Case Study:
Ross v. Double Diamond, Inc. 672 F. Supp. 261 (N.D. Tex. 1987)
Two discharged employees, sisters, brought this action against their former employer, alleging that he violated Title VII by creating a sexually harassing work environment and then constructively discharging them because they reported it and also because of their gender. The court found a hostile environment for acts occurring during a two-day period for one sister, Beverly Ross, but not the other, Sheila Stroudenmire.
Mahon, J.
Within the first hour that twenty-year-old Ross was on her new job at Double Diamond, her supervisor, Larry Womack, asked her if she “fooled around,” to which she answered no. A short time later, Womack asked Ross to bring him a cup of coffee. When she entered his office with the coffee, he told her he wanted to take her picture. She protested, he insisted, and Ross agreed for fear of Womack’s reaction if she continued to refuse. Womack then told Ross to pull up her dress for the picture. Still afraid of his reaction to her refusal, she pulled her dress up two inches above her knee and Womack took the picture. A short time later Ross asked for the picture and Womack refused to give it to her. Later that day Womack called Ross on the phone and asked her to pant heavily for him. Ross immediately hung up. Still later the same day, Ross entered Womack’s office during a meeting to give a message to one of the attendees. A salesman, Larry West, placed a Polaroid camera on the floor directly under Ross and took a picture up Ross’s dress. The salesmen at the meeting laughed. Ross attempted to take the camera, but Womack prevented it. Ross asked for the picture and Womack refused, told her the picture did not develop and that she could not look for it in the trash can. Womack later called Ross on the phone and again asked her to pant heavily into the phone. Ross immediately hung up. The next day, when Ross came into Womack’s office to bring him coffee, he told her to come over to him by the desk. She did so and Womack pulled her onto his lap. A salesman came into the office. The salesman testified that Ross was on Womack’s lap and Womack had his arms around Ross’s waist and Ross was feverishly trying to pull away. After the salesman came in, Womack, who the salesman said looked “perverted,” released his hold on Ross. During this same day, Ross’s sister, Stroudenmire, came to work for her first day of work as a sales trainee. She heard some employees laughing while looking at a picture in Womack’s office. She told Ross and they went into the office to obtain the picture. Two salesmen were laughing at a picture, but slipped it into Womack’s desk drawer when the two came in. Stroudenmire removed the picture from the drawer. It was the one taken up Ross’s dress. Ross left the office in tears and went to the ladies’ room. Later that day Womack called Ross into his office and told her to “bend over” and clean something off the wall. She refused to do so and started to leave. Womack proceeded to close the door to prevent her from leaving and trapped Ross against the door. Ross escaped by crawling out from under Womack’s arm. Womack later entered a room in which Stroudenmire was studying and told her that he bet she liked to wear black boots and carry a whip in the bedroom. Womack also segregated Stroudenmire from the other sales trainees who were studying together, refused to allow her to take materials home to study with, and threatened in a loud voice to have Stroudenmire’s husband fired and to make Stroudenmire and her husband lose their home because Stroudenmire reported Womack’s activities to his supervisor. Stroudenmire and Ross called the sheriff and told him of the threats and asked him to come to Double Diamond. When he came and inquired as to what was going on, Womack said they were just having fun. Ross and Stroudenmire soon after left their jobs after being told they could not take the rest of the afternoon off or if they did so, they could not return. To determine severity or pervasiveness the court should consider several things. First, the nature of the unwelcome sexual acts or words. Generally unwelcome physical touching is more offensive than unwelcome verbal abuse.
However, this is only a generalization and in specific situations, the type of language used may be more offensive than the type of physical touching. Second, a court should consider the frequency of the offensive encounters. It is less likely that a hostile work environment exists when, for instance, the offensive encounters occur once every year than if the encounters occur once every week. Third, the court would consider the total number of days over which all the offensive meetings occur. Lastly, the court should consider the context in which the sexually harassing conduct occurred. The court emphasizes that none of these factors should be given more weight than others. In addition, the nonexistence of one of these factors does not, in and of itself, prevent a Title VII claim. The trier of fact must consider the totality of the circumstances. Because of its importance in this case, the court chooses to elaborate on the reasons why a short duration of sexual harassment does not prohibit a Title VII claim. The courts are looking for a pattern of sexual harassment inflicted upon an employee because of her gender because this type of activity is a pattern of behavior that inflicts disparate treatment upon a member of one gender with respect to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Sexual harassment need not exist over a long period for it to be considered a pattern. If the sexual harassment is frequent and/or intensely offensive, a pattern can be established over a short period of time. The court finds that the acts and communications perpetrated against Ross at Double Diamond are sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Ross’s employment and create an abusive work environment. This is not so with Stroudenmire. Title VII is not a shield which protects people from all sexual discrimination. The type of conduct listed above does not rise to the level of harassment which is actionable. It is not sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of employment or create an abusive work environment. JUDGMENT for ROSS.
Q1. Do you agree with the court’s decision about Stroudenmire? Ross? Explain.
Q2. As the manager, what would you have done about Womack?
Q3. Do you agree that there was sufficient severity and pervasiveness in the two-day period here? Specifically what makes you reach your conclusion?
Your answer must be typed, double-spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides, APA format.