This suit was filed by Joseph Oncale against Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., including the following employees, John Lyons, Danny Pippen and Brandon Johnson, alleging that he was sexually harassed while he was working for the company in violation of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The district court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed Oncale’s case. " Because our decision in Garcia v. Elf Atochem No. Am., 28 F.3d 446,451-52 (5^th Cir.1994), holds that same-sex harassment is not cognizable under Title VII, we affirm".

Joseph Oncale filed this Title VII action against Sundowner, because his supervisor (John Lyons), and two other co-workers (Danny Pippen and Brandon Johnson), took part by restraining him while lyons placed his private part on Oncale on different occasions.He was threatened with homosexual rape by Lyons and Pippen, and the use of force by Lyons and Pippen in a sexual rape.

The case eventually went to the U.S.Supreme Court. It was unanimously agreed that same-sex harassment can violate a federal anti-discrimination law. " Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination "because of … sex" protects men as well as women, Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U.S. 669,682, and in the related context of racial discrimination in the workplace this court has rejected any conclusive presumption that an employer will not discriminate against members of his own race, Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482,499." The court went on to say that , there is no justification in Title VII’s language or the court’s precedents for a categorical rule barring a claim of discrimination "because of … sex" merely because the plaintiff and the defendant are of the same sex. Recognizing liability for same –sex harassment will not transform Title VII into a general civility code for the American workplace, since Title VII is directed at discrimination because of sex, not merely conduct with offensive sexual connotations; since the statute does not reach genuine differences in the ways men and women interact with members of the same , and opposite sex; and since the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering all the circumstances. Pp. 2-7.

83 F. 3d 118, reversed and remanded.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/95/95-30510-cv0.htm

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=96-568

http://web.lawcrawler.com/scripts/lc.pl?e…sment&focus=checked&sites=any&context=top

Back to Legal Research Pathfinders Page