Eth 321 - Discrimination and Employment Law

Discrimination and Employment Laws

Michael S. Bowman

ETH/321

Nov. 2, 2015

Richard Simon

Discrimination and Employment Laws

Do actions have to targeted or intentional to be considered harassment? More specifically can language have a disparate impact?  This might seem trivial, but it can be a drag on workplace morale and even a retention risk if people feel harassed or threatened. The question was raised in  Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. and according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, this is, in fact, a valid argument (Reed, O.L., Pagnattaro, M.A., & Cahoy, D.R., 2013).  The purpose of this paper will be to examine the aspects of this case as well as determine if there would be any differences if the antagonist were an independent contractor.  

Scenario

Ms. Ingrid Reeves was an employee at C.H. Robinson in their Birmingham, Alabama office. Ms. Reeves was the only female transportation sales representative on the sales floor along with six male counterparts. The layout of the office and utilization of  "pods" or cubicles that allowed conversations and sounds to carry throughout the work area (Mooney, 2010).

The complaint lodged by Ms. Reeves was that derogatory and offensive language with a specific focus on females was regularly used. Additionally, there was a radio broadcast listened to by her co-workers that featured regular conversations with graphic discussion of women's anatomy and even a pornographic image displayed on a peer's computer screen. There were also complaints about other non-gender specific conduct (Mooney, 2010).

Although, Ms. Reeves does not indicate these language or actions were ever directed at her specifically, she does say that repeated requests for it to cease were ignored. The perception of a hostile work environment ultimately led to Ms. Reeves’ resigning and filing a Title VII suit against C.H. Robinson in March 2004 (Mooney, 2010). Ultimately the courts agreed with Ms. Reeves in a pivotal decision for US workplaces.

Defense

  Attorneys for C.H. Robinson argued that the actions and language existed before Ms. Reeves employment. Therefore, it could not have been motivated by sex. the employer argued that because the same antics and high-spirited behavior occurred before the plaintiff arrived, it could not perforce have been motivated by sex (Mollica, 2010).  An entertaining premise but the courts quickly dismissed it and established a precedent that the fact that an impacted person’s arrival into an environment makes the actions offensive regardless of past behavior.  Specifically the court’s response was "Here, Reeves claims that her conditions of employment were humiliating and degrading in a way that the conditions of her male co-workers' employment were not. It is no answer to say that the workplace may have been vulgar and sexually degrading before Reeves arrived. Once Ingrid Reeves entered her workplace, the discriminatory conduct became actionable under the law. Congress has determined that Reeves had a right not to suffer conditions in the workplace that were disparately humiliating, abusive, or degrading." (Mollica, 2010).