Sharp v. S&S Activewear, LLC (Order dated 07 June 2023): Ensuring a safe workplace is paramount for any employer. Although, allowing music to be played in the workplace on the face of it may not look like an act, which can cause a workplace to be hostile, however, allowing music that promotes harassment is a breach of an employer’s responsibility. It is the obligation of an employer to foster a workplace free from discrimination, regardless of which gender may or may not feel offended.
Facts
The plaintiff, X, representing either (8) others who filed a case against the Respondent, Y wherein it was alleged that Y had allowed its managers and created a workplace that routinely allowed, sexually graphic and violently misogynistic music within the warehouse. It was alleged by X that the music was played through commercial speakers, and it was nearly impossible to escape the noise of the music played.
X also alleged that the male employees used forklifts to drive around the music speakers making it even more difficult to evade the sound. This resulted in male employees frequently making sexually graphic gestures, sexually coloured remarks, and also openly sharing pornographic videos within the workplace which offended half of the workforce that were women and some men. Despite several complaints to Y’s management, no action was taken. On the contrary, Y stood in support of the employees who played such derogatory music. Eventually, a suit was filed by X.
Law
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 recognises sexual harassment and prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual on the basis of sex. Such violation can be proved if a plaintiff prima facie establishes that discrimination based on sex has created a hostile or abusive work environment.
Procedural history
The District Court agreed with Y’s contention that there was no discrimination on the basis of sex, as both men and women were exposed to the music and were offended by it. The motion to dismiss was granted to Y as X had failed to establish a claim of discrimination under relevant law, as there was no allegation that a specific employee or a group was targeted or treated differently by the music.
Issue
1. Whether the District Court was right in law for dismissing the application?
Appeal:
The Ninth Circuit on appeal, however, did not agree with the reasoning given by District Court and held that harassment need not be directed at a particular employee or a group of employees to bring an actionable sexual harassment claim under Title VII of the relevant act. The court noted that workplace conduct is to be viewed cumulatively and contextually, rather than in isolation. Relying on various precedents, the court held that the District Court erred in rejecting X’s hostile work environment claim as incurable and legally deficient.
The court also gave the rationale that while men and women may perceive conduct differently, harassing both men and women cannot be a defense for inappropriate conduct and does not rule out the possibility of a valid claim.
Judgement
Relying on the core principles of anti-sexual harassment law, the appellate Court concluded that District Court improperly dismissed X’s claim. The court ordered a reconsideration of the case in the light of the new opinion.
About The Legal Swan: We are an organization that aims to provide 360-degree solutions against bullying, harassment & discrimination and promote diversity, equity, inclusion & belonging. For any queries, consultation or services, get in touch with us connect@thelegalswan.com or +91 90040 99796.
Authored by Isha Khorana, Legal Intern