A hostile working environment can be a form of sexual harassment, which is illegal sex discrimination under Title VII federally and under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in California. However, many companies don’t know how to protect employees from sexual harassment and many people do not understand exactly what do and do not constitute a hostile work environment under the law, understandable given the complexities of legal matters. Importantly, hostile conduct does not necessarily need to be sexual in nature to be considered as creating a hostile work environment and thereby a form of unlawful sex discrimination. In fact, there are many cases where this idea has been upheld. If any of the following scenarios sound familiar to you, you may be a victim of sexual harassment. If so, consider speaking with a discrimination attorney to discuss your rights.

1. Gregory v. Daly
   In this case, After Theresa Gregory talked to a sexual harassment lawyer she alleged that her executive director subjected her to sexual ridicule, advances, and intimidation. Additionally, after she complained, he punished her further by undermining her ability to complete her work, depriving her of job duties and salary increases, and terminating her in the end. Initially, her case was dismissed due to the defense that the complaint was “nothing more than accusations of demeaning comments,” [internal quotes omitted] which essentially pointed to a lack of connection between the plaintiff’s sex and the hostile conduct. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree, however, saying that a work environment can be considered hostile (and thereby a form of sex discrimination) even when the conduct lacks a sexual component or explicit reference to the sex of the victim. They discussed the need to look at the entirety of the evidence and said that the “sex-based character of much of Daly’s behavior permits the inference that the remainder of his harassing conduct was also due to Gregory’s sex.” In other words, just because certain incidents in isolation might not appear to be sex-based discrimination, taken together, they can be inferred to be related to sex.
2. Smith v. Sheahan
   In Smith v. Sheahan, Valeria Smith was violently assaulted by a fellow guard, Ronald Gamble, at a county jail. This was preceded by unpleasantness towards his female colleagues generally. While Smith complained internally, little was done by the department to rectify the wrongs. Due to the inaction of the Sheriff’s Department after her complaints, after a free consultation with a discrimination attorney Smith filed a lawsuit for sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment under Title VII. The district court initially ruled that the harassing behaviors were too isolated to be considered sex discrimination under Title VII, but the Seventh Circuit disagreed. To show that Gamble’s actions were not random violence and were instead motivated by the sex of his victims, Smith presented “me too” evidence, providing affidavits from six other women at the county jail that showed Gamble’s pattern of offensive behavior with female coworkers. For instance, one woman described two incidents with Gamble, one when he made sexual comments about her body while scanning her at the jail’s entrance; when she objected to this, he became hostile and called her a “bitch,” and coworkers had to intervene to prevent escalation. In the other incident, Gamble made a demand without proper authorization and when refused, he again became hostile and called her a “bitch,” going so far as to threaten to “kick [her] ass.” Again, another officer had to intervene and try to calm down Gamble. While this incident was reported, nothing was done about it. Together, there were seven incidents where Gamble became verbally abusive and threatened physical assault, five of which were reported. When Smith filed a criminal complaint against Gamble and he was found guilty of criminal battery, the Sheriff’s Department promoted him. More than that, they effectively demoted Smith by transferring her to an undesirable position. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit found that Gamble’s violent assault of Smith, even though it was not sexual assault, could qualify as an action that created a hostile work environment given the broader context of his patterned negative attitude towards women.
3. EEOC v. National Education Association, Alaska
   In a similar case, EEOC v. National Education Association- Alaska, the EEOC filed a case of sex discrimination on behalf of three women whose manager, Thomas Harvey, abused them daily. Harvey screamed at female staff with little or no provocation, often employing profane language and castigating them publicly. Additionally, he intimated the women physically by doing things like sneaking up on them to watch them work without reason and shaking his fists at them while within striking distance. They feared he might attack them. One woman described working with him as feeling like “working with a ticking time bomb” that “raises the hairs on your neck because you just don’t know what you’re going to get.” Moreover, although high up management officials knew about the harassing conduct, no action was taken to stop it and in fact, Harvey was actually promoted. Initially, the case was dismissed because the behavior was deemed to be not overtly sexual and thereby not sex-based harassment. As in the aforementioned cases, the Court of Appeals, this time the Ninth Circuit, disagreed. The Ninth Circuit said harassing behavior need not be motivated by lust or blatant misogyny to be considered unlawful sex discrimination. In this case, the conduct was targeted at women specifically and therefore can be considered discriminatory. Ultimately, the case was settled for $750,000 in damages and an agreement by the defendants to expunge plaintiffs’ negative employment records associated with the discrimination as well as provide annual training to all employees about how to address issues of discrimination. In these three cases, the final say was that nonsexual hostile conduct can still create a hostile work environment for women. Such conduct can include verbal abuse (e.g. calling women “bitches”), violence, and intimidation, among other things if the behavior is targeted at people because of their sex. Of course, sex discrimination can happen to men or women, as well as to non-binary people. In any case, it is a serious matter that needs to be addressed promptly. If you believe you have suffered from sex discrimination in the workplace, if you have been retaliated against for protesting such discrimination, reach out to a discrimination lawyer and figure out what your options are. You may be entitled to monetary damages.

Sometimes a good training can prevent sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace