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 clients 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 involving ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Coronavirus
- Labor Law
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Wage & Hour
- Privacy
- National Labor Relations Board
- Department of Labor
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Workplace Accommodations
- NLRB
- FMLA
- Employment Litigation
- Medical Marijuana
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Arbitration
- Religion Discrimination
- Workplace Violence
- Discrimination
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- IRS
- Litigation
- Whistleblower
- Disability Discrimination
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Trade Commission
- Retirement
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- ERISA
- Employer Handbook
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Unions
- Title VII
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- NLRA
- Transgender Issues
- 401(k)
- Disability
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Securities Law
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Overtime Pay
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- Federal Trade Commission Announces New Rule Invalidating Non-Compete Agreements
- EEOC Announces Final Rule Providing Guidelines under the PWFA
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Immediate Termination
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update February 2024
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Telephone Game
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update January 2024
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Employment Law Issues to Watch in 2024
- Department of Labor Announces New Independent Contractor Rule to Go into Effect March 11, 2024
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Employment Law Naughty & Nice List
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Reefer Madness