The relevance of context in assessing claims
Also to what extent can “context” offer a justification for just what otherwise would plainly be behavior that is harassing?
First, exactly just what gets the Supreme Court said about “context”? In its 1998 choice in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., the Supreme Court claimed that the court using Title VII should offer “consideration of this social context in which particular behavior does occur and it is skilled by its target” when determining whether an objectively aggressive environment existed.
For instance, Justice Scalia noted in their bulk opinion, context is really what differentiates a mentor’s slapping a soccer player in the behind after a game title, from their doing the same task to their assistant straight back on the job. Context might justify the behavior that is former although not the latter.
But federal courts have actually struggled using the notion of “context, ” sometimes 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 the feminine vehicle motorist could perhaps perhaps maybe not prevail inside her aggressive environment claim as a result of 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 human being behavior. “
Demonstrably, there was issue with this specific logic, nonetheless. One might rewrite the court’s remark, more accurately, that way: when you look at the world that is real of work, profanity and vulgarity aren’t regarded as aggressive or abusive by many people male, and some feminine, construction industry workers. Indelicate types of phrase are accepted, or endured as normal individual behavior by many male, and some feminine, construction industry workers. Continue reading “This argument raises a crucial concern: So what does context suggest, in terms of intimate harassment claims?”