The relevance of context in assessing claims
And to what extent can “context” offer a reason for just what otherwise would clearly be behavior that is harassing?
First, what gets the Supreme Court stated about “context”? The Supreme Court stated that a court applying Title VII should give “careful consideration of the social context in which particular behavior occurs and is experienced by its target” when determining whether an objectively hostile environment existed in its 1998 decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.
For instance, Justice Scalia noted in the bulk viewpoint, context is exactly what differentiates an advisor’s slapping a soccer player regarding the behind after a game title, from his doing the thing that is same their assistant right right back on the job. Context might justify the previous behavior, not the latter.
But federal courts have actually struggled using the idea of “context, ” often running amok along with it. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the tenth Circuit, as an example, held in 1995 in Gross v. Burggraf Construction Co. That a feminine vehicle motorist could maybe maybe perhaps not prevail in her own aggressive environment claim due to context. The court opined that in “the world that is real of work, profanity and vulgarity aren’t regarded as aggressive or abusive. Indelicate types of phrase are accepted or endured as normal individual behavior. “
Clearly, there is certainly problem with this particular logic, nevertheless. One might rewrite the court’s remark, more accurately, in this way: into the world that is real of work, profanity and vulgarity aren’t regarded as aggressive or abusive by many male, and some feminine, construction industry workers. Indelicate types of expression are accepted, or endured as normal peoples behavior by numerous male, and some feminine, construction industry workers. Continue reading “This argument raises a question that is important exactly what does context suggest, in terms of intimate harassment claims?”