Yes. Behavior counts as illegal harassment if a reasonable woman would find it hostile and bad enough to mess up her job. The court explained that using a generic 'reasonable person' standard is unfair because it's usually based on a man's perspective. Since women face different threats in society, like a higher risk of sexual violence, they might see certain actions as much scarier than men would. To make the workplace truly equal, the law must see things from a woman's viewpoint. Also, the company's solution wasn't good enough because it was going to bring the harasser back and didn't properly fix the problem.

No. The rule should be the same for everyone, not a separate 'reasonable woman' rule. The dissenting judge argued that the law is supposed to be gender-neutral. Creating a special standard for women is confusing and could be unfair. What if a man is harassed? The law should focus on whether the workplace itself is hostile because of someone's bad actions, not try to get inside the head of a 'reasonable woman' versus a 'reasonable man.'

Yes, the way Gray acted was bad enough that a normal woman would find it really hard to do her job. We think it's important to look at these situations from a woman's point of view because women often experience these things differently than men do. Gray's behavior, like the weird notes and not leaving Ellison alone, could make a reasonable woman feel scared and uncomfortable at work. Also, the IRS might not have done enough to fix the problem. Just moving Gray to another office for a while and then letting him come back might not have been enough to stop the harassment.

I don't agree with making a new rule about looking at things from a 'reasonable woman's' point of view. I think we should look at how a reasonable person of any gender would feel. Also, we don't have all the facts because there wasn't a full trial. I think we should send the case back for a trial to get more information before making any big decisions about new rules.

Yes. A female plaintiff states a prima facie case of hostile environment sexual harassment when she alleges conduct which a reasonable woman would consider sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment. The court reasoned that a gender-blind 'reasonable person' standard tends to be male-biased and systematically ignores the experiences of women, who are disproportionately victims of sexual assault and may perceive certain conduct as more threatening. This standard ensures that women can participate in the workplace on an equal footing with men by not trivializing their experiences. Furthermore, an employer's remedial action must be 'reasonably calculated to end the harassment' and should not punish the victim, such as by forcing her to transfer to a less desirable location.

No. The standard for evaluating a hostile work environment claim should be gender-neutral, as Title VII intended to provide equal, not gender-specific, treatment. The term 'reasonable woman' is ambiguous and creates a puzzling standard that could lead to different outcomes for men and women complaining about the same workplace conditions. The dissent argues that the focus should be on the objective conditions of the workplace and the conduct of the accused harasser, not on the subjective viewpoint of the victim. Adopting a gendered standard inappropriately deviates from the goal of a harmonious, gender-neutral workplace and is not supported by the text of the statute.

Yes, the conduct by Gray, as described by Ellison, was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of Ellison's employment and create an abusive working environment when evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable woman. We adopt a 'reasonable woman' standard for evaluating whether conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile working environment under Title VII. This is because we believe that a sex-blind reasonable person standard tends to be male-biased and systematically ignores the experiences of women. The reasonable woman standard does not establish a higher level of protection for women than men. Instead, it acknowledges the different perspectives and experiences of women, particularly their greater vulnerability to sexual violence and harassment. In this case, a reasonable woman could consider Gray's conduct sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter her working conditions and create an abusive environment. His persistent unwanted attention, coupled with the disturbing notes and letters, could reasonably cause a woman to feel frightened and upset in her workplace. We also find that the employer's remedial actions may not have been sufficient to shield it from liability. The mere transfer of Gray without any disciplinary action and the decision to allow his return to the San Mateo office after only six months may not have been reasonably calculated to end the harassment. On remand, the district court should fully explore the facts concerning the government's response to Ellison's complaints and its decision to return Gray to San Mateo.

I dissent because I believe this case is inappropriate for establishing a new legal precedent of a 'reasonable woman' standard, which I find ambiguous and inadequate. The term 'reasonable woman' contradicts the gender-neutral approach intended by Congress in Title VII. It assumes that men and women have inherently different sensibilities, which is not necessarily true. A gender-neutral standard, such as 'reasonable person,' 'victim,' or 'target,' would be more appropriate and in line with the goals of Title VII. Additionally, this case was decided on a motion for summary judgment, leaving essential facts unresolved. A trial would be necessary to fill in the factual gaps and properly evaluate the circumstances of the workplace. The focus should be on the conduct of the accused and the conditions of the workplace itself, rather than on the perspective of the victim. Creating a standard that applies only to women will not necessarily aid all potential victims of sexual harassment. Therefore, I believe the case should be reversed and remanded for trial, rather than establishing a new legal standard based on incomplete facts.

Kerry Ellison v. Nicholas F. Brady, Secretary of the Treasury

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot