Case Study:
Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. 760 F. Supp. 1486 (M.D. Fla. Jacksonville Div. 1991)
An employee brought this action against her employer because of the prevalence of nude photos, posters, reading material, plaques, and other nude representations in the workplace. She alleged that this, and the harassing activity toward her, constituted hostile environment sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After an exhaustive 59-page, extremely detailed opinion, the court held for the employee and discussed the employer’s handling of its sexual harassment complaints.
Melton, J.
The shipyard had very few female skilled employees, so males greatly outnumbered females in the workplace. The employees bringing the complaint were skilled female craftworkers who had been subjected to a full range of harassing activity in the workplace including repeated requests for sexual activity, lewd comments, propositions, jokes, nude photos, posters, magazines and sexual teasing, all of the most egregious kind. In addressing the employer’s response to the harassing activity in the workplace, the court finds that the policies and procedures at JSI for responding to complaints of harassment are inadequate. The company has done an inadequate job of communicating with employees and supervisors regarding the nature and scope of sexually harassing behavior. This failure is compounded by a pattern of unsympathetic response to complaints by employees who perceive that they are victims of harassment. This pattern includes an unwillingness to believe the accusations, an unwillingness to take prompt and stern remedial action against admitted harassers, and an express condonation of behavior that is and encourages sexually harassing conduct (such as the posting of nude and partially nude women). In some instances, the process of registering a complaint about sexual harassment became a second episode of sexual harassment. JSI cannot stand on an “ostrich defense” that it lacked knowledge of many of the complaints, because its handling of sexual harassment complaints deterred reporting and it did not conduct adequate investigation of the complaints it did receive. JSI received reports at the supervisory level and at the line level concerning incidents of sexual harassment. Additionally, many supervisory personnel admitted that they knew of the sexually oriented pictures throughout the workplace. JSI concedes it had reports of this and those reports should have alerted them to the need to conduct a more thorough investigation of conditions in the shipyards. Such a duty arises when reports show that the workplace may be charged with a sexually hostile atmosphere. JSI instead ignored the warning signs of a hostile environment. The evidence reveals a supervisory attitude that sexual harassment is an incident-by-incident matter; records were not maintained that would have permitted an analysis of sexual harassment complaints to determine the level of sexual hostility in the workplace. Under these circumstances, the court concludes that JSI received adequate actual knowledge of the state of the work environment, but, like an ostrich, the company elected to bury its head in the sand rather than learn more about the conditions to which female employees, Robinson in particular, were subjected. The court additionally imposes constructive knowledge on JSI for the sexually hostile state of its work environment. Constructive knowledge is measured by a practical threshold. An employer escapes liability for isolated and infrequent slurs and misogynist behaviors because even a reasonably prudent employer cannot exercise sufficient control over the workplace to put an end to such conduct; conversely, an employer incurs liability when harassing behavior happens frequently enough that the employer can take steps to halt it. The sexually harassing behaviors described here are too pervasive to have escaped the notice of a reasonably alert management. Moreover, the extent to which co-workers and supervisory personnel actually knew of the existence of sexually harassing behaviors is a good barometer of the company’s constructive knowledge. The testimony establishes that Robinson’s plight was widely known. To the extent that JSI contends that the physical size of its work environment diminished its ability to monitor incidents of sexual harassment, the company must realize that its expansive size may increase its burden in providing a workplace free of discrimination, but that expanse does not decrease the responsibility in its task. JUDGMENT for PLAINTIFF on the Title VII issue.
Q1. How would you have handled this workplace if you had been manager?
Q2. Do you think the court imposed too heavy a burden on the employer for monitoring the workplace?
Q3. Should the “ostrich defense” be permitted?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format.