Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
106 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 422, 567 F.3d 263, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 10933 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A work environment permeated with sex-specific, derogatory language and imagery may constitute harassment 'based on sex' and create a hostile work environment, even if the conduct is not directed at the plaintiff. An employer is liable for co-worker harassment if a supervisor has knowledge of the conduct and the employer fails to take appropriate remedial action.
Facts:
- Julie Gallagher began working as a transportation specialist at C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHR) on September 3, 2002.
- The office had an open floor plan with low cubicle dividers, where conversations and computer screens were easily visible and audible to coworkers.
- During her four months of employment, Gallagher was constantly exposed to a 'guys' locker room' atmosphere where male coworkers used sex-specific, derogatory terms like 'bitches,' 'whores,' 'sluts,' and 'cunts' to refer to women.
- Coworkers openly viewed pornographic images on their computers, left pornographic magazines on their desks, shared nude photos of their girlfriends, and had graphic sexual conversations.
- Gallagher was also personally targeted; a coworker called her a 'bitch' and a 'heifer,' 'moo'ed at her, and coworkers joked she fulfilled the company's 'girl quota and the fat quota.'
- On one occasion, a male coworker wearing only a towel sat near her desk and engaged in a graphic conversation about anal sex with other men.
- Gallagher frequently complained about the conduct to her immediate supervisor and branch manager, Greg Quast.
- Quast's responses were ineffective, sometimes consisting only of yelling at the offenders, which subjected Gallagher to further ridicule.
Procedural Posture:
- Julie Gallagher filed a lawsuit against C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging sexual harassment (hostile work environment).
- After the completion of discovery, C.H. Robinson filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of C.H. Robinson, finding that Gallagher failed to present sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case.
- Gallagher, as appellant, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 a work environment permeated with sex-specific derogatory language and pornographic imagery, even if not always directed at a specific female employee, constitute harassment 'based on sex' sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim under Title VII?
Opinions:
Majority - McKeague, Circuit Judge
Yes, a work environment permeated with sex-specific derogatory language and pornographic imagery can constitute harassment 'based on sex' sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim. The court found that the district court erred by focusing on the harassers' motivation rather than the effect of the conduct on the victim. The court reasoned that 'sex-specific' language like 'bitch,' 'whore,' and 'cunt' is inherently more degrading to women than men, thus creating a disadvantageous condition of employment for women, even if men are also exposed to it. The court also held that the 'severe or pervasive' element must be judged by the totality of the circumstances, and a plaintiff need only show the harassment made it 'more difficult to do the job,' not that her work product declined. Finally, for co-worker harassment, the employer is liable if it 'knew or should have known' and failed to act; Gallagher's complaints to her supervisor, Quast, constituted notice to the company, and a jury could find the company's response was manifestly indifferent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the 'based on sex' requirement for hostile work environment claims, particularly in 'equal opportunity harasser' contexts. It establishes that the inquiry should focus on the disparate impact of the conduct on different genders, rather than the harasser's intent to target a specific individual. The ruling lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in workplaces with a generally toxic or crude culture, so long as the conduct is sex-specific and degrading. Furthermore, it reinforces the principle that notice to a designated supervisor for co-worker harassment is imputed to the employer, making it harder for companies to evade liability when a local manager fails to address reported misconduct.
