In Dawson v. County of Westchester, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals determined that when analyzing gender-based hostile work environment claims, courts must not only examine whether a female employee was subjected to remarks of an explicit sexual nature but must also determine whether the workplace atmosphere created an “aura of inequality” between males and females, hindering a female employee’s ability to perform her job functions.
In this action, plaintiffs were female corrections officers at a male correctional facility in Westchester County. On or about October 7, 1999, inmates at the facility addressed a document to all female corrections officers that contained degrading, explicit, and violent sexual references. The next day, another document of a similar nature was found at the facility. The female officers brought the letters to the attention of a male sergeant, who expressed indignation at the letters, yet never reported them to his captain or the warden. Plaintiffs alleged that the sergeant subsequently disseminated the letters to personnel throughout the facility. As a result of the publication of the letters, plaintiffs were subjected to a barrage of inappropriate stares, whispers, and remarks from their male colleagues. Plaintiffs also alleged that the dissemination of the letters by superior officers reduced their authority over the inmates.
The correctional facility investigated the sergeant’s behavior concerning the letters and determined that he acted inappropriately. The sergeant was then ordered to attend formal counseling concerning his failure to take appropriate action and was transferred to another facility.
The district court accepted that plaintiffs believed that they were subjected to a hostile work environment but held that the alleged comments and actions of their male co-workers were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment. Rather, the district court held that the actions of the male co-workers “amounted to no more than innocuous badinage of the type to be expected between coworkers of different sexes.” The district court also noted that plaintiffs had chosen to work in a male correctional facility where they would be in close contact with men “not distinguished for commendable deportment or courtly display of social graces,” and that those who chose to work in such an environment “must expect to be exposed at least occasionally to an embarrassing remark or situation.”
The court of appeals reversed, holding that the actions of the male correctional officers undermined the female officers’ sense of personal safety and compromised their ability to command respect and obtain compliance from male co-workers, subordinates, and inmates. The court found this particularly troubling in the prison, where female officers were already vulnerable to the diminution of authority because of “stereotypical assumptions about the propriety of women exercising authority in traditionally male-dominated occupations.” Based on these facts, the court held that a reasonable fact finder could find that the male officers had created a hostile environment.
Employer Notes: Employers risk adverse decisions if they do not take measures to protect employees from gender-based harassment. Employers should establish clear policies concerning the reporting and investigation of alleged harassment by employees or nonemployees, and take steps to ensure that supervisors adhere to those policies. Employers must be particularly sensitive to potential gender-based harassment in jobs that have been traditionally held by men and jobs in which co-workers rely on each other for personal safety. Potentially harsh work environments, such as at a correctional facility, do not shield employers from liability if employers do not utilize measures to prevent and address gender-based discrimination.
Submitted by Beth Hinsdale, who is a Principal in the New Jersey labor and employment law firm of GROTTA, GLASSMAN & HOFFMAN, P.A. Ms. Hinsdale chairs the firm's Public Sector Labor Law Group. You can reach Ms. Hinsdale at 973-992-4800 or via email at hinsdaleb@gghlaw.com.
This article appears in Council’s September 2004 Public Sector Personnel Law Update newsletter. Click here to subscribe or order a free trial.
Council's Personnel Law Update 2004 program can help you stay on top of the most recent state and federal developments in employment law, including workplace harassment. Click on the link above for more information, including a detailed agenda, dates, and locations.
Council's On-Site Division will bring our Employment Law for Managers and Supervisors seminar to your workplace. This comprehensive program covers all of the vital employment law issues your managers need to know in order to avoid legal landmines. For more information on this and other Council On-Site programs, click on the link above or contact Cina Carrigan, Director of On-Site Training, at 704-561-0236 or ccarrigan@counciloned.com.