By Eric B. Meyer
To prove sexual harassment, a plaintiff must have been subjected to pervasive or severe behavior that would make the plaintiff (and a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s shoes) believe that the working environment are hostile or abusive.
Wait, I’m forgetting something. Oh yeah, the complained-of conduct must only be on account of the plaintiff’s gender. Seems simple enough, right? No sex-based conduct. No sexual harassment. After the break, a recent example that highlights this important element.
Last week, the Superior Court of NJ, Appellate Division decided Miceli v. Lakeland Automotive Corp. Ms. Miceli was a salesperson for Lakeland for less than a year until she voluntarily quit her job. When asked by the Court do describe the “sexual harassment” that she had suffered, Ms. Micelli described the quintessential equal-opportunity jerk:
The Court: And what would [the harasser] say?
Miceli: He would be very abusive.
The Court: Like what, what would he say, you’re a lousy sales person or what?
Miceli: No, he never said anything like that, but if I had done something wrong, he didn’t take me into his office and — and speak to me about it. He would just openly just blow off steam right in front of everyone else.
The Court: Like what? I mean he didn’t literally blow off steam, he made statements. What would he say?
Miceli: He made statements that, you know you’re not supposed to do these things, we can get fined $500 for this. He said, you know, this is not the way to do it. Instead, just take me into the office and tell me what I did wrong.
Remember: Sex must motivate rude conduct to be actionable as sexual harassment.
The lower court held the Ms. Micelli’s sexual-harassment case failed because the behavior of which she complained, albeit boorish and impolite, was not predicated upon sexist conduct. The appeals court agreed that the co-worker’s conduct was “rude and obnoxious” but not motivated by gender. Case dismissed.
This was originally published on Eric B. Meyer’s blog, The Employer Handbook.