Opinion ID: 691401
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Legal standard for hostile work environment

Text: 100 Appellants argue that the district court misunderstood the legal standard applicable in a hostile work environment case. Appellants assert that the court believed that a supervisor's 'management style,' even if it treats male and female employees equally, may nevertheless be considered illegal sexual harassment if it has a different effect on female employees. This assertion derives from the court's questioning of defense witnesses. For example, the court questioned Stricklin on whether Stricklin considered that his style may have a different effect on [his] female employees than male employees? Appellants assert that the court's questioning misled the jury into an erroneous understanding of the legal standard. 101 This court in Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir.1982) set forth the elements necessary to establish sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment: (1) the employee complainant must belong to a protected group--in this case, the employee must be a woman; (2) the employee must establish that she was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment complained of must be based upon gender; and (4) the harassment complained of must have affected the condition of the complainant's employment. Henson, 682 F.2d at 903-04. The district court instructed the jury in accordance with these elements. 102 The district court's questioning of the witnesses complained of went to whether appellants considered whether Stricklin's management style was more offensive to female employees than male employees. This is not an improper line of questioning. See e.g., Henson, 682 F.2d at 904 (where the conduct complained of is equally offensive to male and female workers.... [t]he sexual harassment would not be based upon sex because men and women are accorded like treatment.). Appellants' argument is without merit.