Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., et al.
523 U.S. 75 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII's prohibition on workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applies to harassment between individuals of the same sex, provided the conduct constitutes discrimination because of sex and is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment.
Facts:
- Joseph Oncale worked for Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., on an eight-man crew on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico.
- On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions by three male coworkers, John Lyons, Danny Pippen, and Brandon Johnson.
- Two of these coworkers, Lyons and Pippen, had supervisory authority over Oncale.
- Lyons and Pippen also physically assaulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened Oncale with rape.
- Oncale's complaints to supervisory personnel resulted in no remedial action.
- Oncale eventually quit his job, stating he did so because of the sexual harassment and his fear that he would be raped.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Oncale filed a complaint against Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendant, Sundowner, holding that a male plaintiff has no cause of action under Title VII for harassment by male coworkers.
- Oncale (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, finding itself bound by Circuit precedent that barred same-sex harassment claims.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the issue.
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 workplace harassment violate Title VII's prohibition against discrimination "because of... sex" when the harasser and the harassed employee are of the same sex?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. Workplace harassment can violate Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination because of sex even when the harasser and victim are of the same sex. There is no justification in the statutory language of Title VII to create a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims. Statutory prohibitions often extend beyond the principal evil Congress originally envisioned to cover reasonably comparable evils. The critical issue is not the sex of the parties, but whether the conduct at issue constitutes discrimination 'because of... sex,' meaning members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed. This can be proven through evidence that the harasser is homosexual and motivated by sexual desire, that the harassment is motivated by a general hostility to the presence of one sex in the workplace, or through direct comparative evidence of how the harasser treated members of both sexes. The conduct must also be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position and be severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment, taking into account the relevant social context.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
Yes. The Court's opinion is correct because it appropriately stresses that in every sexual harassment case, the plaintiff must plead and prove that the discrimination occurred 'because of... sex,' which is the statute's core requirement.
Analysis:
This unanimous decision significantly broadened the scope of Title VII's protection against sex discrimination by explicitly recognizing same-sex harassment claims. The ruling clarified that the statutory language "because of... sex" is the key inquiry, not the gender identity or sexual orientation of the parties involved. By rejecting a categorical bar, the Court ensured that the statute's protections are applied neutrally. The decision's emphasis on social context and the reasonable person standard provides lower courts with a flexible framework for evaluating harassment claims, preventing Title VII from becoming a 'general civility code' while protecting employees from severe and pervasive abuse regardless of the harasser's gender.
Unlock the full brief for Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., et al.