In Oncale vs. Sundowner, the courts stipulated that a charge of sexual harassment is not contingent on
the gender of the victim OR the harasser.
In October 1991, Oncale was working for respondent Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U. S.
A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. He was employed as a roustabout on an eight-man crew. On
several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by his
male coworkers in the presence of the rest of the crew. His coworkers, including supervisory personnel,
grabbed him, held him, removed their penises from their trousers and threatened to have sex with him.
He also alleged he was in a shower when these same men entered the shower, pinned him, and
abused him using a bar of soap. (Note: all men involved, including Oncale, were heterosexual.)
Oncale complained to his supervisors, but this produced no results. He eventually quit his job, asking
that his pink slip reflect that he "voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse."
Later, Oncale filed a complaint against Sundowner in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, alleging that discrimination because of his sex. His case was tossed out, with the
court stating "Mr. Oncale, a male, has no cause of action under Title VII for harassment by male co-
workers." Oncale appealed, and won a reversal by the Supreme Court which stipulated:
"Sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. Title
VII's prohibition of discrimination "because of . . . sex" protects men as well as women....There is
no justification in Title VII's language or the Court's precedents for a categorical rule barring a
claim of discrimination "because of . . . sex" merely because the plaintiff and the defendant (or
the person charged with acting on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex. Recognizing
liability for same-sex harassment will not transform Title VII into a general civility code for the
American workplace, since Title VII is directed at discrimination because of sex, not merely
conduct tinged with offensive sexual connotations; since the statute does not reach genuine but
innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with members of the same,
and the opposite, sex; and since the objective severity of harassment should be judged from the
perspective of a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering all the circumstances.
This case also set the precedent that an harasser does not have to have sexual intentions towards a
target for their behavior to be viewed as sexual harassment. For example, if a straight man is harassing
another man, if the behaviors include unwanted sexual attention or actions, it can still constitute sexual
harassment.
This case has been lauded by homosexual groups, who have pointed out that the precedent set
provides protections for gays who are often the targets of sexual harassment because of their
orientation. Indeed, it has been heralded as a landmark "gay rights" case, even though the people
involved were all heterosexuals.
Oncale v. Sundowner: Same-sex Harassment, and Sexual Harassment of Men
Oncale V.
Sundowner and
Same-sex
Harassment
Sexual Harassment Support
|
Support and information for anyone who has experienced sexual harassment.