Here is a case from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Rosario v. Department of the Army, decided June 2. The court's opinion sketches out the basics. Rosario worked for a supervisor who was allegedly obsessed with her clothing, which he criticized as being overly revealing. He told others, in front of her, that he could see her underwear. He did so on a daily basis and commented that she dressed like a "street worker." He wrote her up for her choice of inappropriate attire, but other employees said her dress was fine. Here is part of the write up:
The way we dress for the workplace should be "business like." On occasion the way you dress has made me and co-workers very uncomfortable . . . in the workplace you are required to stand, ben[d], reach above for documents, and you need to be fully aware, clothing that attracts the attention of others, again the standard is business like.
A co-worker of the supervisor told the supervisor that the co-worker thought the supervisor had a crush on Rosario. There's more. The supervisor supposedly did not like Rosario eating at her desk and threw away her food when she did and removed personal item from her desk, such as family pictures. Rosario, for her part, said this conduct destroyed her life. She sued for a hostile environment. The trial court tossed it on summary judgment, saying the supervisor may have been rude and a boor, but there was no evidence that his conduct was motivated by sexual desire. The 1st Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment, saying sexual desire is not a necessary element of a hostile environment claim, and courts can consider collateral actions, such as removing the food and personal items, noting that "such acts may be added to the mix in assessing a hostile work environment claim." The court held that males were not exposed to this conduct, the comments were based on Rosario's sex, and they were severe and pervasive. Add it all up, and she gets to take her claim to a jury.
Comments