Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. National Education Ass'n
422 F.3d 840 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Harassing conduct that is not facially sex-specific can still violate Title VII if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence of qualitative and quantitative differences in the treatment of male and female employees, demonstrating that one sex is exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which the other is not.
Facts:
- Thomas Harvey was appointed to a leadership position at NEA-Alaska, where Carol Christopher, Julie Bhend, and Carmela Chamara were female employees.
- Harvey frequently and publicly shouted at female employees in a loud, profane, and hostile manner, often with little to no provocation.
- Harvey engaged in physically intimidating behavior toward female employees, including lunging across a table, shaking his fist, standing over them silently, and grabbing one woman by the shoulders.
- The conduct caused female employees to feel panicked, physically threatened, and intimidated, leading them to cry, avoid Harvey, and in two cases, resign.
- While Harvey was sometimes hostile toward male employees, this conduct was less frequent and was described by witnesses as having a different, "bantering" quality.
- Male employees did not manifest the same severe subjective reactions to Harvey's conduct as the female employees.
- Both Christopher and Chamara testified that their resignations were precipitated by Harvey's conduct.
Procedural Posture:
- Three female employees filed charges against NEA-Alaska with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in April 2000.
- The EEOC filed an action against NEA-Alaska in the U.S. District Court in July 2001, alleging a sex-based hostile work environment.
- The three employees intervened in the lawsuit as plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs filed a motion to join the National Education Association (NEA national) as a defendant, which the district court granted.
- Both NEA-Alaska and NEA national moved for summary judgment, arguing the alleged harassment was not because of sex.
- The district court granted summary judgment to both defendants, holding that a reasonable trier of fact could not find the harassment was 'because of ... sex.'
- The EEOC and the individual plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does physically and verbally abusive workplace conduct that is not overtly sexual in nature constitute sex-based harassment under Title VII if it is directed more frequently and severely at female employees than male employees?
Opinions:
Majority - Goodwin, Circuit Judge
Yes. Abusive workplace conduct can constitute sex-based harassment under Title VII, even if not overtly sexual, when there is sufficient evidence that members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not. The district court erred by requiring evidence that the harassment was motivated by sexual desire or specific animus against women. The ultimate inquiry is not the harasser's motivation but the differential effect of the conduct on men and women. In this case, evidence showing that Harvey's abuse of women was more severe, more frequent, and more physically threatening than his abuse of men creates a triable issue of fact for a jury. The court rejected the idea that an "equal-opportunity harasser" is immune from liability if the abuse of one sex is qualitatively and quantitatively different.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies that Title VII hostile work environment claims are not limited to conduct that is explicitly sexual or gender-based. It establishes that facially neutral abusive behavior can be deemed "because of sex" based on comparative evidence showing a disparate impact on one gender. This ruling broadens the scope of actionable harassment, making it easier for plaintiffs to bring claims against so-called "equal opportunity harassers" or workplace bullies who disproportionately target one sex. It shifts the focus from the harasser's intent or the content of the speech to the actual effect and pattern of the behavior in the workplace.
