Vulgar language even when it is not directed an individual as sexual harassment can be actionable as sexual harassment under Title VII. The following are sexual harassment issues on a woman named Igrid Reeves at her workplace.
Firstly Reeves could hear her male co-workers use vulgar and sexual language to refer to women and although they did not direct it at her, the fact that they used such language on women is actionable. Secondly, the vulgar discussions about female body parts also account for actionable offence of sexual harassment. Thirdly, there was a pornographic image of a woman in the office and this also amounts to an actionable offence.
The sentence on this case was pronounced that the work environment to which Reeves was exposed was disadvantageous to her and other females because it kept her in danger of the male co-workers. The fact that the male workers did not have any worries shows selective pronouncement of worries of sexual attacks.
The court had grounds such as the selectivity of issues under consideration. None of the male workers could be troubled by the vulgar words or the pornographic image and discussions. Instead the issues were bound to cause worries, anxiety, concern and anger to Reeves and other women who worked at the place. The gender selectiveness of the issues under consideration shows that it was a not a personal vendetta against Reeves but profound issues that squarely qualify as sexual harassment.
Preliminary issues show that Reeves complained to her co-workers, supervisor and top company executives but the offensive conduct was “accepted and tolerated”. The people to whom Reeves complained seem to acknowledge that indeed the things mentioned took place. They also seem to be aware of the existence of laws against sexual harassment and this proves further culpability of the defendant’s entity (Achampong, 1999). The use of the worlds “tolerated and accepted” means that the bosses may have promised to act on the complaint made by Reeves but they did nothing to that effect.
The basis of the court’s ruling first stems from the definition of sexual harassment under Title VII when it is backed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Secondly, Reeves had already expressed her dissatisfaction with what was happening at the workplace regarding sexual harassment. Had she not complained sometime before the court case, then the jury had the right to rule that alleged sexual harassment was no-existent since no one was being hurt.
The possible liability for this case in this case would fall on the people who had decision-making powers to stop the continuation of the actions. These were the supervisor and top company executives. Since there was no one in particular against whom Reeves had leveled her claims then that person would be liable. As such, it is the entity of the company that shoulders the liability of adhering to the decisions made by the court. If it were an independent contractor then they would also place the blame on the contracted organization or contractor and not on a single employee.
The employment laws as exercised by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that it is unlawful for any person to be harassed on the basis of their sex. Indeed, the commission states that the harassment may entail requests for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances, or the use of verbal and physical harassment of sexual nature as is the case here. The commission would note in this case that certain workers made offensive remarks about women and this amounts to sexual harassment. The burden of proof lays in the verification that some if Reeves co-workers used vulgar language in women and others referred to women in vulgar language. The court will indeed need to have the pornographic picture as evidence of one of the claims.
References
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission web 12 July 2016 https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 07-10270 (11th Cir. Jan. 20, 2010), available at www.ca11.uscourts.gov/ opinions/ops/200710270op2.pdf
Achampong, F. (1999). Workplace sexual harassment law: Principles, landmark developments, and framework for effective risk management. Westport, Conn. [u.a.: Quorum Books.
