A recent court case highlights the necessity for employers to eliminate gender-specific vulgarity from the workplace. While some employers may still choose to allow swearing at work, language that is defamatory towards any sex or racial group should be forbidden, even if it does not target any one individual.
In a case involving trucking company C. H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., sales rep Ingrid Reeves complained repeatedly to upper management about the pervasive use of crude and derogatory terms for women, including female co-workers, clients and women in general. She was also exposed daily to a radio program that was vulgar and made derogatory statements about women. Reeves objected almost daily to her coworkers about their conduct, first in person and then by email.
As the only female Transportation Sales Rep, Reeves worked in an open cubical floor plan at C.H. Robinson with men who viewed porn in full sight of her and their supervisors.
Reeves complained to the branch manager, whose conduct was similarly vulgar. He claims to have discussed her complaints with the male workers, but acknowledges that no change in their actions occurred.
In the initial ruling, a lower court determined that vulgar, offensive language in itself is not sex discrimination. On appeal, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, but found that pervasive sexually offensive language, especially denigrating women, created a hostile work environment for a female.
The federal court in Alabama had previously ruled that sex-specific profanity is more degrading to women then to men.
In an important ruling for the workplace, the court determined that even if the offensive language is not directed at the female employee, it can create a hostile work environment.
Despite the daily use of words that cannot be aired on prime-time TV, plus additional derogatory terms for women, the employer argued that the harassment was not severe or pervasive. They also argued that because both men and women were subjected to the same high level of profanity and vulgarity, this did not constitute sexual harassment.
In this case, the court found that the harassment was severe enough to “alter the terms and conditions of her employment and create an abusive working environment.” Read the ruling for more information on the words used.