## Facts

- In 2002, Julie Gallagher was hired by C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. (CHRW) as a sales representative in the company’s Cleveland office.
- Gallagher worked in an open-office cubicle layout where employees could readily hear coworkers’ conversations and audio content.
- Gallagher alleged that coworkers frequently called her a “bitch” and made unkind comments about her weight.
- She also alleged that, because of the office setup, she repeatedly overheard vulgar and sexually explicit talk in which women were described in graphic and degrading terms.
- Gallagher testified that the environment upset her so much that she left the office crying every day.
- During her roughly four months of employment, Gallagher complained to her immediate supervisor about the language and conduct, but she contended nothing changed.
- Gallagher resigned and later filed suit in federal district court, alleging hostile work environment harassment based on sex under Title VII and analogous Ohio law.
- CHRW argued that much of the complained-of conduct was not directed at Gallagher and would have occurred regardless of her presence or sex, so it was not harassment “because of sex.”
- The district court granted summary judgment to CHRW, concluding Gallagher failed to establish key elements of a hostile work environment claim, including sex-based conduct, severity or pervasiveness, and interference with job performance because she continued meeting work requirements.
- Gallagher appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a reasonable jury could find that the alleged workplace harassment occurred “because of sex” even if much of it was not directed specifically at Gallagher.
2. Whether the alleged conduct, viewed as a whole, could be found sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an objectively and subjectively hostile work environment.
3. Whether a plaintiff must show diminished job performance (as opposed to other effects on working conditions) to satisfy the “terms or conditions of employment” requirement.
4. Whether a reasonable jury could find a basis for employer liability for coworker harassment based on CHRW’s knowledge of the conduct and the adequacy of its response.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Gallagher, the court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed as to whether the conduct was sex-based and whether it was severe or pervasive.
- The court rejected the district court’s approach of discounting evidence because some conduct was not aimed directly at Gallagher and because she continued to meet work expectations.
- The court held that Gallagher’s testimony about repeated complaints to her supervisor could support a finding that CHRW had notice and failed to take prompt, effective corrective action.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment claim requires evidence that (1) the plaintiff is in a protected class, (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was because of sex, (4) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment (both objectively and subjectively), and (5) there is a basis for employer liability.
- Harassment can be “because of sex” when the workplace is filled with sex-specific slurs and degrading sexual talk about women, even if not every remark is directed at the plaintiff personally.
- Severity or pervasiveness is evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances, including frequency, the nature of the language or conduct, and the work setting (such as an open office where the plaintiff cannot avoid exposure).
- A plaintiff need not prove an objective decline in job performance to show that harassment altered a term or condition of employment; evidence of altered working conditions and the plaintiff’s reaction to the environment may be relevant.
- For coworker harassment, an employer may be liable if it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial measures.
- On summary judgment, courts must avoid weighing credibility and must draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Gallagher’s evidence of frequent sex-specific slurs directed at her, pervasive sexually explicit and degrading talk about women in an open office, and repeated complaints to a supervisor could allow a jury to find a sex-based hostile work environment and employer liability, making summary judgment improper and requiring remand.


Julie Gallagher v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., 567 F.3d 263 (2009)