Ethics in the workplace

Ethics in the workplace
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to find some individuals using disrespectful and obscene words at the workplace. Others resort to vulgar language when they get mad or even to sound humorous. However, according to a recent 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, Title VII prohibits such behavior in the workplace. In the case, Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc, the court of appeal also held that general discrimination against women including the use of pornography and dirty words at the workplace amount to sexual harassment even when such behavior doesn’t target any specific lady.
In the case mentioned above, Reeves, the plaintiff, used to work at CHRW before she resigned in 2004 citing unfavorable work environment. Consequently, Reeves sued CHRW in the year 2006 for sexual harassment. The claims sheet read that her male workmates used vulgar words and also tuned into a radio station that used sexually inappropriate language. Reeves testified that initially she was comfortable with the use of some of the vulgar words but got upset when the use of the vulgar words was excessive. At times she sent an email to some of the male workmates, bringing to their attention that she had no issue with “normal cursing,” but she could not stand the use of sexually abusive language. Sometimes she wrote some of the “dirty” words in her notebook or sent herself an email. She also testified that this behavior happened on a daily basis, which was disturbing. Additionally, she testified that her male counterparts used the offensive words even while on the phone and they used the words without caring who was around in the office.

The testimonial continued to read that the employer also provided a radio in the office that CHRW staff listened to as they executed their duties. However, Reeves found a certain morning radio show quite offensive due to the use of sexually abusive words by the presenters. Reeves claimed that the morning radio show discussed sex, the female body, naked women and topics centered on pornography. In the year 2002, Reeves complained about the harsh work environment to senior personnel in the company, but her concerns were not addressed. Early 2004, Reeves went on a maternity leave, she returned in March worked for a few weeks and then resigned.
As per the 11th Circuit, the CHRW work environment was extremely harsh following the use of vulgar and offensive language. The court ruled that the plaintiff was exposed to sexual harassment and unconducive work conditions. An excerpt from the court decision partly reads “Evidence that co-workers aimed their insults at a protected group may give rise to the inference of an intent to discriminate on the basis of sex, even when those insults are not directed at the individual employee” (United States Courts of Appeal for the 11th Circuit, 2010). The defendant (CHRW) argued that the harsh environment and use of vulgar words existed before the plaintiff joined the company and therefore should not be considered as discrimination against persons of a certain gender. However, the court countered this argument by saying that the discriminatory behavior should have stopped once the plaintiff arrived at the company. The court cited Title VII and other state laws that compel an employer to guarantee equality at the workplace.
While the above ruling is a subject of widespread debate on what amounts to sexual harassment, Title VII summarizes it all. This Act outlaws all forms of discrimination against any person regarding their conditions, remuneration, sex, ethnicity, race or color. According to Marcosson (1992), the Supreme Court has previously ruled on related cases in which the court established that sexual harassment at the workplace against individuals of one gender is anything that creates sexual inequality. Referring to the above case, it can be argued that the use of vulgar language at CHRW goes against Title VII and the Supreme Court decisions. In other cases, the Supreme Court has also asserted that inequitable, abusive office environment occurs when the office is filled with insults, intimidation, and mockery to the extent that it affects the office environment to the disadvantage of the victim. Other scholars have also noted that the same guidelines of Tittle VII apply even for independent contractors and their employees (Adler & Peirce, 1992). Therefore, had the same events occurred with an independent contractor, the court would have still looked for evidence of discrimination in the same way it did in Reeves vs. CHRW.
Regarding the morning radio show, the court of appeal said that they did not give it much consideration. The court went ahead to say that they, however, recognized that Reeves complained that the radio show talked about women in a discriminatory way and even complained to workmates and her managers. The court’s response partly reads “the branch manager’s and co-workers’ refusal to respond to her repeated complaints may yield an inference about their intent to discriminate” (United States Courts of Appeal for the 11th Circuit, 2010). According to Oswald & Woerner (1990) deciding what amounts to discrimination based on the contents of the radio is somewhat difficult because the topics discussed on the radio are subjective. Also as rightly argued by the court, radio shows are subject to regulation by respective authorities. Therefore, the use of vulgar language by radio shows can amount to discrimination at the workplace only after careful consideration of the office events and conditions.
References
Adler, R. S., & Peirce, E. R. (1992). Legal, Ethical, and Social Implications of the Reasonable Woman Standard in Sexual Harassment Cases, The. Fordham L. Rev., 61, 773.
Marcosson, S. A. (1992). Harassment on the Basis of Sexual Orientation: A Claim of Sex Discrimination under Title VII. GEO. lj, 81, 1.
Oswald, S. L., & Woerner, W. L. (1990). Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A View through the Eyes of the Courts. Labor Law Journal, 41(11), 786.
United States Courts of Appeal for the 11th Circuit. (2010). Ingrid Reeves, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., Defendant-Appellate. Retrieved from http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200710270op2.pdf