Reeves v. C.H. Robinson
INTRODUCTION
Ingrid Reeves worked for C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. as a transportation sales representative. She was the only female in the area in which she worked. Reeves alleged that the men she worked with created a hostile work environment with continuous sexual harassment imposed upon her. Reeves filed a complaint against the company that was dismissed by summary judgment in trial court. Reeves appealed the decision, and the resulting opinion resulted, which dramatically changed the workplace environment for women.
An employee cannot recover under the hostile work environment theory unless she shows that:
she belongs to a protected group;
she has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment;
the harassment was based on her membership in a protected group;
the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment; and
a basis for holding the employer liable exists.
The Court of Appeals had to address elements 3 and 4, as all other elements were undisputed. The Court first analyzed whether Title VII is violated when the sexual harassment was offensive language based on a protected group, but not directed specifically toward the plaintiff. The court determined that sexual harassment does exist even when not targeted to the plaintiff. Thus, the court concluded that sex-based offensive language does not have to target a plaintiff in order for the plaintiff to bring a successful Title VII lawsuit based on a hostile work environment.
The Court of Appeals then analyzed whether the severe or pervasive elements were present. This element is present when discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult exist at the place of employment. In order to determine the presence of these, the court must consider both Reeve’s perception of the environment, as well as an objective perspective based on the totality of the circumstances. The four factors considered to evaluate the totality of the circumstances include the frequency and severity of the discriminating conduct, and interference of work the conduct caused and whether the conduct resulted in physical threats or simply utterances. All of these factors must be considered together. The court could not determine the severity of the language even though the content and specific words used were severe to a woman. The court did, however, find that the radio station that the employees listened to on a daily basis did create a humiliation work environment, even without physical threats. The harassment interfered with Reeves’ work environment as it caused her difficulty in concentrating and performing her job. Thus, the court concluded that the harassment was severe and pervasive.
APPLICABLE DEFENSES
C.H. Robinson could raise a defense alleging that not all elements required to find harassment existed in the circumstances of the case. C.H. Robinson could allege that the harassment was not aimed at the defendant, and thus fails to meet the requirement that the defendant belong to a protected class. None of the offending words or conduct was directed toward Reeves because of her sex, as a noted requirement in previous sexual harassment cases, rather the behavior was directed toward men and women. Additionally, Reeves did not show that but for the fact of her being a woman, she would not have been the object of harassment. The language was not used as a means of abusing Reeves based on her gender.
BASIS OF COURT’S RULING
The court held that a member of a protected group under Title VII cannot be compelled to tolerate “pervasive, derogatory” behavior and references that are gender-specific in the workplace. Further, the court stated that a woman does not abandon her right to be free from sexual harassment because she made the choice to work in a trade that is male-dominated. When a co-worker calls a female employee a “bitch,” the word is gender-derogatory. It is also demeaning and humiliating. Because the word is based on sex it is more offensive to women than to men. The Court also stated that words and behavior that is gender-specific, as well as severe or pervasive, creates a hostile work environment, regardless of whether the words were not directed to a specific person. The Court held that the trial court’s dismissal of Reeves’ lawsuit was improper because a jury could find that a hostile work environment existed based on her sex.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR LIABILITY
The doctrine of respondeat superior is that employers were liable for the conduct of the employees and had very limited liability for conduct of third party contractors. The 11th Circuit may find that the case in this instance as C.H. Robinson would not be liable for the independent contractor’s actions. However, recent case law in other circuits as well as the extensiveness of the conduct may result in a similar ruling. The 7th Circuit, in Dunn v Washington found the employer liable for the harassing actions of a third party contractor doctor and concluded that employers have the responsibility of remedying a hostile work even with independent contractors, as well as vendors and customers.
CONCLUSION
As a monumental case, this opinion by the Supreme Court would lead to substantial changes in the workplace atmosphere for women in America. The ruling that gender specific words that are not directed at the plaintiff may actually result in sexual harassment in the form prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Employers must be aware of the actions of their employee’s and take appropriate steps to prevent this type of workplace behavior. If employers do not address these issues, they could potentially be sued under federal law.
REFERENCES
Dunn v. Washington County Hospital, 469 F.3d 600 (Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals November 17, 2005).
Erpelo Novak, M. (2012). The Trouble with "Bitch": Rethinking the Seventh Circuit's Approach to Causation in Sexist Harassment Cases. Seven Circuit Review, 8(1).
Phillips, P. B. (2010, January 29). Derogatory and Vulgar Language Can Create a Hostile Work Environment, Even if Not Directed at a Particular Employee. Retrieved from Labor & Employment Law Perspectives: https://www.laboremploymentperspectives.com/2010/01/29/derogatory-and-vulgar-language-can-create-a-hostile-work-environment-even-if-not-directed-at-a-particular-employee/
Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 594 F.3d 798 (Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals January 20, 2010).
