Ocheltree v. Scollon Productions, Inc.
2003 WL 21675558, 335 F.3d 325 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer has constructive knowledge of coworker sexual harassment, and can be held liable for it, when it fails to provide reasonable and effective avenues for an employee to register complaints. Conduct that is specifically aimed at provoking a reaction from an employee because of her sex can constitute harassment 'because of sex,' even within a generally coarse work environment.
Facts:
- Lisa Ocheltree was employed at Scollon Productions from February 1994 to August 1995.
- Ocheltree was the only female employee in the production shop, working alongside ten or eleven men.
- During her employment, male coworkers frequently used a female-form mannequin to simulate sexual acts, including oral sex, often when Ocheltree was present.
- A male coworker sang a song to Ocheltree that ended with the line, 'your breath smells like c[o]m[e] to me,' while other men, including a supervisor, laughed.
- A coworker approached Ocheltree at her workstation, showed her a book with a centerfold photograph of a man with pierced genitalia, and asked, 'Lisa, what do you think about this?' as other men looked on and laughed.
- On a daily basis, Ocheltree's male coworkers graphically discussed their sexual exploits with women, using terms like 'she gave good head,' 'she likes to swallow,' and that one woman 'could suck a golf ball through a garden hose.'
- Ocheltree complained repeatedly to her immediate supervisor, Harold Hirsch, who ignored her and sometimes joined in the laughter at her expense.
- Ocheltree made numerous unsuccessful attempts to complain to the company president, Bill Scollon, and vice president, Ellery Locklear, who were always unavailable; Hirsch actively intercepted her attempts to speak with them, ordering her back to work.
Procedural Posture:
- Lisa Ocheltree filed a complaint against Scollon Productions in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, alleging a hostile work environment under Title VII.
- The district court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of Scollon Productions.
- Ocheltree appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
- Following a trial, the jury returned a verdict for Ocheltree, awarding compensatory and punitive damages.
- The district court denied Scollon Productions' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law but reduced the punitive damages award to comply with statutory caps.
- Scollon Productions appealed the judgment to the Fourth Circuit, and a divided three-judge panel reversed the district court's decision.
- The Fourth Circuit then voted to vacate the panel decision and rehear the appeal en banc (by the full court).
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 workplace environment where a lone female employee is subjected to pervasive, sexually graphic talk and conduct by her male coworkers, some of which is specifically aimed at provoking her reaction as a woman, constitute a hostile work environment 'because of sex' for which the employer can be held liable under Title VII when its complaint procedure is functionally nonexistent?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Michael
Yes. The evidence was legally sufficient for a jury to find that Ocheltree was subjected to a hostile work environment because of her sex for which her employer was liable. A reasonable jury could find that much of the sex-laden and sexist conduct was aimed at Ocheltree because of her sex—specifically, to make her uncomfortable as the only woman and to provoke her reaction. The court reasoned that the song, the incident with the picture book, and the repeated mannequin antics were directed at Ocheltree in a way no male employee was. The conduct was also sufficiently severe and pervasive, as it was a daily occurrence that was humiliating and interfered with her work. Finally, the harassment was imputable to Scollon Productions under a negligence theory because the company had constructive knowledge of it. The company's 'open door' complaint policy was found to be an illusion, as Ocheltree's supervisor ignored her, upper management made themselves unavailable, and the supervisor actively blocked her access to them. However, the court reversed the punitive damages award, finding no evidence that the employer acted with knowledge that it might be violating federal law.
Concurring - Judge Niemeyer
Yes, but for different reasons. The judgment should be affirmed, but the majority's reasoning incorrectly treats a generally coarse workplace as sex discrimination. The proper analysis, shared by the dissent, is that a vulgar environment offensive to both men and women is not, by itself, discriminatory under Title VII. However, there were three specific incidents of harassment directed at Ocheltree because she was a woman. While these three incidents, in isolation, might not be sufficiently severe or pervasive, their discriminatory impact was heightened by the surrounding, sexually-charged background conduct. Therefore, considering the totality of the circumstances, a jury could legally find that Ocheltree was a victim of unlawful discrimination.
Dissenting in part and concurring in the judgment in part - Judge Williams
No. The conduct did not constitute actionable sex discrimination under Title VII because it did not amount to disparate treatment based on gender. Title VII prohibits discrimination, not just immorality or vulgarity in the workplace. The vast majority of the offensive conduct was part of a generally coarse environment that existed before Ocheltree arrived and was offensive to male employees as well, meaning it was not directed at her 'because of sex.' The three isolated incidents that were directed at her were not sufficiently 'severe or pervasive' to create a 'hellish' work environment as a matter of law. Using non-discriminatory background vulgarity to make a few discriminatory incidents legally actionable improperly transforms Title VII into a general civility code. The dissent concurs only in the judgment to reverse the punitive damages award.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'because of sex' element in hostile work environment claims, establishing that conduct in a generally vulgar workplace can be discriminatory if it specifically targets an individual to provoke a reaction based on their gender. More significantly, the case provides a crucial precedent on employer liability, holding that an employer cannot escape liability by pointing to a formal complaint policy that is functionally useless. By finding that an 'open door' policy becomes an 'illusion' when management is inaccessible, the court strengthens the concept of constructive knowledge, making it easier for plaintiffs to impute liability to employers who fail to provide practical, effective avenues for reporting harassment.
