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.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Discrimination
- EEOC
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Labor Law
- Title VII
- FLSA
- NLRB
- Workplace Violence
- Department of Justice
- Coronavirus
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Religion Discrimination
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- NLRA
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Diversity
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- Artificial Intelligence
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Federal Trade Commission
- Overtime Pay
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Workplace Accommodations
- Employment Litigation
- Litigation
- IRS
- Medical Marijuana
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Unions
- Whistleblower
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- United States Supreme Court
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Benefits
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- Privacy Laws
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Classification
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Misclassification
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
Recent Posts
- More on Equal Opportunity: Executive Order Seeks to End Disparate Impact Liability to promote Equal Opportunity
- PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis
- The Independent Contractor Tug-of-War: Navigating the Latest DOL Shifts
- ICE Raids and Audits – What’s an Employer to Do
- New Online Registration Requirements for Foreign Nationals
- Workplace Violence: Are You Taking Required Steps to Protect Your Employees?
- EEOC & DOJ New Guidance on DEI-Related Discrimination: What Does it Mean for Employers?
- EEOC Targets 20 Large Law Firms regarding DEI related Employment Practices
- Ohio Senate Bill 11: Key Provisions and Implications for Employers
- Shifting Burdens: Is McDonnell Douglas Past Its Prime?