Page 21: of Marine News Magazine (March 2017)

20 22

crimination in the context of a blue probrious” discriminatory comments. professional performance. Converse- collar environment where crude lan- ly, slovenly dress and a lack of disci- guage is commonly used by male and H P P pline often contribute to the degrada-

ARASSMENT REVENTION IN RACTICE female employees. Speech that might There are, of course, excellent rea- tion of performance. be offensive or unacceptable in a prep sons to control profane and vulgar Employer harassment prevention school faculty meeting, or on the behavior – not to mention ? atulence policies invariably impose a more de- ? oor of Congress, is tolerated in other – in the workplace. Professional dress manding standard of conduct than work environments.” and demeanor frequently promote that required by federal law. Such an

In Bolden v. PRC, Inc., 43 F.3d 545 (10th Cir. 1994), the plaintiff electrician was referred to by a broad spectrum of ugly epithets, including “d***head,” “dumbs**t,” “**shole,” and “fool.” The court made the un- usual ? nding that the plaintiff was sub- ject to intentional ? atulence, accompa- nied by the remark from the gaseous offender that it was “a kiss for you.”

Although the court acknowledged the “general ridicule” to which the plaintiff was subjected, it rejected the contention that a Title VII hos- tile work environment existed. Many of the workers harassed one another; many of the workers were the re- cipients of vulgar and profane jokes.

However, the derisive environment in the workshop was universal. The only difference was that the plaintiff could not tolerate the taunting and did not share the crude and rude sensibilities of his coworkers.

In the recently decided case of Rus- sell v. City of Philadelphia, 2016 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 113725 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 25, 2016), the plaintiff complained of gender-based harassment, which in- cluded repeated references to her as a “b**ch,” inquiries as to what type of man she liked, and whether she pre- ferred being “? xed.” In granting sum- mary judgment in favor of the defen- dants, the court observed that, while the comments were “certainly offen- sive,” they were sporadic in nature.

The court cited Second Circuit prec- edent holding that, for comments, slurs, and jokes to constitute a hostile work environment under Title VII, there must be a “steady barrage of op- www.marinelink.com MN 21