REEVES V C
Derek Brown
Professor Janet Smith
Employment Law BA370
25 July 2011
REEVES V. C.H. ROBIONSON WORLDWIDE
The legal issue in this case was whether Reeves was subjected to harassment based on her sex and whether the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable. The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to C.H. Robinson, holding that “sex specific” language satisfies the “based on sex” element even when the language does not target the plaintiff.
The Court started the opinion with some "core principles of employment discrimination law" in hostile work environment cases; a plaintiff must show that, (1) that he or she belongs to a protected group; (2) that the employee has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature; (3) that the harassment must have been based on the sex of the employee; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) a basis for holding the employer liable. Applying these principles, the Court held that sufficient evidence had been presented for a jury to find that Reeves was subjected to a "discriminatorily abusive working environment." In this case one can conclude, even though both male and female employees were exposed to the same offensive circumstances, a reasonable person, regardless of gender, would consider the sexually offensive comments and graffiti more offensive to women than to men and therefore discriminatory based on sex.
The court indicated that “Title VII does not prohibit profanity alone, however profane. It does not prohibit harassment alone, however severe and pervasive. Instead, Title VII prohibits discrimination, including harassment that discriminates based on a protected category such as sex.” Further, a member of a protected group cannot be forced
Professor Janet Smith
Employment Law BA370
25 July 2011
REEVES V. C.H. ROBIONSON WORLDWIDE
The legal issue in this case was whether Reeves was subjected to harassment based on her sex and whether the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable. The court reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to C.H. Robinson, holding that “sex specific” language satisfies the “based on sex” element even when the language does not target the plaintiff.
The Court started the opinion with some "core principles of employment discrimination law" in hostile work environment cases; a plaintiff must show that, (1) that he or she belongs to a protected group; (2) that the employee has been subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, such as sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature; (3) that the harassment must have been based on the sex of the employee; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) a basis for holding the employer liable. Applying these principles, the Court held that sufficient evidence had been presented for a jury to find that Reeves was subjected to a "discriminatorily abusive working environment." In this case one can conclude, even though both male and female employees were exposed to the same offensive circumstances, a reasonable person, regardless of gender, would consider the sexually offensive comments and graffiti more offensive to women than to men and therefore discriminatory based on sex.
The court indicated that “Title VII does not prohibit profanity alone, however profane. It does not prohibit harassment alone, however severe and pervasive. Instead, Title VII prohibits discrimination, including harassment that discriminates based on a protected category such as sex.” Further, a member of a protected group cannot be forced
Cited: Walsh, J., David. Employment Law for Human Resource Practice. 3rd. Mason, OH: South-Western Pub, 2010. Print.