On Wednesday, June 3, the Minnesota Supreme Court docket upheld the “extreme or pervasive” customary utilized in office sexual harassment circumstances. However in doing so, it held that decrease courts decoding the usual should take into account in the present day’s definition of applicable office conduct.
The “extreme or pervasive” customary was developed from Harris v. Forklift Methods, a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court docket case. It established that harassment that was so “extreme or pervasive” that it affected the circumstances of the sufferer’s employment and created a hostile working atmosphere was actionable beneath Title VII. In subsequent years, Minnesota federal and state courts have utilized the “extreme or pervasive” customary beneath each Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
In Kenneh v. Homeward Certain, Inc., No. A18-0174, Plaintiff Assata Kenneh alleged that her male coworker created a hostile work atmosphere by repeatedly making sexually-suggestive feedback and gestures to her after being instructed to cease and being supplied sexual harassment coaching. The Hennepin County District Court docket granted abstract judgment to Homeward Certain, stressing the “excessive bar” set by Minnesota precedent for what constitutes “extreme or pervasive” conduct in sexual harassment circumstances.
The Minnesota Supreme Court docket affirmed partially, reversed partially and remanded. The Court docket affirmed the “extreme or pervasive” customary borrowed from Title VII circumstances, stating it “displays a common sense understanding that, to change the circumstances of employment and create an abusive working atmosphere, sexual harassment have to be greater than minor.”
Nevertheless, the Court docket went on to make clear that an evaluation of the extreme or pervasive customary requires contemplating what is acceptable office habits by in the present day’sstandards. Particularly, the Court docket said, “[f]or the severe-or-pervasive customary to stay helpful in Minnesota, the usual should evolve to replicate modifications in societal attitudes towards what is suitable habits within the office. . . . As we speak, cheap folks would probably not tolerate the kind of office habits the courts beforehand brushed apart as an ‘unsuccessful pursuit of a relationship,’. . . or ‘boorish, chauvinistic, and decidedly immature[.]’”
The Court docket expressly cautioned decrease courts towards usurping the function of a jury when evaluating a declare on abstract judgment, stating that whether or not the alleged harassment was sufficiently extreme or pervasive is “typically a query of truth for the jury.” The Court docket acknowledged, nonetheless, that there could also be event the place no cheap jury might discover the alleged habits was objectively abusive or offensive for functions of abstract judgment.
Finally, this choice might make it tough for employers to prevail on sexual harassment claims at abstract judgment. As at all times, it stays vital for employers to offer frequent coaching to staff on acceptable office habits, to offer clear avenues for workers to make complaints of office sexual harassment, to promptly and totally examine any complaints made, and to offer constant disciplinary measures when applicable.
© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.