let's start with the foundation.
The AI research we got pointsout that this whole idea of a
hostile work environment as alegal concept really comes from
federal laws, and the big one isTitle VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Right and Title VIII.
When it first came out, youknow, it basically prohibited
discrimination based on race,color, religion, sex, national
origin.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
The basics.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Yeah, but the courts have been interpreting it for
years.
You know, through all thesedifferent cases and that's
really how they've clarified youknow exactly how discrimination
can show up in the workplaceand that includes, you know,
creating a hostile or abusiveenvironment for people.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
And it's important to remember that those original
categories aren't the only onesthat are protected now, right.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Oh, definitely not.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
The AI research even points out that hostile work
environment claims can involvediscrimination based on age and
disability.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
And then we've got, you know, Bostock v Clayton
County, which I feel like was areally big turning point.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yeah, bostock was huge.
I mean, what's so interestingabout it is how it really
expanded.
How we think about sex-baseddiscrimination Right, like the
case itself focused on firingsomeone from their job based on
discrimination.
But the Supreme Court wentfurther than that Right.
They said discriminatingagainst someone because of their
sexual orientation or genderidentity is basically like
(02:10):
discriminating against thembased on sex.
It's like you can't separatethose things.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Right and that has huge implications for hostile
work environment cases, becausenow if someone is being harassed
because they're gay ortransgender, it's clear that
could be seen as illegaldiscrimination.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Creating that hostile environment.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Exactly so.
You know, the law'sunderstanding of this stuff
keeps evolving.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
OK.
So one of the big takeawaysfrom all this foundational stuff
is that it really puts a lot ofresponsibility on employers.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Like our AI sources are really clear that they need
to have these clear policiesagainst harassment and then ways
for employees to reportproblems.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Yeah, they can't just like have a suggestion box and
call it a day.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Right.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
You know this is crucial stuff and as we get into
the Supreme Court cases you'llsee that having these policies
can actually make a differencein whether an employer is held
responsible in court.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
OK, perfect segue, because that's exactly what I
want to talk about next thesebig Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Yeah, let's do it.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
The AI research lays out some of the most important
decisions kind ofchronologically.
So let's start with MeredithSavings Bank v Vinson back in
1986.
This one feels like a realcornerstone.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
It really is.
Vinson kind of revolutionizedthings, because it was the first
time the Supreme Court saidstraight up that sexual
harassment creating a hostilework environment is a form of
sex discrimination under TitleVII.
Oh wow, and before this, youknow, people thought sexual
harassment only really matteredlegally if it had a direct
economic impact.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Like you lose your job.
Exactly Because you wouldn't,you know, sleep with your boss.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Right, or you know you get demoted or something.
But Vinson said, even ifthere's no financial harm, if
the harassment makes theworkplace hostile and abusive,
that's illegal discriminationtoo.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
So it shifted the focus to like how it affects you
as an employee, like yourability to actually do your job
in this environment.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Right, it's not just about the money.
It's about being able tofunction in a safe and
respectful workplace.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
OK, so it doesn't have to be like if you do this,
I'll give you a promotion, kindof thing.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Just making people feel really uncomfortable and
unsafe, that can be enough.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
OK, cool.
So next up we've got Harris vForklift Systems Inc.
In 1993, and this one seems toreally clarify what makes a
workplace hoster.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Yeah, Harris is a big one because it dealt with how
bad does the harassment have tobe to actually be illegal?
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Right, Like where's the line?
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Exactly, and the court basically said you don't
have to prove that you've beenpsychologically damaged or
anything.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Oh, interesting.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
What matters is whether the environment is
objectively abusive.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Meaning.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Meaning like would a reasonable person in that
situation find it hostile?
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
And subjectively abusive, meaning you, the person
who's experiencing it, alsofeel that way, so it's like a
two-part test.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Objective and subjective.
That's a really helpful way tothink about it.
Right, it's not just aboutsomeone being overly sensitive,
but it also says, hey, even ifsomeone seems tough on the
outside, they still deserve aworkplace that's not abusive.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Absolutely.
Everyone deserves to feel safeand respected at work.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Okay, so moving on, we've got two cases that were
decided at the same time in 1998, Farragher v City of Boca Raton
and Burlington Industries Ing vEller.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Oh yeah, those are both really important.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And they both deal with when an employer can be
held responsible for harassmentby a supervisor.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
So why two separate cases at the same time?
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Well, it's because the court wanted to really
clarify the rules aroundemployer liability.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
You know when are they on the hook for the actions
of their supervisors and themain takeaway is that they can
be held responsible even if theemployee doesn't like lose their
job or get demoted.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
So even if there's no direct like negative action
taken against them, Exactly Justcreating that hostile
environment is enough.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
But and this is a big but these cases also gave
employers a way to defendthemselves.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
OK, so like a loophole.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Well, not a loophole, exactly More like an
affirmative defense.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
OK, tell me more about that.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
So an employer can say hey, we're not liable
because we took steps to preventharassment and we have a system
for reporting it.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
So like they have to show they have clear policies in
place and that they actuallytake complaints seriously, Right
, and they also have to showthat the employee didn't use
those systems to report theharassment.
Oh, so it puts someresponsibility on the employee
too.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Exactly, it's like a two-way street the employer has
to set up the safety net and theemployee has to actually use it
.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Okay, that makes sense.
It encourages both sides to beproactive.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
So then also in 1998, we have another really
important case Oncale vSundowner Offshore Services Inc.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Ah Oncale.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
And the excerpt you sent really focused on this one.
So tell me, why is this one sosignificant?
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Well, OnKale dealt with a pretty fundamental
question.
Can someone be harassed bysomeone of the same sex and
still have a claim under TitleVII?
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Like same-sex harassment.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Exactly and the Supreme Court said yes, they
were very clear about that.
Interesting.
The law says you can'tdiscriminate because of dot sex
and the court basically saidthat harassment can be based on
sex even if the harasser and thevictim are the same gender.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
So it doesn't matter if there's like a sexual
attraction thing going on.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Right.
It's about whether theharassment happened because of
the victim's sex and whether itcould get at a hostile
environment.
Got it, and the excerpt we havereally emphasizes that the key
is whether one sex is beingtreated worse than the other.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
OK, that's a really important clarification.
It basically says that genderbased hostility, even if it's
not like sexual in nature, canstill be illegal.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
OK, moving right along, Our AI research talks
about National RailroadPassenger Corporation v Morgan
from 2002.
And this one deals with thetimeline for bringing these
hostile work environment claims,which sounds kind of technical
but also really important.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Oh, it is super important because, you know,
harassment often happens over aperiod of time, right, it's not
just one single incident.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Right, like a pattern of behavior.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Exactly so.
Morgan dealt with the questionof like when can an employee
actually file a lawsuit based onall this stuff that's been
going on, and the court came upwith this thing called the
continuing violation doctrine.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Okay, and what does that mean in plain English?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Basically it means that as long as at least one of
the incidents that contributedto the hostile work environment
happened within a certain timeperiod, the whole period of
harassment can be considered.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Oh, that's interesting.
So even if some of the stuffhappened a long time ago, if it
was part of this ongoing pattern, it can still be relevant.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Exactly, and that's really important, because it
stops employers from saying, oh,that happened too long ago, you
can't sue us for that.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
If it was all part of the same hostile environment,
it could still be part of thecase.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
OK, that makes sense.
And then next PennsylvaniaState Police v Suitors in 2004.
Oh yeah, suitors is aninteresting one.
This one introduces the idea ofconstructive discharge.
So tell me, what is that?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
exactly.
The constructive discharge isbasically when an employer makes
the working condition so badthat a reasonable person would
feel like they had to quit.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
So they're not technically fired, but they're
basically forced out.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Exactly and Suitors said that if an employee quits
because of really bad harassment, they can actually claim
constructive discharge and suethe employer.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Wow.
So the employer can't just makesomeone's life a living hell
and then say, oh well, they quit, we didn't fire them.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
They can still be held responsible.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
OK.
And then we have Vanspeed BallState University in 2013, which
clarifies who's actuallyconsidered a supervisor when it
comes to employer liabilityRight.
Why was that distinction soimportant?
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Well, because there's a big legal difference between
a supervisor and a coworker.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
When it comes to a supervisor, the employer is
pretty much automaticallyresponsible for their actions.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
But not for a coworker.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Well, it depends.
If it's a coworker, theemployer is usually only liable
if they knew about theharassment and didn't do
anything to stop it.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Oh OK.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
So Vance really narrowed down the definition of
a supervisor.
They said it has to be someonewho has the power to hire, fire,
promote, demote things likethat.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
So someone with real authority over you.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
OK, that makes sense.
Now our AI research alsomentions a few other important
cases, like EEOCV, MitsubishiMotor Manufacturing of America,
which was one of the biggestsexual harassment class action
lawsuits ever.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Oh, yeah, that one was huge.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Like a massive settler.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
I think it was over 30 million dollars.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Yeah, something like that.
It really shows how much notdealing with these issues can
cost a company.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
For sure, both financially and in terms of
their reputation.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Absolutely.
Then there's Nichols v AztecaRestaurant Enterprises Inc.
Which said that gender basedharassment isn't just about
sexual harassment.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Yeah, that's an important one.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
It can be about not fitting into gender stereotypes
too.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Like in that case, this guy was being harassed for
not being manly enough.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Exactly and the court said that's still illegal
discrimination.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Wow, OK.
And then there's Reeves v CWorldwide Inc.
Which said that even generaloffensive behavior can create a
hostile work environment.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
It doesn't have to be targeted at a specific person.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Exactly.
If it's just like a generallytoxic and offensive atmosphere,
that can be enough.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
OK.
So even if the jokes aren'tdirected at you, but they're
still like racist or sexist,that can be a problem.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Totally.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
OK, cool, directed at you, but they're still like
racist or sexist.
That can be a problem.
Okay, cool.
And then our AI research evenmentions one of the earliest
cases Henson v City of Dundee,which was one of the first to
say that a hostile workenvironment created by sexual
harassment is a form of sexdiscrimination.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Yeah, Henson was a groundbreaking case.
It really set the stage for allthe cases that came after.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
So it's really interesting to see how this
whole area of law has developedover time.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground with
these cases.
Now let's zoom in on some ofthe key legal concepts that keep
popping up, as highlighted inour AI research.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Sounds good.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
The first one is this severe or pervasive harassment
standard that we touched onearlier with the Harris case.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
So tell me more about what that actually means in
practice.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Well, the severe or pervasive standard is basically
the heart of hostile workenvironment law.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
OK.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
When a court is looking at a case, they consider
everything.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Like what.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Like how often the behavior happened, how bad it
was, whether it was physical orjust verbal, and whether it
stopped the employee from doingtheir job.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
So it's not just about one comment or one
incident.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Right, usually has to be a pattern of behavior.
Ok, like one mean comment mightbe rude, but a constant stream
of insults is much more likelyto be seen as creating a hostile
environment.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
So like one off color joke probably isn't enough, but
being subjected to racist jokesall the time definitely could
be Exactly.
Ok cool.
The next concept is thereasonable person standard.
Oh yeah, that's a big one.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
So when the court talks about a reasonable person.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
who are they talking about exactly?
Well, the reasonable personstandard, oh yeah, that's a big
one.
So when the court talks about areasonable person, who are they
talking about exactly?
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Well, the reasonable person standard is basically a
way to be objective.
It's not just about how theperson bringing the lawsuit felt
.
The court tries to imagine howa typical reasonable person
would react in that situation.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
So it's not just about being overly sensitive.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Right, it has to be something that a normal person
would find offensive or abusive.
But here's an important pointthe reasonable person isn't
always totally neutral.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
OK, what do you mean?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
The court can also take into account the
perspective of someone whoshares the plaintiff's protected
characteristic.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Oh, that's interesting.
So, like in a racial harassmentcase, they might think about
how a reasonable person of thatsame race would feel.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Exactly Because what might seem like a harmless joke
to one person could be reallyhurtful to someone who's
experienced discrimination.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
That makes a lot of sense.
Ok, so we talked about employerliability with the Farragher
and Eller of cases, but the AIresearch really emphasizes this
again.
What's the main takeaway here?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
The big thing to remember is that employers can
be held responsible for hostilework environments created by
their supervisors and theirco-workers.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
By both.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Yeah, With supervisors it's more
straightforward, especially ifthe supervisor took some kind of
action against the employee,like demoting them.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Right.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
But even with co-work , though, the employer has a
responsibility.
If they knew, or should haveknown, about the harassment and
they didn't do anything, theycould be in trouble.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
So that's why it's so important for employers to have
clear reporting systems and totake all complaints seriously.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Exactly.
They can't just ignore it andhope it goes away.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
OK, and finally, let's revisit those protected
characteristics.
We listed them at the beginning, but now that we've talked
about all these cases, let'smake sure we're all clear on who
is actually protected underthese laws.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
So the main categories are race, sex,
religion, national origin, ageand disability.
Okay, and remember, because ofBostock, sex now includes sexual
orientation and gender identity.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Right, right.
So basically, if the harassmentis based on one of these things
, it's illegal.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
But if it's based on something else, even if it's
really mean, it might not be ahostile work environment legally
speaking.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Right, but it's important to note that some
states have laws that offer moreprotection than federal law.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Oh, that's a good point.
So it's always worth checkingwhat the laws are in your state.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Okay, now let's switch gears and think about
this from the employee'sperspective.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
So let's say someone thinks they're in a hostile work
environment, what should theydo?
Our AI research has some goodtips.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah, work environment what should they do?
Our AI research has some goodtips.
Yeah, the first thing isdocumentation.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Write everything down .
Speaker 2 (14:28):
As much as you can Dates times, what happened, who
was there?
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Like keep a journal.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Pretty much, because if you ever need to file a
complaint, having all thosedetails can be really helpful
Right, because it's hard toremember everything after the
fact Exactly.
And then the next big thing isreporting.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Tell someone.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yeah, follow your company's procedures for
reporting harassment.
Usually that means going toyour supervisor or HR.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
I know it can be scary, but it's important to
give your employer a chance tofix the problem.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Right.
What if the employer doesn't doanything, though?
Or what if the employee doesn'tfeel safe reporting it
internally?
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Well, in that case they can go to the EEOC, the
what the EEOC?
It stands for the EqualEmployment Opportunity
Commission.
It's the federal agency thatenforces all these
anti-discrimination laws.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
So an employee can file a complaint with them
directly.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Interesting, and our research mentions that there are
other resources too, right.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Yeah, a lot of states have their own agencies that
handle discrimination cases.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
So it's worth checking out what's available in
your area.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Right, and there are also legal aid organizations
that can help people who havebeen harassed, area Right and
there are also legal aidorganizations that can help
people who have been harassed.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
So there are options, but the main thing is document
everything and report it throughthe proper channels.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Exactly those are the most important first steps.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Okay, now let's get into some of the more nuanced
stuff.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Our AI research points out that context is
really important in these cases.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Yeah, context is everything.
What might be okay in oneworkplace could be totally
unacceptable in another.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Oh, interesting.
So it depends on the culture ofthe company.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Exactly, and the court will also look at whether
there's a history ofdiscrimination at the company.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
So it's not just about the specific incident,
it's about the whole environment.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
And another nuance is the power dynamics involved.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Like we were saying before, harassment from a
supervisor is taken moreseriously than harassment from a
coworker.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Because a supervisor has power over you.
They can affect your job.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Right, so their actions are more threatening.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Exactly, and we talked about quid pro quo
harassment before.
Can we just clarify thedifference between that and a
hostile work environment?
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Yeah, good point.
So quid pro quo is basicallywhen someone in a position of
power demands sexual favors inexchange for something job
related.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Right, like a promotion or a raise.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
OK, but a hostile work environment is more about
the overall atmosphere.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Exactly.
It's about whether theenvironment is so offensive or
abusive that it makes it hardfor someone to do their job.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
OK, so one is more transactional and the other is
about the overall climate.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
What about harassment from people who aren't actually
employees at the company?
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Oh yeah, Like customers or clients.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah, the AI research calls that third party
harassment.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Right, and employers can actually be held responsible
for that too.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
Really.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah, if they know about it and they don't do
anything to stop it.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
So they have a responsibility to protect their
employees from harassment, evenfrom outsiders.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Exactly.
They can't say oh well, itwasn't our employee, so it's not
our problem.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
OK, cool.
So now all this talk aboutproving a hostile work
environment makes me wonder howdo you actually prove that,
Especially since it can be sosubjective?
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Yeah, it's definitely tricky and that's one of the
biggest challenges with thesecases.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Like what.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Well, you have to balance protecting people from
real harassment with preventinglawsuits that are based on
nothing Right.
That's where the severe orpervasive standard and the
reasonable person standard comein.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Okay, and then there's the issue of how severe
the harassment is versus howoften it happens.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Right Like one really bad incident might be enough,
even if it only happened once.
But a bunch of smallerincidents can also add up to a
hostile environment if theyhappen all the time.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Oh, that's interesting.
So it's not just about theseverity, it's about the
frequency too.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Exactly.
And then there's the problem ofretaliation.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Oh yeah, that's when the employer punishes the
employee for reporting theharassment right.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Right and sadly that happens a lot and that can make
the whole situation even worse.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Absolutely.
And finally, the AI researchmentions some new challenges
like online harassment andintersectionality, like online
harassment and intersectionality.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
Yeah, those are big ones.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
So how are those changing the way we think about
hostile work environments?
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Well.
With more people workingremotely online, harassment is
becoming a bigger problem.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Right, because it's all happening online.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Exactly, and the courts are still figuring out
how to apply the law to thosesituations.
Okay and what aboutintersectionality?
So intersectionality is aboutrecognizing that people can
experience discrimination basedon multiple things at once.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Like being a woman and being black.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Exactly, and the courts are starting to pay more
attention to that because it'simportant to see the whole
picture.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Right, because someone might be experiencing
sexism and racism at the sametime.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Exactly, and that can make the harassment even worse.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
OK, so it seems like this is an area of law that's
constantly changing and evolving.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Totally.
As the workplace changes, thelaw has to change too.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
Okay, so for all you learners out there, let's recap.
What we've learned today Soundsgood.
First of all, a hostile workenvironment isn't just about
someone being mean to you atwork.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Right, it has to be more than that.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
It has to be a pattern of behavior that's
discriminatory, based on yourrace, sex, religion or other
protected characteristics.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
And it has to be severe or pervasive enough to
create a truly hostileenvironment.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
Right and we talked about all those landmark Supreme
Court cases that have shapedthis area of law.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
From Vinson all the way to Bostock.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yeah, and we went over some of the key concepts
like severe or pervasive, thereasonable person's standard and
what employers are responsiblefor.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
And don't forget about the practical stuff too.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Right Like document everything.
Know your company's policiesfor reporting harassment and
know that there are externalresources like the EEOC.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Exactly, there's help out there if you need it.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
Okay, so now here's something for you to think about
as you go about your day.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Okay, I'm ready.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
How is the changing nature of work like, with more
remote work and more focus ondiversity?
How is that going to affecthostile work environments in the
future?
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Oh, that's a good question.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Right Like.
What new challenges are wegoing to face when it comes to
defining and addressingharassment in these new contexts
?
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Something we all need to be thinking about.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Absolutely, because this is an area of law that's
not going away anytime soon, andunderstanding the basics is
crucial for everyone.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
All right.
Well, thanks for taking thisdeep dive with us.
We'll see you next time.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Anytime.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
See you later.
Okay, so today we're going deep on something I think
pretty much anyone who's everhad a job can relate to hostile
work environments.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
Yeah, for sure.
It's something that,unfortunately, a lot of people
have experienced at some point.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Absolutely and you know it's not always clear cut
what actually crosses that linelegally right, exactly.
Luckily, you guys have sent insome really interesting stuff
for us to dig into Some AIresearch that breaks down some
big legal cases and concepts,some AI research that breaks
down some big legal cases andconcepts.
Plus, we've got actual excerptsfrom Supreme Court rulings like
Bostock v Clayton County and OnKale v Sundan or offshore
(00:32):
services.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Yeah, those are some big ones.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
They are.
So our goal today is to makesense of all this dense legal
stuff and really give you asolid grasp on what actually
defines a hostile workenvironment under the law.
Speaker 2 (00:42):
Totally, because it goes way beyond just personality
clashes or the occasional badday at the office.
Right, there's this whole legalframework built up over decades
through laws and core positions, and we want to pull out the
most important parts so you canreally get the core principles.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
OK, so let's start with the foundation.
The AI research we got pointsout that this whole idea of a
hostile work environment as alegal concept really comes from
federal laws, and the big one isTitle VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Right and Title VIII.
When it first came out, youknow, it basically prohibited
discrimination based on race,color, religion, sex, national
origin.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
The basics.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
Yeah, but the courts have been interpreting it for
years.
You know, through all thesedifferent cases and that's
really how they've clarified youknow exactly how discrimination
can show up in the workplaceand that includes, you know,
creating a hostile or abusiveenvironment for people.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
And it's important to remember that those original
categories aren't the only onesthat are protected now, right.
Speaker 2 (01:36):
Oh, definitely not.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
The AI research even points out that hostile work
environment claims can involvediscrimination based on age and
disability.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
And then we've got, you know, Bostock v Clayton
County, which I feel like was areally big turning point.
Speaker 2 (01:49):
Yeah, bostock was huge.
I mean, what's so interestingabout it is how it really
expanded.
How we think about sex-baseddiscrimination Right, like the
case itself focused on firingsomeone from their job based on
discrimination.
But the Supreme Court wentfurther than that Right.
They said discriminatingagainst someone because of their
sexual orientation or genderidentity is basically like
(02:10):
discriminating against thembased on sex.
It's like you can't separatethose things.
Speaker 1 (02:15):
Oh, that's interesting.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Right and that has huge implications for hostile
work environment cases, becausenow if someone is being harassed
because they're gay ortransgender, it's clear that
could be seen as illegaldiscrimination.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Creating that hostile environment.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
Exactly so.
You know, the law'sunderstanding of this stuff
keeps evolving.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
OK.
So one of the big takeawaysfrom all this foundational stuff
is that it really puts a lot ofresponsibility on employers.
Speaker 2 (02:38):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Like our AI sources are really clear that they need
to have these clear policiesagainst harassment and then ways
for employees to reportproblems.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
Yeah, they can't just like have a suggestion box and
call it a day.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
Right.
Speaker 2 (02:50):
You know this is crucial stuff and as we get into
the Supreme Court cases you'llsee that having these policies
can actually make a differencein whether an employer is held
responsible in court.
Speaker 1 (03:00):
OK, perfect segue, because that's exactly what I
want to talk about next thesebig Supreme Court cases.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Yeah, let's do it.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
The AI research lays out some of the most important
decisions kind ofchronologically.
So let's start with MeredithSavings Bank v Vinson back in
1986.
This one feels like a realcornerstone.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
It really is.
Vinson kind of revolutionizedthings, because it was the first
time the Supreme Court saidstraight up that sexual
harassment creating a hostilework environment is a form of
sex discrimination under TitleVII.
Oh wow, and before this, youknow, people thought sexual
harassment only really matteredlegally if it had a direct
economic impact.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Like you lose your job.
Exactly Because you wouldn't,you know, sleep with your boss.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Right, or you know you get demoted or something.
But Vinson said, even ifthere's no financial harm, if
the harassment makes theworkplace hostile and abusive,
that's illegal discriminationtoo.
Speaker 1 (03:47):
So it shifted the focus to like how it affects you
as an employee, like yourability to actually do your job
in this environment.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Right, it's not just about the money.
It's about being able tofunction in a safe and
respectful workplace.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
OK, so it doesn't have to be like if you do this,
I'll give you a promotion, kindof thing.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Right.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Just making people feel really uncomfortable and
unsafe, that can be enough.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
OK, cool.
So next up we've got Harris vForklift Systems Inc.
In 1993, and this one seems toreally clarify what makes a
workplace hoster.
Speaker 2 (04:17):
Yeah, Harris is a big one because it dealt with how
bad does the harassment have tobe to actually be illegal?
Speaker 1 (04:23):
Right, Like where's the line?
Speaker 2 (04:24):
Exactly, and the court basically said you don't
have to prove that you've beenpsychologically damaged or
anything.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Oh, interesting.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
What matters is whether the environment is
objectively abusive.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Meaning.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Meaning like would a reasonable person in that
situation find it hostile?
Speaker 1 (04:37):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (04:37):
And subjectively abusive, meaning you, the person
who's experiencing it, alsofeel that way, so it's like a
two-part test.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Objective and subjective.
That's a really helpful way tothink about it.
Right, it's not just aboutsomeone being overly sensitive,
but it also says, hey, even ifsomeone seems tough on the
outside, they still deserve aworkplace that's not abusive.
Speaker 2 (04:54):
Absolutely.
Everyone deserves to feel safeand respected at work.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Okay, so moving on, we've got two cases that were
decided at the same time in 1998, Farragher v City of Boca Raton
and Burlington Industries Ing vEller.
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Oh yeah, those are both really important.
Speaker 1 (05:09):
And they both deal with when an employer can be
held responsible for harassmentby a supervisor.
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:15):
So why two separate cases at the same time?
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Well, it's because the court wanted to really
clarify the rules aroundemployer liability.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (05:22):
You know when are they on the hook for the actions
of their supervisors and themain takeaway is that they can
be held responsible even if theemployee doesn't like lose their
job or get demoted.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
So even if there's no direct like negative action
taken against them, Exactly Justcreating that hostile
environment is enough.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
But and this is a big but these cases also gave
employers a way to defendthemselves.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
OK, so like a loophole.
Speaker 2 (05:45):
Well, not a loophole, exactly More like an
affirmative defense.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
OK, tell me more about that.
Speaker 2 (05:49):
So an employer can say hey, we're not liable
because we took steps to preventharassment and we have a system
for reporting it.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
So like they have to show they have clear policies in
place and that they actuallytake complaints seriously, Right
, and they also have to showthat the employee didn't use
those systems to report theharassment.
Oh, so it puts someresponsibility on the employee
too.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
Exactly, it's like a two-way street the employer has
to set up the safety net and theemployee has to actually use it
.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
Okay, that makes sense.
It encourages both sides to beproactive.
Speaker 2 (06:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
So then also in 1998, we have another really
important case Oncale vSundowner Offshore Services Inc.
Speaker 2 (06:23):
Ah Oncale.
Speaker 1 (06:24):
And the excerpt you sent really focused on this one.
So tell me, why is this one sosignificant?
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Well, OnKale dealt with a pretty fundamental
question.
Can someone be harassed bysomeone of the same sex and
still have a claim under TitleVII?
Speaker 1 (06:37):
Like same-sex harassment.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
Exactly and the Supreme Court said yes, they
were very clear about that.
Interesting.
The law says you can'tdiscriminate because of dot sex
and the court basically saidthat harassment can be based on
sex even if the harasser and thevictim are the same gender.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
So it doesn't matter if there's like a sexual
attraction thing going on.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Right.
It's about whether theharassment happened because of
the victim's sex and whether itcould get at a hostile
environment.
Got it, and the excerpt we havereally emphasizes that the key
is whether one sex is beingtreated worse than the other.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
OK, that's a really important clarification.
It basically says that genderbased hostility, even if it's
not like sexual in nature, canstill be illegal.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
OK, moving right along, Our AI research talks
about National RailroadPassenger Corporation v Morgan
from 2002.
And this one deals with thetimeline for bringing these
hostile work environment claims,which sounds kind of technical
but also really important.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
Oh, it is super important because, you know,
harassment often happens over aperiod of time, right, it's not
just one single incident.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
Right, like a pattern of behavior.
Speaker 2 (07:40):
Exactly so.
Morgan dealt with the questionof like when can an employee
actually file a lawsuit based onall this stuff that's been
going on, and the court came upwith this thing called the
continuing violation doctrine.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Okay, and what does that mean in plain English?
Speaker 2 (07:54):
Basically it means that as long as at least one of
the incidents that contributedto the hostile work environment
happened within a certain timeperiod, the whole period of
harassment can be considered.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Oh, that's interesting.
So even if some of the stuffhappened a long time ago, if it
was part of this ongoing pattern, it can still be relevant.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Exactly, and that's really important, because it
stops employers from saying, oh,that happened too long ago, you
can't sue us for that.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:16):
If it was all part of the same hostile environment,
it could still be part of thecase.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
OK, that makes sense.
And then next PennsylvaniaState Police v Suitors in 2004.
Oh yeah, suitors is aninteresting one.
This one introduces the idea ofconstructive discharge.
So tell me, what is that?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
exactly.
The constructive discharge isbasically when an employer makes
the working condition so badthat a reasonable person would
feel like they had to quit.
Speaker 1 (08:39):
So they're not technically fired, but they're
basically forced out.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Exactly and Suitors said that if an employee quits
because of really bad harassment, they can actually claim
constructive discharge and suethe employer.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Wow.
So the employer can't just makesomeone's life a living hell
and then say, oh well, they quit, we didn't fire them.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
Right.
Speaker 1 (08:57):
They can still be held responsible.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (08:59):
OK.
And then we have Vanspeed BallState University in 2013, which
clarifies who's actuallyconsidered a supervisor when it
comes to employer liabilityRight.
Why was that distinction soimportant?
Speaker 2 (09:11):
Well, because there's a big legal difference between
a supervisor and a coworker.
Speaker 1 (09:14):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
When it comes to a supervisor, the employer is
pretty much automaticallyresponsible for their actions.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
But not for a coworker.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Well, it depends.
If it's a coworker, theemployer is usually only liable
if they knew about theharassment and didn't do
anything to stop it.
Speaker 1 (09:27):
Oh OK.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
So Vance really narrowed down the definition of
a supervisor.
They said it has to be someonewho has the power to hire, fire,
promote, demote things likethat.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
So someone with real authority over you.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:38):
OK, that makes sense.
Now our AI research alsomentions a few other important
cases, like EEOCV, MitsubishiMotor Manufacturing of America,
which was one of the biggestsexual harassment class action
lawsuits ever.
Speaker 2 (09:50):
Oh, yeah, that one was huge.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
Like a massive settler.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
I think it was over 30 million dollars.
Speaker 1 (09:54):
Yeah, something like that.
It really shows how much notdealing with these issues can
cost a company.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
For sure, both financially and in terms of
their reputation.
Speaker 1 (10:02):
Absolutely.
Then there's Nichols v AztecaRestaurant Enterprises Inc.
Which said that gender basedharassment isn't just about
sexual harassment.
Speaker 2 (10:11):
Yeah, that's an important one.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
It can be about not fitting into gender stereotypes
too.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
Like in that case, this guy was being harassed for
not being manly enough.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Exactly and the court said that's still illegal
discrimination.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Wow, OK.
And then there's Reeves v CWorldwide Inc.
Which said that even generaloffensive behavior can create a
hostile work environment.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
Right.
Speaker 1 (10:32):
It doesn't have to be targeted at a specific person.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
Exactly.
If it's just like a generallytoxic and offensive atmosphere,
that can be enough.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
OK.
So even if the jokes aren'tdirected at you, but they're
still like racist or sexist,that can be a problem.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
Totally.
Speaker 1 (10:45):
OK, cool, directed at you, but they're still like
racist or sexist.
That can be a problem.
Okay, cool.
And then our AI research evenmentions one of the earliest
cases Henson v City of Dundee,which was one of the first to
say that a hostile workenvironment created by sexual
harassment is a form of sexdiscrimination.
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Yeah, Henson was a groundbreaking case.
It really set the stage for allthe cases that came after.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
So it's really interesting to see how this
whole area of law has developedover time.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Okay, so we've covered a lot of ground with
these cases.
Now let's zoom in on some ofthe key legal concepts that keep
popping up, as highlighted inour AI research.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
Sounds good.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
The first one is this severe or pervasive harassment
standard that we touched onearlier with the Harris case.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Right.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
So tell me more about what that actually means in
practice.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Well, the severe or pervasive standard is basically
the heart of hostile workenvironment law.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
OK.
Speaker 2 (11:29):
When a court is looking at a case, they consider
everything.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Like what.
Speaker 2 (11:33):
Like how often the behavior happened, how bad it
was, whether it was physical orjust verbal, and whether it
stopped the employee from doingtheir job.
Speaker 1 (11:40):
So it's not just about one comment or one
incident.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
Right, usually has to be a pattern of behavior.
Ok, like one mean comment mightbe rude, but a constant stream
of insults is much more likelyto be seen as creating a hostile
environment.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
So like one off color joke probably isn't enough, but
being subjected to racist jokesall the time definitely could
be Exactly.
Ok cool.
The next concept is thereasonable person standard.
Oh yeah, that's a big one.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
So when the court talks about a reasonable person.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
who are they talking about exactly?
Well, the reasonable personstandard, oh yeah, that's a big
one.
So when the court talks about areasonable person, who are they
talking about exactly?
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Well, the reasonable person standard is basically a
way to be objective.
It's not just about how theperson bringing the lawsuit felt
.
The court tries to imagine howa typical reasonable person
would react in that situation.
Speaker 1 (12:19):
So it's not just about being overly sensitive.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
Right, it has to be something that a normal person
would find offensive or abusive.
But here's an important pointthe reasonable person isn't
always totally neutral.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
OK, what do you mean?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
The court can also take into account the
perspective of someone whoshares the plaintiff's protected
characteristic.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
Oh, that's interesting.
So, like in a racial harassmentcase, they might think about
how a reasonable person of thatsame race would feel.
Speaker 2 (12:43):
Exactly Because what might seem like a harmless joke
to one person could be reallyhurtful to someone who's
experienced discrimination.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
That makes a lot of sense.
Ok, so we talked about employerliability with the Farragher
and Eller of cases, but the AIresearch really emphasizes this
again.
What's the main takeaway here?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
The big thing to remember is that employers can
be held responsible for hostilework environments created by
their supervisors and theirco-workers.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
By both.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Yeah, With supervisors it's more
straightforward, especially ifthe supervisor took some kind of
action against the employee,like demoting them.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
Right.
Speaker 2 (13:16):
But even with co-work , though, the employer has a
responsibility.
If they knew, or should haveknown, about the harassment and
they didn't do anything, theycould be in trouble.
Speaker 1 (13:24):
So that's why it's so important for employers to have
clear reporting systems and totake all complaints seriously.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
Exactly.
They can't just ignore it andhope it goes away.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
OK, and finally, let's revisit those protected
characteristics.
We listed them at the beginning, but now that we've talked
about all these cases, let'smake sure we're all clear on who
is actually protected underthese laws.
Speaker 2 (13:41):
So the main categories are race, sex,
religion, national origin, ageand disability.
Okay, and remember, because ofBostock, sex now includes sexual
orientation and gender identity.
Speaker 1 (13:54):
Right, right.
So basically, if the harassmentis based on one of these things
, it's illegal.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (13:58):
But if it's based on something else, even if it's
really mean, it might not be ahostile work environment legally
speaking.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Right, but it's important to note that some
states have laws that offer moreprotection than federal law.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Oh, that's a good point.
So it's always worth checkingwhat the laws are in your state.
Speaker 2 (14:14):
For sure.
Speaker 1 (14:15):
Okay, now let's switch gears and think about
this from the employee'sperspective.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
So let's say someone thinks they're in a hostile work
environment, what should theydo?
Our AI research has some goodtips.
Speaker 2 (14:25):
Yeah, work environment what should they do?
Our AI research has some goodtips.
Yeah, the first thing isdocumentation.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Write everything down .
Speaker 2 (14:28):
As much as you can Dates times, what happened, who
was there?
Speaker 1 (14:31):
Like keep a journal.
Speaker 2 (14:33):
Pretty much, because if you ever need to file a
complaint, having all thosedetails can be really helpful
Right, because it's hard toremember everything after the
fact Exactly.
And then the next big thing isreporting.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
Tell someone.
Speaker 2 (14:44):
Yeah, follow your company's procedures for
reporting harassment.
Usually that means going toyour supervisor or HR.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
I know it can be scary, but it's important to
give your employer a chance tofix the problem.
Speaker 1 (14:54):
Right.
What if the employer doesn't doanything, though?
Or what if the employee doesn'tfeel safe reporting it
internally?
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Well, in that case they can go to the EEOC, the
what the EEOC?
It stands for the EqualEmployment Opportunity
Commission.
It's the federal agency thatenforces all these
anti-discrimination laws.
Speaker 1 (15:11):
Oh, okay.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
So an employee can file a complaint with them
directly.
Speaker 1 (15:15):
Interesting, and our research mentions that there are
other resources too, right.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Yeah, a lot of states have their own agencies that
handle discrimination cases.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
So it's worth checking out what's available in
your area.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
Right, and there are also legal aid organizations
that can help people who havebeen harassed, area Right and
there are also legal aidorganizations that can help
people who have been harassed.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
So there are options, but the main thing is document
everything and report it throughthe proper channels.
Speaker 2 (15:35):
Exactly those are the most important first steps.
Speaker 1 (15:37):
Okay, now let's get into some of the more nuanced
stuff.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (15:40):
Our AI research points out that context is
really important in these cases.
Speaker 2 (15:43):
Yeah, context is everything.
What might be okay in oneworkplace could be totally
unacceptable in another.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Oh, interesting.
So it depends on the culture ofthe company.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Exactly, and the court will also look at whether
there's a history ofdiscrimination at the company.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
So it's not just about the specific incident,
it's about the whole environment.
Speaker 2 (15:59):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
And another nuance is the power dynamics involved.
Speaker 2 (16:03):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (16:03):
Like we were saying before, harassment from a
supervisor is taken moreseriously than harassment from a
coworker.
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Because a supervisor has power over you.
They can affect your job.
Speaker 1 (16:12):
Right, so their actions are more threatening.
Speaker 2 (16:14):
Exactly, and we talked about quid pro quo
harassment before.
Can we just clarify thedifference between that and a
hostile work environment?
Speaker 1 (16:21):
Yeah, good point.
So quid pro quo is basicallywhen someone in a position of
power demands sexual favors inexchange for something job
related.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Right, like a promotion or a raise.
Speaker 1 (16:30):
OK, but a hostile work environment is more about
the overall atmosphere.
Speaker 2 (16:35):
Exactly.
It's about whether theenvironment is so offensive or
abusive that it makes it hardfor someone to do their job.
Speaker 1 (16:41):
OK, so one is more transactional and the other is
about the overall climate.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
What about harassment from people who aren't actually
employees at the company?
Speaker 2 (16:49):
Oh yeah, Like customers or clients.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Yeah, the AI research calls that third party
harassment.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Right, and employers can actually be held responsible
for that too.
Speaker 1 (16:57):
Really.
Speaker 2 (16:57):
Yeah, if they know about it and they don't do
anything to stop it.
Speaker 1 (17:00):
So they have a responsibility to protect their
employees from harassment, evenfrom outsiders.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Exactly.
They can't say oh well, itwasn't our employee, so it's not
our problem.
Speaker 1 (17:08):
OK, cool.
So now all this talk aboutproving a hostile work
environment makes me wonder howdo you actually prove that,
Especially since it can be sosubjective?
Speaker 2 (17:16):
Yeah, it's definitely tricky and that's one of the
biggest challenges with thesecases.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Like what.
Speaker 2 (17:21):
Well, you have to balance protecting people from
real harassment with preventinglawsuits that are based on
nothing Right.
That's where the severe orpervasive standard and the
reasonable person standard comein.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
Okay, and then there's the issue of how severe
the harassment is versus howoften it happens.
Speaker 2 (17:36):
Right Like one really bad incident might be enough,
even if it only happened once.
But a bunch of smallerincidents can also add up to a
hostile environment if theyhappen all the time.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Oh, that's interesting.
So it's not just about theseverity, it's about the
frequency too.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Exactly.
And then there's the problem ofretaliation.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Oh yeah, that's when the employer punishes the
employee for reporting theharassment right.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
Right and sadly that happens a lot and that can make
the whole situation even worse.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Absolutely.
And finally, the AI researchmentions some new challenges
like online harassment andintersectionality, like online
harassment and intersectionality.
Speaker 2 (18:07):
Yeah, those are big ones.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
So how are those changing the way we think about
hostile work environments?
Speaker 2 (18:12):
Well.
With more people workingremotely online, harassment is
becoming a bigger problem.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Right, because it's all happening online.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Exactly, and the courts are still figuring out
how to apply the law to thosesituations.
Okay and what aboutintersectionality?
So intersectionality is aboutrecognizing that people can
experience discrimination basedon multiple things at once.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Like being a woman and being black.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
Exactly, and the courts are starting to pay more
attention to that because it'simportant to see the whole
picture.
Speaker 1 (18:38):
Right, because someone might be experiencing
sexism and racism at the sametime.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Exactly, and that can make the harassment even worse.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
OK, so it seems like this is an area of law that's
constantly changing and evolving.
Speaker 2 (18:49):
Totally.
As the workplace changes, thelaw has to change too.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
Okay, so for all you learners out there, let's recap.
What we've learned today Soundsgood.
First of all, a hostile workenvironment isn't just about
someone being mean to you atwork.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
Right, it has to be more than that.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
It has to be a pattern of behavior that's
discriminatory, based on yourrace, sex, religion or other
protected characteristics.
Speaker 2 (19:08):
And it has to be severe or pervasive enough to
create a truly hostileenvironment.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
Right and we talked about all those landmark Supreme
Court cases that have shapedthis area of law.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
From Vinson all the way to Bostock.
Speaker 1 (19:20):
Yeah, and we went over some of the key concepts
like severe or pervasive, thereasonable person's standard and
what employers are responsiblefor.
Speaker 2 (19:27):
And don't forget about the practical stuff too.
Speaker 1 (19:29):
Right Like document everything.
Know your company's policiesfor reporting harassment and
know that there are externalresources like the EEOC.
Speaker 2 (19:37):
Exactly, there's help out there if you need it.
Speaker 1 (19:39):
Okay, so now here's something for you to think about
as you go about your day.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
Okay, I'm ready.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
How is the changing nature of work like, with more
remote work and more focus ondiversity?
How is that going to affecthostile work environments in the
future?
Speaker 2 (19:53):
Oh, that's a good question.
Speaker 1 (19:54):
Right Like.
What new challenges are wegoing to face when it comes to
defining and addressingharassment in these new contexts
?
Speaker 2 (20:01):
Something we all need to be thinking about.
Speaker 1 (20:03):
Absolutely, because this is an area of law that's
not going away anytime soon, andunderstanding the basics is
crucial for everyone.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
I agree.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
All right.
Well, thanks for taking thisdeep dive with us.
We'll see you next time.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
Yeah, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (20:14):
Anytime.
Speaker 2 (20:15):
See you later.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.