Failure to Address Signs of a Hostile Work Environment May Result in Liability

Takeaway: Severe and pervasive hostile work environment claims are assessed under a handful of factors that can be bolstered by evidence of an employer’s failure to address harassment—or even evidence the organization exacerbated the mistreatment.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a plaintiff may survive summary judgment by presenting a genuine issue of material fact as to severe and pervasive harassment by their employer.

The 11th Circuit upheld in part, but also vacated and remanded in part, a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia by ruling that further consideration is needed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to determine whether a hostile work environment claim alleged by the plaintiff demonstrated that the alleged discrimination and harassment was “sufficiently severe or pervasive.”

The plaintiff, a transgender man, worked as a sergeant at the Rogers State Prison in Georgia for three years. While working at the prison, he began to medically and socially transition.

In a lawsuit, he claimed multiple violations of his civil rights because he was allegedly subjected to discrimination and harassment by his supervisors, subordinates, and peers—claims that he said went unaddressed by his supervisors, prison management, and human resources.

Moreover, the plaintiff alleged, his employer exacerbated and encouraged such harassment in ways that interfered with his ability to do his job and even jeopardized his safety as a corrections officer when inmates mirrored the discriminatory behavior and attitudes of his co-workers. His suit claimed 1) a hostile work environment, 2) a failure to promote him because of his gender identity, and 3) retaliation against him for engaging in a protected practice—opposing sex discrimination.

Title VII makes it unlawful for a covered employer to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” This provision prohibits requiring people to work in a discriminatorily hostile or abusive environment. When the defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts, the district court granted the motion on the grounds that the plaintiff did not demonstrate the conduct was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment.”

Moreover, the court held, the failure to promote him and the retaliation he faced did not adequately establish a causal connection between his claim of discrimination and lack of job promotions.

The 11th Circuit disagreed to an extent. There are five elements a plaintiff must prove to succeed on a claim of a hostile work environment claim: 1) He belongs to a protected group, 2) he was subject to unwelcome harassment, 3) the harassment was based on a protected characteristic, 4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment, and 5) his employer was responsible for the hostile work environment.

The plaintiff proved four of the five elements, the appellate court ruled. But the fourth item regarding the severe or pervasive element can only be met by demonstrating that the plaintiff subjectively perceives the hostile work environment to be abusive and objectively was subjected to an environment that any reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.

This objective factor can be met after assessing frequency, severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interferes with job performance.

The plaintiff’s testimony on all fronts was consistent and uncontradicted by other evidence. Yet, there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the harassment was severe. Thus, the court remanded the case back to the district court to consider the plaintiff’s claim regarding a hostile work environment and to determine if the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of his employment in light of his employer’s failure to address the harassment.

Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections, No. 22-13073 (March 28, 2024).

Anne Woodworth, J.D., is a freelance writer in Laurel, Md.