4th Circuit issues pro-employee decision in sexual harassment case

What's the most conservative federal appellate court? I think it is the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. When it came out with a pro-employee decision in a sexual harassment case — well, to borrow a phrase, "attention must be paid." Here's the down and the dirty from the court's opinion in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fairbrook Medical Clinic, P.A., decided June 18 .A physician owned a medical clinic. He liked to be a "shock jock" and said nasty stuff of a sexual nature in front of men and women. But he focused in on one female doctor who worked for him. She resigned and went to the EEOC, which took up her cause. The trial court granted summary judgment to the clinic, reasoning that crude jokes do not make a hostile environment. The clinic also argued that doctors deal with human bodies every day; off-color jokes are often used to break the tension of an awkward situation; and she continued to perform her job duties just fine despite the alleged harassment, thus her work environment was unaffected by the alleged harassment. The 4th Circuit made short work of the court's order and these arguments. First, it did not matter that he made offensive remarks to other employees. The only question is whether he used sex-specific and derogatory terms towards this doctor. The comments were highly personalized toward her and arguably were designed to humiliate and demean her because of her sex. Second, no profession gets an exemption from Title VII. The court: "We decline to accept the argument that a medical setting, because it deals with human anatomy is somehow liberated from professional norms." That's the court's way of saying, "Talk to the hand, Mr. Employer." Third — and a lot of courts get this wrong — the issue is not whether an employee can continue  to do a good job: "to work under difficult conditions is to her credit, not the harasser's.” The court notes that the key issue is not impairment of the plaintiff’s work but discriminatory alteration of her working conditions. Fourth, her occasional joking did not mean give him a green light to engage in "the sort of intensely personal and demeaning remarks that [he] allegedly directed at [her]." Shock jocks be warned.