AND · 42usc2000e-2:hostile-environment
Harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an objectively and subjectively abusive working environment.
Exact element source
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employmentSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [258:318] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| abandoned/claim-not-defended-at-summary-judgment | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — applied/procedural | |
| severe-or-pervasive | Objectively and subjectively severe or pervasive discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult altering employment conditions | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| severe-or-pervasive/psychological-injury-not-required | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — rule-announced/merits | |
| severe-or-pervasive/sporadic-anonymous-coworker-graffiti-and-gestures | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a) | severe-or-pervasive/sporadic-anonymous-coworker-graffiti-and-gestures | (1) a drawing placed on Squad 2’s locker that depicts members of the squad as KKK members and has written on the bottom “The Good 01’ Day’s”; (2) the words “KKK,” “Whitey Rules,” or “The Good 01 Boy Squad” written on the chalkboard; (3) receiving Nazi salutes from coworkers; (4) silent treatment by other officers;Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [29091:29406] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Plaintiffs do not allege that any of these incidents were physically threatening, nor do they provide any information about the frequency with which these incidents occurred.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [29994:30168] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.A workplace is hostile for purposes of Title VII only when “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [27252:27529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Whether considered in isolation or taken together, these incidents do not provide sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct to support a hostile work environment claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [29538:29705] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1. |
| /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 | Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: waived; claim: (a)(1) | abandoned/claim-not-defended-at-summary-judgment | In response, Glenn fails to even mention his “harassment,” hostile work environment, or retaliation claims in his brief, much less establish his prima facie case for them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [18266:18437] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.Therefore, I deem Glenn to have abandoned these claims by failing to address them in his response to Raymours’ motion for summary judgment.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [18438:18577] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f. |
| /us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 | Severe or pervasive hostile or abusive working environment | not_reached Excluded from merits counts rule-announced / merits claim: (a)(1) Court fixes the test (objective + subjective abusiveness, totality of circumstances; no psychological-injury requirement) but does not apply it: whether the president's conduct met it is left for remand. The trial court's not-satisfied finding is vacated because it rested on the wrong standard. The `held` lines reject the lower court's test; they are not an application to facts. | severe-or-pervasive/psychological-injury-not-required | Hardy told Harris on several occasions, in the presence of other employees, “You’re a woman, what do you know” and “We need a man as the rental manager”; at least once, he told her she was “a dumb ass woman.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [653:861] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.Again in front of others, he suggested that the two of them “go to the Holiday Inn to negotiate [Harris’] raise.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [891:1004] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.Hardy occasionally asked Harris and other female employees to get coins from his front pants pocket.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [1019:1119] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.But in early September, Hardy began anew: While Harris was arranging a deal with one of Forklift’s customers, he asked her, again in front of other employees, “What did you do, promise the guy . . . some [sex] Saturday night?”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [1605:1831] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive — is beyond Title VII’s purview.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [5643:5855] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [5866:6058] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.So long as the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive, Meritor, supra, at 67, there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [7638:7821] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [8291:8527] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.We therefore believe the District Court erred in relying on whether the conduct “seriously affect[ed] plaintiff’s psychological well-being” or led her to “suffe[r] injury.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [7173:7345] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.The District Court’s application of these incorrect standards may well have influenced its ultimate conclusion, especially given that the court found this to be a “close case,”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [9400:9576] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive — is beyond Title VII’s purview.
/us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment — an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive — is beyond Title VII’s purview.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [5643:5855] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.Harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an objectively and subjectively abusive working environment.
interpretation
if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.
/us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [5866:6058] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.Harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an objectively and subjectively abusive working environment.
interpretation
So long as the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive, Meritor, supra, at 67, there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.
/us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
So long as the environment would reasonably be perceived, and is perceived, as hostile or abusive, Meritor, supra, at 67, there is no need for it also to be psychologically injurious.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [7638:7821] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.Harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an objectively and subjectively abusive working environment.
interpretation
These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.
/us/510/0017-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
These may include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/us_510.jsonl#/us/510/0017-01; Unicode character offsets [8291:8527] (end exclusive); SHA-256 d1ea22ac767a8da9f8196f8e0b5a1a9926fdbf322dd6be788952d6040b67ddef.Harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an objectively and subjectively abusive working environment.
interpretation
A workplace is hostile for purposes of Title VII only when “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”
/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007
A workplace is hostile for purposes of Title VII only when “the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [27252:27529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.Harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an objectively and subjectively abusive working environment.
not-required
Tangible psychological injury or nervous breakdown (Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993))
No source quotation recorded.