05/16/2024 | News release | Distributed by Public on 05/16/2024 09:34
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) first updated enforcement guidance on workplace harassment in 25 years is broken down into the three components of a harassment claim: (1) the covered bases and causation; (2) discrimination respecting a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (3) liability. We discuss each component in separate articles. This article is on how the guidance addresses the second component, discrimination respecting a term, condition, or privilege of employment.
The guidance does not constitute legally binding precedent, but it does provide "legal analysis of standards for harassment and employer liability applicable to claims of harassment under the equal employment opportunity (EEO) statutes enforced by the Commission." The new guidance supersedes several earlier EEOC guidance documents on harassment.
In addition to being related to a protected characteristic, the guidance explains that harassing conduct must impact a "term, condition, or privilege" of employment to be actionable. In the absence of an explicit change to the terms or conditions of employment, such as termination or demotion, the harassing conduct must be both subjectively and objectively hostile. This standard requires the harassing conduct to be something a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive and the complaining employee believed to be abusive.
According to the guidance, the gravamen of a hostile work environment claim is the unwelcomeness of the conduct. It is the EEOC's position that part of demonstrating subjective hostility is establishing that the complained of conduct is unwelcome and that, in some instances, unwelcomeness may also be relevant to the issue of objective hostility. The guidance notes that following the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, which established the objective and subjective criteria for evaluating hostile work environment claims, some courts continued to analyze the unwelcomeness of the conduct as an element separate from the objective and subjective hostility of the conduct at issue. The guidance states that this approach incorporates an unnecessary step into the hostile work environment analysis.
The subjective element of hostility can generally be established by the plaintiff's own statement that the conduct was hostile or evidence the individual complained about the conduct internally to their employer or to family, friends, or coworkers.
For harassing conduct to be unlawful, it must also be sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively hostile work environment. Conduct can be either severe or pervasive to be actionable. Severity or pervasiveness depends on the specific facts of a given situation and is evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances where no single factor is determinative or required. Sufficiently related harassing acts based on multiple protected characteristics should be considered together in determining whether the conduct created a hostile work environment.
An individual is not required to show either that their performance suffered or that they incurred psychological harm as a result of the harassing conduct in order to establish objective hostility.
The severity of allegedly harassing conduct depends on the particular circumstances of the given situation. The guidance acknowledges that it is not possible to give an exhaustive list of factors used to determine severity. However, it does provide some key factors to be considered:
The pervasiveness element of a hostile work environment claims involves more frequent but less serious incidents comprising a series of acts. The pervasiveness element focuses on the cumulative effect of these acts, instead of examining each act in isolation. Additionally, "the impact of harassment must be evaluated in the context of surrounding circumstances, expectations, and relationships." (Internal quotations omitted.) Whether alleged harassment was objectively hostile necessarily depends on the social context from the perspective of a reasonable person of the complainant's protected class. Factors such as the complainant's "personal or situational characteristics" can also impact whether that individual perceives the alleged conduct as harassing.
The guidance reaffirms that there is no "crude environment" exception to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the "prevailing workplace culture" does not excuse harassing conduct.
While the EEOC considers the unwelcomeness aspect to be part of the subjective hostility element, the guidance states that in some circumstances, evidence of unwelcomeness may also be relevant to establishing objective hostility. This evidence would include whether the alleged harasser had notice that their conduct was not welcome, such as because the complainant communicated the unwelcomeness to them. Communication of the unwelcomeness of the conduct helps to differentiate conduct that may not be facially offensive, such as flirting or religious discussions, from objectively hostile conduct.
An individual can allege a pattern of harassing conduct as long as the alleged acts are sufficiently related so as to be considered part of the same unlawful practice and at least one of the acts falls within the statute of limitations. Hostile conduct that is independently actionable can be used to establish the unlawful practice as long as it is part of the overall pattern of harassment. Types of conduct that are potentially actionable include:
We will discuss how the enforcement guidance addresses liability in an upcoming article.
Related: EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Workplace Harassment: Covered Bases and Causation
Employers should review their harassment policies in light of the new guidance. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.