Same Sex Harassment Essays - Workplace Bullying, Business Ethics

Same Sex Harassment Joseph Oncale was employed from August to November of 1991 by Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., as a roustabout on a sea-based oil rig for $7 an hour. He had worked on offshore rigs before (and does today), but says hes never encountered such abusive treatment as when he signed on with Sundowner. Oncale claims that while on the job he was sexually harassed by three male Sundowner employees: John Lyons, his supervisor; and Danny Pippen and Brandon Johnson, two co-workers. Early during Oncales employment, Lyons, Pippen, and Brandon began threatening Oncale with rape. Oncale endured months of constant harassment and verbal threats while on the job. On October 25, 1991, the threats became reality when Oncale was physically and sexually attacked. Pippen grabbed him, pulled him down, and held him immobile in a squatting position on his knees while Lyons unzipped his pants, pulled out his penis, and stuck it onto the back of Oncales head. When Oncale asked them to quit, Lyons and Pippen laughed. Oncale learned later that day that most of his coworkers had seen the assault. The next day he was attacked again, this time by Brandon Johnson. Oncale complained to Lyons superiors. That same night, Lyons and Pippen attempted to rape Oncale as he was taking a shower. Pippen grabbed him and lifted him off of the ground. Oncale states that while Pippen held him aloft, Lyons used a bar of soap as a tool for sexual abuse. Lyons told him, You know, theyre fixing to f*** you (Oncale Amicus Brief). Oncale wrestled his way free of the men and escaped. Oncale complained further and tried to arrange to get off the oil rig, but his supervisor retaliated. Lyons said, You told you daddy, huh? Well, it aint going to do you no good because Im going to f*** you anyway. Oncale says he felt that, If I didnt leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sexthat if I didnt get off the rig, that I would be sexually violated (Oncale Amicus Brief). Oncale continued to try to work but says he, couldnt sleep because I was afraid that they would do something to me, I couldnt fight, and I felt disgraced. Oncale quit soon thereafter, stating on his pink slip that he voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse. On December 5, 1991, he filed a sexual discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. His suit complained of both a hostile environment and quid pro quo sexual harassment. When Oncales case reached the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court, he was denied judgment. Oncales attorneys appealed and the case eventually appeared before the Supreme Court. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court Justices said men who sexually harass other men (and women who harass women) are discriminating and thus breaking the law. They based their findings on Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. According to the E.E.O.C., the act states that, Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individuals employment, unreasonably interferes with an individuals work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Sundowner based their defense on three separate arguments. The first claimed that in order for an act to be considered sexual harassment there must be a man and a woman involved. According to Sundowner, same sex harassment doesnt exist. To this the Supreme Court replied, When women and men are sexually violated, verbally or physically, they are targeted and harmed as women and as menand citizens have a right to seek redress of such injuries (Cloud). The second argument made by Sundowners attorneys (a variation of the first) was that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was created specifically for women who have been harassed by men and does not apply to Joseph Oncale. In response, the Supreme Court stated that perpetrators of sexual harassment should derive no legal immunity from the gender of their victims. Sundowners third argument against Oncale claimed that the Civil Rights Act was created to safeguard against gender discrimination, not to