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
- Employment Law
- Wage & Hour
- Discrimination
- Labor Law
- EEOC
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Department of Labor
- Artificial Intelligence
- Coronavirus
- Compliance
- NLRB
- OSHA
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Title VII
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- FLSA
- Supreme Court
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- National Labor Relations Board
- Diversity
- Privacy
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Arbitration
- Federal Trade Commission
- FMLA
- Overtime Pay
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Accommodations
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Social Media
- Medical Marijuana
- Employer Policies
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- Whistleblower
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Telecommuting
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- 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
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA
- 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