The importance of workplace policies targeted at preventing and addressing workplace discrimination and harassment cannot be overstated.\u00a0 The EEOC has emphasized the importance of employer training and effective policies in its proposed Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Harassment.\u00a0 Preventing systemic harassment has also been reaffirmed as a priority in the EEOC\u2019s Strategic Enforcement Plan for 2017-2021.\u00a0 The goal is to eliminate harassment and the EEOC has identified \u201cprevention is the best cure\u201d as the guiding principal.\u00a0 To this end, employers are urged to establish effective and accessible workplace policies, as well as effective harassment training in the workplace.<\/p>\n
The meaning of the term \u201charassment\u201d remains an issue in the workplace.\u00a0 Courts recognize a discrimination claim founded upon a hostile work environment when the harassment so infects a workplace that it alters the terms or conditions of the plaintiff\u2019s employment.\u00a0 In order to establish a legally viable claim for a hostile work environment, also referred to as harassment, a plaintiff must show the following elements:<\/p>\n
There has been a split about the correct legal standard to be applied in evaluating the second prong of the legal test for harassment, specifically, the \u201csevere or pervasive\u201d standard.\u00a0 Within the Third Circuit, some district courts have held that the discrimination must be \u201cpervasive and regular\u201d to establish a claim, and other courts have held that the correct standard is \u201csevere and<\/u> pervasive.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the legal standard used to determine whether a discrimination plaintiff has set forth a claim of hostile work environment in a recently filed opinion.\u00a0 In the case of Castleberry v. STI Group<\/u>,[i]<\/a> the Court held that the correct legal standard for determining whether a plaintiff has set forth a claim for a hostile work environment is that the discrimination must be \u201csevere or<\/u> pervasive.\u201d\u00a0 In the Castleberry<\/u> case, the plaintiffs, African-Americans, alleged that their supervisor used a racial slur in front of them and their co-workers.\u00a0 The supervisor\u2019s use of the highly offensive word was alleged to have been accompanied by a threat of termination.\u00a0 Both plaintiffs were terminated a couple of weeks after they complained about the incident.\u00a0 The employer filed a motion to dismiss the case under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to set forth a plausible claim for a hostile work environment.\u00a0 The District Court agreed, holding that a single use of a racial slur was not sufficient to state a claim, because they failed to plead discrimination that was \u201cpervasive and regular.\u201d<\/p>\n The Third Circuit reversed.\u00a0 In its opinion, the Court ruled that even a single incident of discrimination could be adequate to set forth a plausible claim of harassment, provided that the incident is adequately \u201csevere.\u201d\u00a0 The Court relied on the Supreme Court\u2019s holding that \u201cisolated incidents (unless extremely serious) <\/em>will not amount to harassment.\u201d[ii]<\/a>\u00a0 To meet this standard, \u201cthe incident [must] \u2018be extreme to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of employment\u2019 for it to serve as the basis of a harassment claim.\u201d[iii]<\/a><\/p>\n The Court of Appeals emphasized the procedural posture of the case in its opinion.\u00a0 The District Court dismissed the case on a FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, thus disposing of the case before any discovery had occurred.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals noted that the claims should not have been dismissed at this early stage of the litigation, before the plaintiffs had the opportunity to take discovery regarding their claims.<\/p>\n Several courts have applied Castleberry<\/u> since the opinion was issued. In a recent decision, a District Court granted the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), holding that the conduct alleged in the complaint was not \u201csufficiently severe \u2018to amount to a change in the terms and conditions of employment.\u2019\u201d[iv]<\/a> The Court rejected the plaintiff\u2019s argument that an isolated instance of a racial slur is always sufficient to meet the hostile work environment standard in every case, noting that the \u201cresolution of this question is context-specific.\u201d[v]<\/a>\u00a0 In another case, the Court denied a motion to dismiss in which the plaintiff alleged a hostile work environment, holding that, \u201cWhether occasional instances are pervasive is a question that can only be answered after discovery.\u201d[vi]<\/a><\/p>\n For employers, the Castleberry<\/u> case provides an important reminder of the necessity of having an effective harassment policy in place, as well as training at all levels of management on anti-harassment and harassment reporting procedures.\u00a0 Employers should ensure that managers understand the serious responsibility they are charged with to properly respond to harassment and discrimination complaints in the workplace.\u00a0 In evaluating employee complaints, human resources managers should be aware that even a single act of discrimination could be sufficient to establish a plausible claim of harassment, if it is sufficiently severe.\u00a0 On this basis, it is imperative to take appropriate action in investigating all claims of discrimination with an accurate understanding of the legal standard that could be applied in court.\u00a0 Prompt and appropriate remedial action by the employer must then be taken as warranted.<\/p>\n [i]<\/a> 863 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2017). Nancy Conrad is a partner at White and Williams LLP, where she is the Chair of the Labor and Employment and Education Practice Groups.\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n Tanya Salgado is an associate at White and Williams LLP, and focuses her practice on employment law.<\/em><\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nancy Conrad (LAW \u201889) and Tanya Salgado discuss hostile work environment claims in today\u2019s workplace<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1358,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,70],"tags":[453,106,454,293,455],"coauthors":[452,2,451],"class_list":["post-1357","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-alumni-authored","category-labor-and-employment","tag-claims","tag-compliance","tag-eeoc","tag-employment","tag-sexual-harassment","masonry-post","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-33"],"yoast_head":"\n
\n[ii]<\/a> Faragher v. City of Boca Raton<\/u>, 524 U.S. 775, 788 (1998).
\n[iii]<\/a> Castleberry<\/u>, 863 F.3d at 264.
\n[iv]<\/a> Harley v. City of N.J. City,<\/u> 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135595 at *10 (D.N.J. 2017).
\n[v]<\/a> Id.
\n<\/u>[vi]<\/a> Sztroin v. PennWest Indust. Truck, LLC<\/u>, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162123 at *17-18 (W.D. Pa. 2017).<\/p>\n
\n