This argument raises a crucial concern: just what does context suggest, with regards to intimate harassment claims?

The relevance of context in evaluating claims

Also to what extent can “context” offer a reason for just what otherwise would plainly be harassing behavior?

First, just exactly 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.

As an example, Justice Scalia noted inside the bulk viewpoint, context is really what differentiates an advisor’s slapping a soccer player in the behind after a game title, from his doing the same task to their assistant straight straight back in the office. Context might justify the previous behavior, yet not the latter.

But federal courts have actually struggled with all the idea 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 driver could maybe maybe not prevail inside her aggressive environment claim due to context. The court opined that in “the world that is real of work, profanity and vulgarity are not regarded as aggressive or abusive. Indelicate kinds of phrase are accepted or endured as normal human being behavior. “

Clearly, there is certainly a nagging issue with this specific logic, but. One might rewrite the court’s remark, more accurately, in this way: into the real-world of construction work, profanity and vulgarity aren’t regarded as hostile or abusive by many male, and some feminine, construction industry workers. Indelicate types of phrase are accepted, or endured as normal individual behavior by numerous male, and some female, construction industry workers. Continue reading