Opinion ID: 3033618
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applying the differential effects standard

Text: [5] Whatever the motive, the ultimate question under Oncale is whether Harvey’s behavior affected women more adversely than it affected men. Plaintiffs allege that Harvey’s treatment of women employees was “more abusive” and that he treated “his female subordinates worse” by “subjecting the women to more severe, more frequent, more physically threatening abuse.” Defendants deny this allegation. These charges and their denials make a triable question of fact.
[6] We have previously held that it is error to conclude that harassing conduct is not because of sex merely because the abuser “consistently abused men and women alike.” Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1463 (9th Cir. 1994). In that case, the sex- or gender-specific character of the abuse directed at female employees was fairly obvious, and summary judgment was clearly inappropriate. Id. (“The numerous depositions of Showboat employees reveal that Trenkle was indeed abusive to men, but that his abuse of women was different. It relied on sexual epithets, offensive, explicit references to women’s bodies and sexual conduct.”). We went on 12112 CHRISTOPHER v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOC. to state that even if the supervisor had “used sexual epithets equal in intensity and in an equally degrading manner against male employees, he cannot thereby ‘cure’ his conduct toward women. Ellison unequivocally directs us to consider what is offensive and hostile to a reasonable woman.” Id. at 1464. [7] We acknowledge that our invocation of the “reasonable woman” standard, which renders sex-specific differences in the subjective effects of objectively identical behavior sufficient to ground a claim of discrimination, was rooted in the context of explicitly sex- or gender-specific conduct or speech. We now hold that evidence of differences in subjective effects (along with, of course, evidence of differences in objective quality and quantity) is relevant to determining whether or not men and women were treated differently, even where the conduct is not facially sex- or gender-specific. [8] The record reveals at least a debatable question as to the objective differences in treatment of male and female employees, and strongly suggests that differences in subjective effects were very different for men and women. One male UniServ Director (the same position held by Christopher), apparently had a very different experience with Harvey than Christopher did. Mark Jones stated that Harvey raised his voice to him only on a “couple of occasions” and that they were “able to talk it out — I mean the period of raising the voice was very short” and that “[s]ince then I have not experienced any of that.” Moreover, Christopher also testified that the character of Harvey’s aggressiveness with male employees was different from that experienced by female employees: it had the quality of “bantering back and forth with somebody, and being with the boys . . . at the end of the day, I would go in and he and Bob and Rich and Jeff are all laughing in Tom’s office, talking, talking, talking, laughing, laughing.” Similarly, Bhend stated that Harvey “shar[ed] a ‘we’re all guys here’ relationship with male employees.” However, Cloutier testified to an incident with Harvey that “scared the hell out of” him, during which, at one point, HarCHRISTOPHER v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOC. 12113 vey “instantly [ ] was three inches from my nose — chin, he’s a fairly short guy . . . And I don’t even remember what he was saying — very loud, spitting in my face, accusing me of being insubordinate.” This is the only incident described in the record that seems to be comparable in magnitude with the multiple incidents involving female employees described by the plaintiffs. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that any male employee manifested anywhere near the same severity of reactions (e.g., crying, feeling panicked and physically threatened, avoiding contact with Harvey, avoiding submitting overtime hours for fear of angering Harvey, calling the police, and ultimately resigning) to Harvey’s conduct as many of the female employees have reported. A few instances of hostile behavior toward male employees — which the record suggests may have had a qualitatively different, “bantering” character — do not erase the possibility that a reasonable jury might find that the pattern of abuse directed at female employees was discriminatory.
The defendants argue that because Harvey had more regular contact with female than with male employees the differential effect on women was merely incidental. For example, Cloutier testified that the “men working in that office left lots of times to go to school buildings, to fly out of state. It was only the women that stayed there, and it was the women who felt most vulnerable.” [9] At least two other circuits have held, as we now do, that an unbalanced distribution of men and women in relevant employment positions, and the fact that some men were also harassed, does not automatically defeat a showing of differential treatment. See Kopp v. Samaritan Health Sys., Inc., 13 F.3d 264, 269 (8th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he incidents of abuse Kopp has cited in the record involve primarily women. . . . [A]pproximately ten involved female employees; only four involved male employees.”); Haugerud v. Amery School 12114 CHRISTOPHER v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOC. Dist., 259 F.3d 678, 695 (7th Cir. 2001) (reversing summary judgment on hostile work environment claim despite fact that “[d]etermining whether plaintiff was treated differently because of her sex, as opposed to some other reason . . . is admittedly complicated by the fact that she is the only day custodian at the high school”). To hold otherwise would allow the accident of a mostly female workplace to insulate even a culpable employer from liability. The precise determination of how much qualitative and quantitative difference in treatment is enough circumstantial evidence to support a Title VII claim is a question for the jury. We leave open the possibility that in some cases, the quantitative comparison between male and female employees as classes will reveal differences too slight to survive summary judgment. In this case, however, summary judgment was not appropriate. Sufficiently Severe The facts already recited present a triable issue whether the work environment Harvey created was sufficiently severe to be illegal under Title VII. The rule is that “the required showing of severity or seriousness of the harassing conduct varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct.” Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d at 878. Where the conduct in question was allegedly a “daily thing,” there can be little question that a reasonable juror might infer that Harvey’s pattern of verbal and physical intimidation, as confirmed by a wide range of employees, was sufficiently severe to satisfy the statute. Summary Judgment for the NEA NEA national argues that its summary judgment should be affirmed, even if judgment for NEA-Alaska is reversed. NEA argues that it is not a proper party in this action because it was not named in the original EEOC charges. However, failure to name the party in the original charges is not dispositive. The law of this circuit is that CHRISTOPHER v. NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOC. 12115 Title VII charges can be brought against persons not named in an E.E.O.C. complaint as long as they were involved in the acts giving rise to the E.E.O.C. claims. Further, where the EEOC or defendants themselves “should have anticipated” that the claimant would name those defendants in a Title VII suit, the court has jurisdiction over those defendants even though they were not named in the EEOC charge. Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d 1451, 1458-59 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ortez v. Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 808 (9th Cir. 1996). Moreover, in general, “[t]he jurisdictional scope of a Title VII claimant’s court action depends upon the scope of both the EEOC charge and the EEOC investigation.” Sosa v. Hiraoka, 920 F.2d at 1456. NEA further argues that it “cannot in any event be held responsible under Title VII for the alleged harassment” because it did not exercise sufficient authority and control over Harvey’s conduct or the conditions of his employment. These are fact-intensive questions that have not been addressed by the district court and as to which the record has not been fully developed. Accordingly, both the jursidictional and the liability questions regarding the NEA should be addressed on remand.