San Antonio Employment Law Blog : San Antonio Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Thomas Crane Law Firm : South Texas, Bexar County TX Wage & Discrimination Issues

 The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a good decision on a sex harassment case.  Reeves v. CH Robinson Worldwide.    The latest version is an en banc decision overruling the result by an earlier 11th Circuit three judge panel.   An en banc decision means all the judges of the Court participated in this decision, not just the original three judges who rendered the first decision.  

The decision addresses the issue regarding the use of certain derogatory terms for women.  Is the use of the term "bitch" inherently discriminatory toward women?  The Court found that use of that term could indicate prejudice toward women depending on the context in which it was used.  Note that not all circuits agree with this finding.   The 7th Circuit, for example, has found that use of the term "bitch" is not necessarily targeted toward gender.   But, the Reeves court found that use of the terms "bitch" or "slut" would inherently be more demeaning toward women.  I think most people would agree, lawyers or non-lawyers.

The Reeves court further found that in this case, even if the men do sometimes use terms such as "bitch" and "whore" toward men, using such terms toward men does not make them less offensive toward women.  "It is undeniable that the terms "bitch" and "whore" have gender specific meanings.  Calling a man "bitch" belittles him specifically because it belittles women," said the Court.  Duh.  Its only amazing that such an issue must be appealed this far up before a judge can apply some common sense.  Yes, indeed, the background and life experiences of a judge do make a critical difference in many cases. 

The 11th Circuit also found that slurs directed at women in general could serve as evidence of prejudice toward a specific woman, thus joining the 2d, 4th, and 7th Circuits.  So, the en banc decision overturns the prior three judge panel decision in this same case.  It is, for once a good decision in favor of the employee. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Aaron Ramirez, a plaintiff employment lawyer in Dallas, writes about the "woman-hating" Dallas Fire Department.  The "D" magazine published an article with that just that title.  He wrote about the sex harassment issues again at this post.  I hope the Dallas experience is unique.  I represented a female victim of sex harassment at the San Antonio Fire Department several years ago and was pleasantly surprised to find that the SAFD actually was pretty anxious to hire her.  They were not guilty of any sex discrimination, at all.  The actual harasser was another employer.  But, of course, having served in the Army Reserve and National Guard for some 25 years, I have some first-hand experience with how some women are treated in male dominated work places.  

It will end at some point, but it may take a few lawsuits before real change comes.....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Cathy McBroom is headed back to Galveston with a promotion.  See Texas Lawyer story.  Ms. McBroom was one of the ladies complaining about Sam Kent's sexual  harassment.  Judge Kent later accepted a plea bargain and is doing 33 months in a federal penitentiary.  Ms. McBroom had been Judge Kent's Case Manager.  She was transferred to the Houston Division in 2007 when she made her complaints.  That is, she was transferred to Houston to work for other federal judges.  She will now go back to Galveston as deputy clerk in charge of the Galveston Division where she will serve as Case Manager for another federal judge. 

If only all sexual harassment complaints could turn out so well......

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 Judge Sam Kent was denied his request to be certified as having a disability which affected his ability to perform his duties.  The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied his request.  Judge Kent was and still is a United States District Judge.  He heard many discrimination cases in his 15 years plus on the federal bench in Galveston.  He denied relief to a great many plaintiffs in discrimination cases, including sex harassment cases.

It turns out he was harassing his own female employees.  He was indicted last year for harassment and obstruction of justice.  He will now very likely be impeached.  If the 5th Circuit had found him to be disabled, then he would have continued to receive his federal judge's pension. 

Its one thing to harass and then deny other female victims the right to sue for harassment.  But, to then claim disability when he has denied disability protections to so many other persons with disabilities.  He claims diabetes and alcoholism.  Alcoholism seems the stronger argument.  But, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (prior to being amended in 2009), alcoholism did not qualify as a disability unless the victim was undergoing treatment.  

Its easy to look at his claim for disability with skepticism.  I hope it was sincere.  If it was, he probably better understands the position of many of my clients when they have been turned down for protection they deserved. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 One question that frequently comes up is what constitutes "sex harassment."  That has been a very important question in the proceedings against a federal judge.  Judge Sam Kent was sent to jail for 33 months for abusing his position and harassing female subordinates.  Certainly, his actions, groping females, was clearly sex harassment.  But, generally, any unwanted attention based on gender constitutes sex harassment.  

But, look at that statement closely.  The actions must be known to the victim.  If not know, there is no way to know whether it is unwanted.  The stereotypical grafitti on the wall of the men's room only becomes an issues when it becomes known to the victim.  And, the actions must be based on gender.  If the grafitti concerns both men and women, then it is probably not based on gender.  

Earlier, Judge Kent tried to claim the touching was consensual.  There are many ways to show consent or non-consent.  It helps if a victim complains about the problem to someone else at about the time of the unwanted attention.  But, the best way to show lack of consent is simply for the victim to file a written complaint about the actions.  Many victims do not complain early on, simply out of a desire to "fit in" or try to get along.  That is part of what makes sex harassment cases problematical.  If employment cases were easy, then the PI lawyers who advertise on TV would be doing them....

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 I am frequently asked about sex discrimination.  Until I retired last year, I was a member of Reserve/National Guard units for many years.  Sex harassment was an occasional topic of concern.  It is true that unwanted touching is clear sex harassment.  But, what about invitations to dinner?  What about persistent invitations to dinner?  If the person says no, how clear must she be?  How often does she need to say no?  What if the harassment comes from co-workers?  This is a very complicated subject, wrought with deep emotions on all sides. 

There are generally two types of sex harassment: hostile work environment (most often caused by co-workers) and traditional sex discrimination (in which a supervisor treats an employee differently due to the employee's gender).  Hostile work environment refers to occasions when co-workers make a person's work environment extremely difficult - and the co-workers(s) are motivated by the victim's gender.  This is when you hear stories of graphic pictures hanging on the wall or sex based jokes.  As I used to tell my Guard/Reserve audiences, the only safe joke now is a good Aggie joke.  There is no place for gender based jokes in today's workplace.  

Contrary to what some people, even some trained HR personnel, say, there is no easy formula for what constitutes hostile work environment.  It all starts with the alleged victim.  What does he/she say?  What does he/she find objectionable?  The HR/management team should complete a thorough investigation.  The employer is not required to be perfect or understand everything, but it is required to make a thorough investigation and take effective action if necessary.   One of the many challenging aspects of harassment, sex based or otherwise, is the employer must listen closely to the alleged victim.  Sometimes, the harassment consists of relatively harmless acts, such as refusing to invite the victim to critical meetings or even lunch, refusal to greet the alleged victim in the hallway, or worse.  So, it is important that the employer do something it may not often do: listen closely.  

But, in the end, it is about retaining trained, qualified, motivated employees.  So, the better the employer responds to one incident or one complaint, hopefully, the better *all* employees will perform.  In the end, a well-motivated workforce is a profitable workforce.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link