March 24, 2025 • 17 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!
Landmark legal decisions have fundamentally shaped how we understand workplace harassment and discrimination, yet many employees remain unclear about their rights. In this eye-opening episode, we break down three pivotal Supreme Court cases that define what constitutes illegal behavior at work.
The Harris v. Forklift Systems case established that harassment doesn't require psychological breakdown to be illegal - a crucial shift that protects workers before they reach crisis point. We explore how this case changed the focus from requiring mental injury to examining whether a reasonable person would find an environment hostile or abusive.
Our conversation then turns to Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, which confirmed that same-sex harassment is equally prohibited under Title VII. This groundbreaking decision clarified that harassment isn't about who's attracted to whom - it's about whether someone faces differential treatment because of their sex, regardless of the harasser's gender.
Finally, we dissect Vance v. Ball State University, which narrowly defined who qualifies as a "supervisor" in harassment cases - a distinction that significantly impacts employer liability. We examine the practical implications of this ruling and why it matters for accountability in the workplace.
Beyond legal analysis, we reflect on broader questions about creating truly inclusive workplaces that go beyond minimum compliance. These cases provide essential guideposts for understanding workplace rights, but building respectful environments requires more than following legal rules - it demands active commitment from each of us.
What can you do to foster a workplace where everyone feels valued and respected? Listen now to understand your rights and responsibilities in creating healthier work environments.
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):
All right, Welcome back to the Deep Jive.
Today we're going to betackling a topic that
unfortunately, I think, affectsa lot of people out there.
We're talking about workplaceharassment and discrimination.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Absolutely yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And to help make sense of it all, we've rounded
up some I guess you could callthem landmark legal cases, ones
that have really helped definewhat constitutes illegal
behavior at work.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yeah, exactly Because you know the law, it can be a
bit of a maze to navigate, butthese cases, these cases offer
these like real world examples,you know, examples that help us
see the principles in action.
So think of this as like acheat sheet to understanding the
basics.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Yeah, so we're not going to get bogged down in the
complexities of the law today.
We're going to really just tryto cut to the chase.
Keep it straightforward andunderstandable.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
That's the goal.
We want you to walk away with aclear grasp of these concepts
you know, so that you canidentify and understand.
You know what's acceptable inthe workplace and what crosses
the line.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Exactly so.
We'll be focusing on threespecific cases today.
The first one is Harris vForklift Systems Inc.
The second one is Oncale vSundowner Offshore Services, and
then, finally, we'll be lookingat Vance v Ball State
University.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Three really important cases that have had a
really big impact on how we viewharassment and discrimination
in the workplace today.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Yeah, and hopefully by the end of this deep dive,
you'll have a much betterunderstanding of this entire
well, yeah, this entire topic.
So, okay, let's start off withour first case Harris v Forklift
Systems Hank.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Okay, so Harris, this case was decided by the Supreme
Court in 1993, and it actuallyended up setting a really
crucial precedent for how wedefine a hostile work
environment.
The case revolved around TeresaHarris, who decided to sue her
employer, Forklift Systems,because she was alleging that
(01:51):
her boss, the company president,was creating a hostile work
environment for her specificallybecause of her gender.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Yeah, and from what I understand, I mean this
president's behavior was prettyegregious, right, like we're
talking repeated insults,demeaning comments, you know,
really targeted and offensivestuff.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Yeah, absolutely, and so the question that really
came up for the court waswhether you have to show actual
psychological harm, you know,like a diagnosable injury, to be
able to make a claim about anabusive work environment.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, like, do you have to actually be like
clinically depressed orsomething because of what's
happening at work for it tocount?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Right and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
They initially sided with thecompany, really, yeah, yeah.
Essentially they said that inorder for Harris to win her case
, she needed to prove that theharassment directly caused her
to suffer some kind ofpsychological injury.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
So basically they were saying toughen up buttercup
.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Kind of yeah, it's a pretty high bar to clear right.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
It does seem like they were setting a pretty,
pretty high bar.
I mean, you can imagine beingin a situation where, like
you're facing constantharassment.
It's making you miserable, butmaybe you haven't reached a
point of like a full blownbreakdown.
You know.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Exactly, and, and that's where the Supreme Court
comes in they actually reversedthat decision.
Exactly, and and that's wherethe Supreme Court comes in they
actually reversed that decision.
Their reasoning was really keyhere, so they pointed to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Which basically prevents discrimination based on
sex in the workplace.
And they said this act, thisact comes into play before
somebody has a nervous breakdown.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Oh, ok, interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Like it doesn't?
You don't have to wait until itgets to that point.
Right, so you don't have to becompletely debilitated by it in
order for it to be illegal.
So they were saying you don'thave to wait till things get
super extreme to recognize thatsomething's wrong, right, that's
exactly it.
That makes sense.
Yeah, the court reallyemphasized that the point of
this law is to preventdiscrimination.
You know, it's about creatingfair workplaces, not about
(03:46):
waiting till somebody iscompletely broken down and then
stepping in.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Gotcha.
I mean, that's kind of likesaying you know, it's better to
prevent a fire than to waituntil the whole house burns down
before you call the firedepartment.
Right, perfect analogy, yeah.
So where's the line, though?
Like how do we distinguishbetween something that's just
like I don't know?
A?
Speaker 2 (04:13):
little annoying or offensive versus something
that's actually creating ahostile or abusive environment
in a legal sense.
Yeah, that's a great questionand you know, the court
recognized that a singleinstance, like just one off
color joke or one offensivecomment, that alone probably
wouldn't violate Title VII, youknow.
But it's when those comments orbehaviors become a pattern,
when they're sustained, repeatedand there's specifically
targeting you, you know, basedon your gender, your race or
(04:35):
whatever it might be, then itcrosses that line.
It's the difference between oneoffhand remark and a consistent
pattern of targeted harassment.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
So it's kind of about the cumulative effect, right.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
The more it happens, the more pervasive it is, the
more likely it is to beconsidered illegal harassment.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Exactly, and the court was really specific about
this.
They said that it needs to bejudged from the perspective of a
reasonable person.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
So it's not just about how the victim feels.
It's about whether a reasonableperson in that situation would
find it hostile or abusive aswell.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
So you're saying both perspectives matter.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Absolutely has to be both.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Gotcha.
So I mean this Harris case.
It really did have a hugeimpact on how we understand
these types of claims goingforward.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Right, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
It shifted the focus away from just the victim's
mental state.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
And it made it more about looking at the work
environment itself.
Like is this a place where anyreasonable person would feel
harassed or discriminatedagainst?
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Exactly so.
For our listeners out there,this is so important to remember
.
You don't have to have a mentalbreakdown, you don't have to
reach that point of crisis forharassment to be illegal, and if
you're experiencing itaddressing's.
Move on to our second case, onCali v Sundowner Offshore
Services.
Ok, so on Cali.
(06:04):
This case really digs into adifferent but equally critical
question about workplaceharassment.
It was decided in 1998 and youknow it dealt with this issue,
Whether Title VII, which is thelaw we talked about earlier,
whether that law's protectionagainst discrimination also
extends to same-sex harassment.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Oh, interesting.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yeah, so Joseph Onkale.
He was the plaintiff in thiscase.
He worked for SundownerOffshore Services and he claimed
he was being sexually harassedby some of his male co-workers.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
he was being sexually harassed by some of his male
co-workers.
Ok, so I mean, to me it seemskind of obvious that harassment
is harassment regardless of thegenders of the people involved,
but I guess back then it wasn'tso clear cut.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
You're right.
You'd think it'd bestraightforward, but back then
it wasn't.
The lower courts actually ruledagainst on Cal.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Wow, really.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Yeah, they said that Title VII just didn't apply in
situations of same sexharassment.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Oh, wow.
So back then they basicallysaid it was OK for men to harass
other men because it wasn'tcovered under the law.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Essentially, yeah, and that obviously that doesn't
seem right, does it?
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Yeah, it seems like that's just like inherently
discriminatory.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
And the Supreme Court thought so too.
They overturned the lowercourt's decision, you know.
They said very clearly thatTitle VII does apply to
situations of same-sexharassment.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
That's good yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
And they were really clear about their reasoning.
They said the key factor toconsider isn't about who is
doing the harassing and who'sbeing harassed in terms of their
genders.
It's about whether someone isbeing treated differently you
know, worse because of their sex.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Oh, that's interesting.
So it's not about the gendersof the people involved.
It's about whether the behavioris creating a discriminatory
environment based on sex.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Like, for example, if you have a group of men who are
constantly bullying another manyou know and they treat women
in the workplace totallydifferently, that could be
considered same-sex harassment.
Oh, okay.
It's because they're treatinghim differently because he's a
man.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Gotcha.
So it's really about the impactof the behavior, not just the
intent, like if you're creatinga hostile environment for
someone because of their sex, itdoesn't matter if you're
attracted to them or not.
Right, right.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Right, and the court made a really important point
here.
They said you know, even thoughthe law is about sex
discrimination, the harassingbehavior doesn't actually have
to be motivated by sexual desire.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Oh, that's a good distinction.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Yeah, and they even went on to give examples of what
would count as same-sexharassment that could be
actionable under the law.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Oh, like what kind of thing?
Speaker 2 (08:38):
But they also talked about situations where you know
someone's being harassed becausethe harasser just generally has
a problem with people of thesame sex being in the workplace
at all, like they have a deepseated bias.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
And they also mentioned, you know, looking at
how the alleged harasser treatspeople of different genders in
the workplace.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
So if they're treating people of one gender
worse than another.
That can be evidence ofdiscrimination.
So let me see if I get this.
Let's say there's a guy at workwho's always putting down and
undermining his male colleagues,but he treats women completely
differently.
Could that be seen as same-sexharassment, like rooted in this
idea that he doesn't think menshould be in that kind of role
or environment?
Speaker 2 (09:20):
That's a really good example.
Yeah, that's exactly the kindof situation the court was
talking about.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
OK, wow, it's amazing how much nuance there is in
this whole area of the law andthis Uncall case it was a
landmark case, right.
It really helped clarify thatharassment is about the impact
it has on the victim, not aboutwho the harasser is or what
their motivations might be.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Yeah, absolutely.
It really broadened ourunderstanding of harassment.
It's not just about unwantedsexual advances.
An employer can be heldresponsible.
Woman who worked in catering atBall State University and she
said she was facing racialharassment from a white coworker
named Sondra Davis.
Right and the big legal issuehere, the issue that made it all
the way to the Supreme Court,was whether Davis, this coworker
(10:33):
, should actually be legallyconsidered Vance's supervisor.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
Okay.
So I'm curious why was thisdistinction between a supervisor
and just a coworker soimportant?
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Well, because, under the law, employers have a higher
level of responsibility whenthe harassment is coming from a
supervisor and just a co-workerso important.
Well, because, under the law,employers have a higher level of
responsibility when theharassment is coming from a
supervisor.
Oh, OK, you know they can beheld more directly accountable.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
I see.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
It's called vicarious liability.
Basically it means the employeris liable for the supervisor's
actions because the supervisoris acting on behalf of the
employer.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
So the legal standards for holding an
employer accountable aredifferent depending on whether
the harasser was a supervisor orjust a co-worker.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Exactly.
And in Vance's case, theSeventh Circuit Court of Appeals
, they said nope, davis wasn't asupervisor.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Oh OK.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
And the Supreme Court .
When they looked at the case,they agreed.
They actually ended up usingthis case to set a very specific
, narrower definition of what asupervisor actually means in
these kinds of cases.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
And what was their reasoning for for narrowing that
definition?
It seems like that was a keypart of their decision.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Right.
They were really concerned withclarity.
They wanted to make it reallyclear who fit into that category
.
So, according to the SupremeCourt, a supervisor is someone
who has the power to takeconcrete actions that affect
your job.
You know like they can hire you, fire you, promote you, demote,
you give you a raise, changeyour job duty significantly or
even affect your benefits.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
So it's not just about being a boss in like a
general sense.
It's specifically about havingthe authority to make big,
impactful decisions aboutsomeone's employment.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
That's exactly it.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
OK.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
The Supreme Court actually rejected a broader
definition that would haveincluded people who, just you
know, direct your daily tasks.
You know, like if someone cantell you what to do every day
but they don't have that powerto hire or fire.
The Supreme Court said well,that doesn't make them a
supervisor for the purposes ofharassment law.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Oh, ok, so they really drew a bright line there,
huh.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Yeah, they were all about clarity and their
reasoning.
Their reasoning was that byhaving a very specific
definition, it makes it easierfor judges to make decisions
about whether an employer can beheld responsible.
You know, it takes some of theambiguity out of it.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Yeah, I could see how that would make things a bit
more straightforward from alegal perspective.
But I mean, does it raise anyconcerns?
Like, what about situationswhere someone might not have the
official power to hire or fire,but they still have a lot of
influence, you know like what ifthey can make your life at work
miserable, even if they can'ttechnically fire you?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
That's a really important point and, you know, a
lot of legal experts andemployee advocates have pointed
this out.
By narrowing the definition ofsupervisor, it could potentially
become harder to hold employersaccountable in certain
situations.
Oh interesting Right, becauseif the person harassing you
isn't officially your supervisor, you generally have to prove
(13:21):
that the employer was somehownegligent in addressing the
harassment, like you have toshow they knew about it and
didn't do enough to stop it.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
So this Vance case it's a reminder that it's really
important to understand who hasauthority over you in your
workplace Right and to be awareof how the formal structure of
your company can affect youroptions if you're facing
harassment or discrimination.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Exactly Because, even though employers still have an
overall responsibility tomaintain a workplace that's free
from harassment, no matterwho's doing the harassing the
legal standard for provingthey're directly responsible.
It gets tougher when theharasser isn't considered a
supervisor.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Okay, so let's take a moment to sort of recap what
we've learned from these threepretty groundbreaking cases.
Sure, so from Harris v ForkliftSystems we learned that
harassment doesn't have to causesome kind of severe
psychological breakdown to beconsidered illegal.
Right, right, it's enough for areasonable person to see the
behavior as hostile or abusive,and, of course, the person
(14:25):
experiencing it has to feel thatway too.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Right, it's about the environment itself, not just
the victim's internal state.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Then in Oncalby Sundowner Offshore Services.
That case really cemented theidea that same-sex harassment is
just as illegal as any otherkind of harassment.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
It's not about who's attracted to whom.
It's about whether someone isbeing treated differently
because of their sex, regardlessof the harasser's gender.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
That's a key takeaway .
Speaker 1 (14:49):
And then finally, in Vance v Ball State University,
we learned about the specificlegal definition of a supervisor
and how that definition isreally important in determining
whether an employer can be helddirectly responsible for the
harassment.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
And the court really focused on that authority to
make tangible employmentdecisions like hiring or firing.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Exactly.
So, taken together, these threecases really provide this like
framework for understandingworkplace harassment and
discrimination.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
They offer some really critical legal guidance,
but, as we all know, the worldis constantly changing, you know
and our understanding of whatconstitutes a truly respectful
(15:37):
and equitable workplace isevolving too.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
It's not just about checking boxes and meeting
minimum legal requirements.
So you know, let's think beyondthese specific cases.
What role can each of us playin building better workplace
cultures?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Yeah, that's the real question.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
How can we go beyond just compliance and really
actively create environmentswhere everyone feels like they
belong, like they're safe andlike their contributions are
valued?
What can we do individually andwhat can we do collectively to
make that happen?
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Big questions to think about.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Yeah, it's something worth considering for sure.
So thanks for joining us on theDeep Dive today and until next
time, keep those conversationsgoing.
All right, Welcome back to the Deep Jive.
Today we're going to betackling a topic that
unfortunately, I think, affectsa lot of people out there.
We're talking about workplaceharassment and discrimination.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
Absolutely yeah.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
And to help make sense of it all, we've rounded
up some I guess you could callthem landmark legal cases, ones
that have really helped definewhat constitutes illegal
behavior at work.
Speaker 2 (00:22):
Yeah, exactly Because you know the law, it can be a
bit of a maze to navigate, butthese cases, these cases offer
these like real world examples,you know, examples that help us
see the principles in action.
So think of this as like acheat sheet to understanding the
basics.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
Yeah, so we're not going to get bogged down in the
complexities of the law today.
We're going to really just tryto cut to the chase.
Keep it straightforward andunderstandable.
Speaker 2 (00:46):
That's the goal.
We want you to walk away with aclear grasp of these concepts
you know, so that you canidentify and understand.
You know what's acceptable inthe workplace and what crosses
the line.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Exactly so.
We'll be focusing on threespecific cases today.
The first one is Harris vForklift Systems Inc.
The second one is Oncale vSundowner Offshore Services, and
then, finally, we'll be lookingat Vance v Ball State
University.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
Three really important cases that have had a
really big impact on how we viewharassment and discrimination
in the workplace today.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
Yeah, and hopefully by the end of this deep dive,
you'll have a much betterunderstanding of this entire
well, yeah, this entire topic.
So, okay, let's start off withour first case Harris v Forklift
Systems Hank.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Okay, so Harris, this case was decided by the Supreme
Court in 1993, and it actuallyended up setting a really
crucial precedent for how wedefine a hostile work
environment.
The case revolved around TeresaHarris, who decided to sue her
employer, Forklift Systems,because she was alleging that
(01:51):
her boss, the company president,was creating a hostile work
environment for her specificallybecause of her gender.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Yeah, and from what I understand, I mean this
president's behavior was prettyegregious, right, like we're
talking repeated insults,demeaning comments, you know,
really targeted and offensivestuff.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
Yeah, absolutely, and so the question that really
came up for the court waswhether you have to show actual
psychological harm, you know,like a diagnosable injury, to be
able to make a claim about anabusive work environment.
Speaker 1 (02:18):
Yeah, like, do you have to actually be like
clinically depressed orsomething because of what's
happening at work for it tocount?
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Right and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
They initially sided with thecompany, really, yeah, yeah.
Essentially they said that inorder for Harris to win her case
, she needed to prove that theharassment directly caused her
to suffer some kind ofpsychological injury.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
So basically they were saying toughen up buttercup
.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Kind of yeah, it's a pretty high bar to clear right.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
It does seem like they were setting a pretty,
pretty high bar.
I mean, you can imagine beingin a situation where, like
you're facing constantharassment.
It's making you miserable, butmaybe you haven't reached a
point of like a full blownbreakdown.
You know.
Speaker 2 (02:59):
Exactly, and, and that's where the Supreme Court
comes in they actually reversedthat decision.
Exactly, and and that's wherethe Supreme Court comes in they
actually reversed that decision.
Their reasoning was really keyhere, so they pointed to Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (03:11):
Which basically prevents discrimination based on
sex in the workplace.
And they said this act, thisact comes into play before
somebody has a nervous breakdown.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
Oh, ok, interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:22):
Like it doesn't?
You don't have to wait until itgets to that point.
Right, so you don't have to becompletely debilitated by it in
order for it to be illegal.
So they were saying you don'thave to wait till things get
super extreme to recognize thatsomething's wrong, right, that's
exactly it.
That makes sense.
Yeah, the court reallyemphasized that the point of
this law is to preventdiscrimination.
You know, it's about creatingfair workplaces, not about
(03:46):
waiting till somebody iscompletely broken down and then
stepping in.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Gotcha.
I mean, that's kind of likesaying you know, it's better to
prevent a fire than to waituntil the whole house burns down
before you call the firedepartment.
Right, perfect analogy, yeah.
So where's the line, though?
Like how do we distinguishbetween something that's just
like I don't know?
A?
Speaker 2 (04:13):
little annoying or offensive versus something
that's actually creating ahostile or abusive environment
in a legal sense.
Yeah, that's a great questionand you know, the court
recognized that a singleinstance, like just one off
color joke or one offensivecomment, that alone probably
wouldn't violate Title VII, youknow.
But it's when those comments orbehaviors become a pattern,
when they're sustained, repeatedand there's specifically
targeting you, you know, basedon your gender, your race or
(04:35):
whatever it might be, then itcrosses that line.
It's the difference between oneoffhand remark and a consistent
pattern of targeted harassment.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
So it's kind of about the cumulative effect, right.
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (04:45):
The more it happens, the more pervasive it is, the
more likely it is to beconsidered illegal harassment.
Speaker 2 (04:50):
Exactly, and the court was really specific about
this.
They said that it needs to bejudged from the perspective of a
reasonable person.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Okay, yeah.
Speaker 2 (04:58):
So it's not just about how the victim feels.
It's about whether a reasonableperson in that situation would
find it hostile or abusive aswell.
Speaker 1 (05:07):
So you're saying both perspectives matter.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Absolutely has to be both.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
Gotcha.
So I mean this Harris case.
It really did have a hugeimpact on how we understand
these types of claims goingforward.
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Right, absolutely.
Speaker 1 (05:19):
It shifted the focus away from just the victim's
mental state.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Right.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
And it made it more about looking at the work
environment itself.
Like is this a place where anyreasonable person would feel
harassed or discriminatedagainst?
Speaker 2 (05:32):
Exactly so.
For our listeners out there,this is so important to remember
.
You don't have to have a mentalbreakdown, you don't have to
reach that point of crisis forharassment to be illegal, and if
you're experiencing itaddressing's.
Move on to our second case, onCali v Sundowner Offshore
Services.
Ok, so on Cali.
(06:04):
This case really digs into adifferent but equally critical
question about workplaceharassment.
It was decided in 1998 and youknow it dealt with this issue,
Whether Title VII, which is thelaw we talked about earlier,
whether that law's protectionagainst discrimination also
extends to same-sex harassment.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Oh, interesting.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yeah, so Joseph Onkale.
He was the plaintiff in thiscase.
He worked for SundownerOffshore Services and he claimed
he was being sexually harassedby some of his male co-workers.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
he was being sexually harassed by some of his male
co-workers.
Ok, so I mean, to me it seemskind of obvious that harassment
is harassment regardless of thegenders of the people involved,
but I guess back then it wasn'tso clear cut.
Speaker 2 (06:43):
You're right.
You'd think it'd bestraightforward, but back then
it wasn't.
The lower courts actually ruledagainst on Cal.
Speaker 1 (06:48):
Wow, really.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Yeah, they said that Title VII just didn't apply in
situations of same sexharassment.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
Oh, wow.
So back then they basicallysaid it was OK for men to harass
other men because it wasn'tcovered under the law.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
Essentially, yeah, and that obviously that doesn't
seem right, does it?
Speaker 1 (07:03):
Yeah, it seems like that's just like inherently
discriminatory.
Speaker 2 (07:06):
And the Supreme Court thought so too.
They overturned the lowercourt's decision, you know.
They said very clearly thatTitle VII does apply to
situations of same-sexharassment.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
That's good yeah.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
And they were really clear about their reasoning.
They said the key factor toconsider isn't about who is
doing the harassing and who'sbeing harassed in terms of their
genders.
It's about whether someone isbeing treated differently you
know, worse because of their sex.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Oh, that's interesting.
So it's not about the gendersof the people involved.
It's about whether the behavioris creating a discriminatory
environment based on sex.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
Like, for example, if you have a group of men who are
constantly bullying another manyou know and they treat women
in the workplace totallydifferently, that could be
considered same-sex harassment.
Oh, okay.
It's because they're treatinghim differently because he's a
man.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
Gotcha.
So it's really about the impactof the behavior, not just the
intent, like if you're creatinga hostile environment for
someone because of their sex, itdoesn't matter if you're
attracted to them or not.
Right, right.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Right, and the court made a really important point
here.
They said you know, even thoughthe law is about sex
discrimination, the harassingbehavior doesn't actually have
to be motivated by sexual desire.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
Oh, that's a good distinction.
Speaker 2 (08:22):
Yeah, and they even went on to give examples of what
would count as same-sexharassment that could be
actionable under the law.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
Oh, like what kind of thing?
Speaker 2 (08:38):
But they also talked about situations where you know
someone's being harassed becausethe harasser just generally has
a problem with people of thesame sex being in the workplace
at all, like they have a deepseated bias.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:50):
And they also mentioned, you know, looking at
how the alleged harasser treatspeople of different genders in
the workplace.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
So if they're treating people of one gender
worse than another.
That can be evidence ofdiscrimination.
So let me see if I get this.
Let's say there's a guy at workwho's always putting down and
undermining his male colleagues,but he treats women completely
differently.
Could that be seen as same-sexharassment, like rooted in this
idea that he doesn't think menshould be in that kind of role
or environment?
Speaker 2 (09:20):
That's a really good example.
Yeah, that's exactly the kindof situation the court was
talking about.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
OK, wow, it's amazing how much nuance there is in
this whole area of the law andthis Uncall case it was a
landmark case, right.
It really helped clarify thatharassment is about the impact
it has on the victim, not aboutwho the harasser is or what
their motivations might be.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Yeah, absolutely.
It really broadened ourunderstanding of harassment.
It's not just about unwantedsexual advances.
An employer can be heldresponsible.
Woman who worked in catering atBall State University and she
said she was facing racialharassment from a white coworker
named Sondra Davis.
Right and the big legal issuehere, the issue that made it all
the way to the Supreme Court,was whether Davis, this coworker
(10:33):
, should actually be legallyconsidered Vance's supervisor.
Speaker 1 (10:37):
Okay.
So I'm curious why was thisdistinction between a supervisor
and just a coworker soimportant?
Speaker 2 (10:43):
Well, because, under the law, employers have a higher
level of responsibility whenthe harassment is coming from a
supervisor and just a co-workerso important.
Well, because, under the law,employers have a higher level of
responsibility when theharassment is coming from a
supervisor.
Oh, OK, you know they can beheld more directly accountable.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
I see.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
It's called vicarious liability.
Basically it means the employeris liable for the supervisor's
actions because the supervisoris acting on behalf of the
employer.
Speaker 1 (11:03):
So the legal standards for holding an
employer accountable aredifferent depending on whether
the harasser was a supervisor orjust a co-worker.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
Exactly.
And in Vance's case, theSeventh Circuit Court of Appeals
, they said nope, davis wasn't asupervisor.
Speaker 1 (11:15):
Oh OK.
Speaker 2 (11:16):
And the Supreme Court .
When they looked at the case,they agreed.
They actually ended up usingthis case to set a very specific
, narrower definition of what asupervisor actually means in
these kinds of cases.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
And what was their reasoning for for narrowing that
definition?
It seems like that was a keypart of their decision.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Right.
They were really concerned withclarity.
They wanted to make it reallyclear who fit into that category
.
So, according to the SupremeCourt, a supervisor is someone
who has the power to takeconcrete actions that affect
your job.
You know like they can hire you, fire you, promote you, demote,
you give you a raise, changeyour job duty significantly or
even affect your benefits.
Speaker 1 (11:55):
So it's not just about being a boss in like a
general sense.
It's specifically about havingthe authority to make big,
impactful decisions aboutsomeone's employment.
Speaker 2 (12:05):
That's exactly it.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
OK.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
The Supreme Court actually rejected a broader
definition that would haveincluded people who, just you
know, direct your daily tasks.
You know, like if someone cantell you what to do every day
but they don't have that powerto hire or fire.
The Supreme Court said well,that doesn't make them a
supervisor for the purposes ofharassment law.
Speaker 1 (12:24):
Oh, ok, so they really drew a bright line there,
huh.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Yeah, they were all about clarity and their
reasoning.
Their reasoning was that byhaving a very specific
definition, it makes it easierfor judges to make decisions
about whether an employer can beheld responsible.
You know, it takes some of theambiguity out of it.
Speaker 1 (12:41):
Yeah, I could see how that would make things a bit
more straightforward from alegal perspective.
But I mean, does it raise anyconcerns?
Like, what about situationswhere someone might not have the
official power to hire or fire,but they still have a lot of
influence, you know like what ifthey can make your life at work
miserable, even if they can'ttechnically fire you?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
That's a really important point and, you know, a
lot of legal experts andemployee advocates have pointed
this out.
By narrowing the definition ofsupervisor, it could potentially
become harder to hold employersaccountable in certain
situations.
Oh interesting Right, becauseif the person harassing you
isn't officially your supervisor, you generally have to prove
(13:21):
that the employer was somehownegligent in addressing the
harassment, like you have toshow they knew about it and
didn't do enough to stop it.
Speaker 1 (13:28):
So this Vance case it's a reminder that it's really
important to understand who hasauthority over you in your
workplace Right and to be awareof how the formal structure of
your company can affect youroptions if you're facing
harassment or discrimination.
Speaker 2 (13:46):
Exactly Because, even though employers still have an
overall responsibility tomaintain a workplace that's free
from harassment, no matterwho's doing the harassing the
legal standard for provingthey're directly responsible.
It gets tougher when theharasser isn't considered a
supervisor.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Okay, so let's take a moment to sort of recap what
we've learned from these threepretty groundbreaking cases.
Sure, so from Harris v ForkliftSystems we learned that
harassment doesn't have to causesome kind of severe
psychological breakdown to beconsidered illegal.
Right, right, it's enough for areasonable person to see the
behavior as hostile or abusive,and, of course, the person
(14:25):
experiencing it has to feel thatway too.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Right, it's about the environment itself, not just
the victim's internal state.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
Then in Oncalby Sundowner Offshore Services.
That case really cemented theidea that same-sex harassment is
just as illegal as any otherkind of harassment.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
It's not about who's attracted to whom.
It's about whether someone isbeing treated differently
because of their sex, regardlessof the harasser's gender.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
That's a key takeaway .
Speaker 1 (14:49):
And then finally, in Vance v Ball State University,
we learned about the specificlegal definition of a supervisor
and how that definition isreally important in determining
whether an employer can be helddirectly responsible for the
harassment.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
And the court really focused on that authority to
make tangible employmentdecisions like hiring or firing.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
Exactly.
So, taken together, these threecases really provide this like
framework for understandingworkplace harassment and
discrimination.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
They offer some really critical legal guidance,
but, as we all know, the worldis constantly changing, you know
and our understanding of whatconstitutes a truly respectful
(15:37):
and equitable workplace isevolving too.
Speaker 1 (15:39):
It's not just about checking boxes and meeting
minimum legal requirements.
So you know, let's think beyondthese specific cases.
What role can each of us playin building better workplace
cultures?
Speaker 2 (15:51):
Yeah, that's the real question.
Speaker 1 (15:53):
How can we go beyond just compliance and really
actively create environmentswhere everyone feels like they
belong, like they're safe andlike their contributions are
valued?
What can we do individually andwhat can we do collectively to
make that happen?
Speaker 2 (16:08):
Big questions to think about.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
Yeah, it's something worth considering for sure.
So thanks for joining us on theDeep Dive today and until next
time, keep those conversationsgoing.
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.