Document: 510 U.S. 17 HARRISv.FORKLIFT SYSTEMS, INC. No. 92-1168. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 13, 1993. Decided November 9, Petitioner Harris sued her former employer, respondent Forklift Systems, Inc., claiming that the conduct Forklift's president toward constituted "abusive work environment" harassment because gender in violation Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. Declaring this to be "a close case," District found, among other things, often insulted and made target unwanted sexual innuendos. However, court concluded comments question did not create an abusive environment they were "so severe as . seriously affect [Harris'] psychological well-being" or lead "suffe[r] injury." The Appeals affirmed. Held: To actionable harassment, need "seriously [an employee's] plaintiff Pp. 21-23. (a) applicable standard, here reaffirmed, is stated Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57: violated when workplace permeated with discriminatory behavior sufficiently pervasive a discriminatorily hostile working environment, id., at 64, 67. This standard requires objectively environment—one reasonable person would find abusive—as well victim's subjective perception abusive. 21-22. (b) Whether "hostile" "abusive" can determined only by looking all circumstances, which may include frequency conduct; its severity; whether it physically threatening humiliating, mere offensive utterance; unreasonably interferes employee's performance. effect on well-being relevant determining actually found But while harm, like any factor, taken into account, no single factor required. 22-23. (c) Reversal remand are required Court's erroneous application incorrect legal have influenced ultimate conclusion was intimidating Harris, especially given "close case." P. 23. 976 F. 2d 733, reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion for unanimous Court. SCALIA, post, p. 24, GINSBURG, 25, filed concurring opinions. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT 2 Irwin Venick argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Robert Belton Rebecca L. Brown. 3 Jeffrey Minear States et al. amici curiae support brief Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Assistant Attorney Turner, Dennis J. Dimsey, Thomas E. Chandler, Donald R. Livingston, Gwendolyn Young Reams, Carolyn Wheeler. 4 Stanley M. Chernau respondent. Paul Mickey, Jr., Michael A. Carvin, W. Eric Pilsk.* 5 JUSTICE O'CONNOR 6 In case we consider definition (also known "hostile environment") under 1964, 78 Stat. 253, amended, 42 C. § 2000e seq. (1988 ed., Supp. III). 7 * Teresa worked manager equipment rental company, from April 1985 until 1987. Charles Hardy president. 8 Magistrate that, throughout Harris' time Forklift, told several occasions, presence employees, "You're woman, what do you know" "We man manager"; least once, he she dumb ass woman." App. Pet. Cert. A-13. Again front others, suggested two them "go Holiday Inn negotiate raise." Id., A-14. occasionally asked female employees get coins his pants pocket. Ibid. He threw objects ground women, pick up. A-14 A-15. innuendos about women's clothing. 9 mid-August 1987, complained conduct. said surprised offended, claimed joking, apologized. A-16. also promised stop, based assurance stayed job. early September, began anew: While arranging deal one customers, her, again "What do, promise guy some [sex] Saturday night?" A-17. On 1, collected paycheck quit. 10 then Hardy's had created gender. Middle Tennessee, adopting report recommendation Magistrate, A-31, but held environment. "offended [Harris], offend woman," A-33, 11 expected well-being. A woman circumstances been offended Hardy, risen level interfering person's 12 "Neither I believe [Harris] subjectively so suffered injury Although times genuinely poisoned [Harris]." A-34 A-35. 13 focusing well-being, following Circuit precedent. See Rabidue Osceola Refining Co., 805 611, 620 (CA6 1986), cert. denied, 481 1041 (1987). Sixth affirmed unpublished decision. Judgt. order reported 733 (1992). 14 We granted certiorari, 507 959 (1993), resolve conflict Circuits conduct, (no quid pro quo issue present here), must Compare (requiring serious well-being); Vance Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph 863 1503, 1510 (CA11 1989) (same); Downes FAA, 775 288, 292 (CA Fed. 1985) (same), Ellison Brady, 924 872, 877-878 (CA9 1991) (rejecting such requirement). II 15 1964 makes "an unlawful employment practice employer discriminate against individual respect compensation, terms, conditions, privileges employment, individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin." 2000e-2(a)(1). As clear 57 (1986), language "is limited `economic' `tangible' discrimination. phrase `terms, employment' evinces congressional intent `to strike entire spectrum disparate treatment men women' employment," includes requiring people quoting Los Angeles Dept. Water Power Manhart, 435 702, 707, n. (1978) (some internal quotation marks omitted). When "discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, insult," S., 65, "sufficiently alter conditions environment," 67 (internal brackets omitted), violated. 16 reaffirm today, takes middle path between making merely tangible injury. pointed out Meritor, "mere utterance epithet engenders feelings employee," ibid. omitted) does implicate VII. Conduct enough environment—an abusive—is beyond VII's purview. Likewise, if victim perceive abusive, has altered there violation. comes play before harassing leads nervous breakdown. even employees' will detract job performance, discourage remaining job, keep advancing their careers. Moreover, without regard these effects, very fact gender, origin offends broad rule equality. appalling alleged reference environments "`so heavily polluted discrimination destroy completely emotional stability minority group workers,'" 66, Rogers EEOC, 454 234, 238 (CA5 1971), 406 957 (1972), egregious examples harassment. They mark boundary actionable. 18 therefore erred relying affect[ed] plaintiff's led Such inquiry needlessly focus factfinder's attention concrete element require. Certainly bars statute So long reasonably perceived, supra, 67, psychologically injurious. 19 not, nature cannot be, mathematically precise test. answer today potential questions raises, nor specifically address Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's new regulations subject, see 58 Reg. 51266 (1993) (proposed 29 CFR §§ 1609.1, 1609.2); 1604.11 (1993). say circumstances. These is, course, III 20 conceding requirement unfounded, argues nonetheless correctly applied standard. disagree. Though conclude "intimidating [Harris]," A-35, after finding well-being," A-34, "subjectively injury," standards conclusion, A-31. 21 reverse judgment Appeals, further proceedings consistent opinion. 22 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici urging reversal American Liberties Union Steven Shapiro, John Powell, Lois Waldman; Feminists Free Expression Cathy Crosson; NAACP Legal Defense Educational Fund, Elaine Jones Schnapper; National Conference Women's Bar Associations Edith Barnett; Lawyers Association Margaret Katherine Butler, William Smith; NOW Education Fund Deborah Ellis, Sarah Burns, Richard Ziegler, Shari Siegel; Police Benevolent McGuinness; Corwin, Judith Lichtman, Donna Lenhoff, Susan Deller Ross. Williams, Douglas McDowell, Ann Elizabeth Reesman Advisory Council amicus affirmance. Psychological Dort Bigg; Law Center Patricia Shiu. concurring. prohibits form [the victim's] environment.'" (quoting Henson Dundee, 682 897, 904 1982)). Today's elaborates challenged "to abusive." Ante, 21. "Abusive" (or "hostile," context take mean same thing) seem me standard—and think clarity increased adding adverb "objectively" appealing "reasonable person['s]" notion vague word means. list number factors contribute abusiveness, ante, 23, since neither says how much each necessary (an impossible task) identifies determinative, thereby adds little certitude. practical matter, today's holding lets virtually unguided juries decide sex-related engaged permitted by) warrant award damages. One might constitutes "negligence" (a traditional jury question) more certain than "abusiveness." Perhaps so. class plaintiffs seeking recover negligence those who whereas "abusiveness" test harm suffered, opening expansive vistas litigation. Be may, know alternative course taken. mentioned nonexhaustive list—whether performance— would, absolute test, provide greater guidance employers. basis limitation statute. Accepting Meritor's interpretation term "conditions employment" law, impaired, altered. faithful inherently statutory adopts. For reasons, join Today reaffirms 57, 66 (1986): "[A] establish proving sex environment." critical issue, text indicates, members exposed disadvantageous terms exposed. 2000e-2(a)(1) (declaring to, inter alia, "terms" "conditions" employment). Commission emphasized, Brief Amici Curiae 9-14, adjudicator's should center, dominantly, interfered show interference, "the prove productivity declined result harassment." Davis Monsanto Chemical 858 345, 349 1988). It suffices subjected find, did, "ma[k]e difficult job." concerned race-based discrimination, difference analysis; except rare bona fide occupational qualification shown, Automobile Workers Johnson Controls, 499 187, 200-207 (1991) (construing 2000e-2(e)(1)), declares practices equally unlawful.* opinion, join, seems harmony view expressed statement. Indeed, equal protection jurisprudence, exceedingly persuasive justification" gender-based classification,Kirchberg Feenstra, 450 455, 461 (1981) remains open "classifications upon suspect." Mississippi Univ. Women Hogan, 458 718, 724, (1982).

Category: 1