Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.
| Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 8, 1997 Decided March 4, 1998 |
|
| Full case name | Joseph Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. |
| Citations | 523 U.S. 75 (more) |
| Prior history | Defense verdict upheld by the Fifth Circuit. |
| Holding | |
| Title VII's protection against discrimination in the workplace "because of... sex" applies to harassment between members of the same sex. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Scalia, joined by Unanimous |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 | |
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The case arose out of a suit for sex discrimination by a male oil-rig worker, who claimed that he was repeatedly subjected to sexual harassment by his male co-workers with the acquiescence of his employer. The Court held that Title VII's protection against workplace discrimination "because of... sex" applied to harassment in the workplace between members of the same sex.
In late October 1991, Joseph Oncale was working for Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron USA 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 coworkers in the presence of the rest of the crew. Oncale was also sodomized with a bar of soap and threatened with rape. Oncale's complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action. Instead, the company's Safety Compliance Clerk called him a name suggesting homosexuality. Oncale eventually quit, asking that his pink slip reflect that he "voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse."
Oncale filed a complaint against Sundowner in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging that he was discriminated against in his employment because of his sex. Relying on earlier precedents, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendant: "Mr. Oncale, a male, has no cause of action under Title VII for harassment by male co-workers." Oncale appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision. After granting a petition for writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the decision.
...
Wikipedia