Every now and then, I encounter an argument in the context of a harassment claim that inappropriate comments were not directed toward the complaining party but were made for all to hear. The argument goes that if the comments were offensive, they were offensive to all and therefore not actionable. This is sometimes referred to as the “equal opportunity jerk” defense. Obviously this is a risky defense, especially when one considers the putative testimony of the alleged bad actor, “I’m not a chauvinist/bigot, I offend everybody.”
A new decision from the Eleventh Circuit, underscores a flaw in the “equal opportunity jerk” defense. In Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., the Court unanimously rejected the employer’s “equal opportunity” arguments, e.g. that the daily vulgar comments in the workplace were not directed at the Plaintiff, pre-dated her employment and included general vulgarity in addition to sex based comments. The Court reasoned:
If the environment portrayed by Reeves at C.H. Robinson had just involved a generally vulgar workplace whose indiscriminate insults and sexually-laden conversation did not focus on the gender of the victim, we would face a very different case. However, a substantial portion of the words and conduct alleged in this case may reasonably be read as gender-specific, derogatory, and humiliating. This evidence . . . is sufficient to afford the inference that the offending conduct was based on the sex of the employee.
A jury reasonably could find on this record that a meaningful portion of the allegedly offensive conduct in the office contributed to conditions that were humiliating and degrading to women on account of their gender, and therefore may have created a discriminatorily abusive working environment.
Thus, the “equal opportunity jerk” defense remains viable provided that the vulgar comments are truly gender neutral. If the comments are gender-specific, they can support a claim even if they are not directed at the plaintiff. If you require specific examples, read the opinion. On a broader level, think long and hard before relying on the “equal opportunity jerk” defense. Technical legal arguments have their place and the lower court did grant summary judgment in this case. However, it is also true that cases with bad facts often end badly.
- Partner
Mark Chumley has experience representing management in all aspects of labor and employment law. He has handled numerous cases before state and federal courts and state and federal civil rights agencies, including claims ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Arbitration
- Coronavirus
- Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- IRS
- OSHA
- Department of Labor
- NLRB
- Employer Policies
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Litigation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Retirement
- Social Media
- Accommodation
- ERISA
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- Reasonable Accommodation
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Wage & Hour
- NLRA
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- Title VII
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Unions
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- 401(k)
- Technology
- Transgender Issues
- Workplace Accommodations
- Privacy
- FMLA
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Disability
- Workplace Violence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Religion Discrimination
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Benefits
- Overtime Pay
- Representative Election Regulations
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Department of Justice
- Privacy Laws
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Telecommuting
- Electronically Stored Information
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Future of Arbitration
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Gig Economy
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 3/7/2022
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 2/7/2022
- Supreme Court Re-Implements Stay of Vaccine Mandate for Employers, Upholds CMS Mandate
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Twelve Thoughts About Vaccine Mandates
- Update on Status of Federal Contractor Mandate and OSHA’s ETS
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment Law Advice from Ebenezer Scrooge
- Update on Status of All Federal Vaccine Mandates
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Federal Vaccine Mandate(s) Update