## Facts

- Lisa L. Ocheltree worked about eighteen months in Scollon Productions’ production shop making shoes.
- She was the only woman in the shop, working with roughly ten or eleven men.
- Over time, male coworkers engaged in frequent sexually explicit talk and sexualized antics in her presence, including simulated sex acts using a female-form mannequin and graphic, degrading comments about women’s bodies.
- The conduct was repeated and often performed while looking at Ocheltree, with evidence supporting an inference it was intended to provoke her reaction and make her uncomfortable.
- Ocheltree objected directly to coworkers and complained to the shop supervisor; the behavior continued and sometimes intensified after she complained.
- Evidence supported that the conduct occurred openly near management offices, supervisors were present during some incidents, and management knew or should have known of the harassment.
- Ocheltree sued under Title VII for a sex-based hostile work environment; a jury found severe or pervasive harassment and awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
- The district court denied the employer’s Rule 50 motion; a Fourth Circuit panel reversed; the en banc court vacated the panel decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Ocheltree was subjected to unwelcome harassment “because of sex” that was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment under Title VII.
2. Whether the harassment was imputable to the employer for compensatory damages based on the employer’s knowledge and failure to take effective corrective action.
3. Whether punitive damages were supported by evidence that the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights through a managerial agent with the requisite state of mind.

## Decision

- The en banc court affirmed the judgment imposing compensatory liability, holding the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s hostile-environment verdict.
- The court concluded a jury could find the sexually explicit conduct was directed at Ocheltree because she was a woman, not merely workplace vulgarity.
- The court held the evidence supported severity and pervasiveness given the frequency, duration, and graphic nature of the conduct and Ocheltree’s subjective perception of abusiveness.
- The court held the harassment was imputable to the employer because management knew or should have known and failed to stop it.
- The court reversed the punitive damages award, finding insufficient evidence that the company had the managerial knowledge and culpability required for punitive damages.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII hostile work environment claim requires proof that harassment was (1) unwelcome, (2) based on sex, (3) sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive environment (objectively and subjectively), and (4) imputable to the employer.
- Conduct may be “because of sex” where sexually explicit acts and comments are directed at, or staged in front of, a woman as the target or intended audience, permitting an inference of sex-based motivation.
- For coworker harassment, an employer may be liable where it knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action.
- Punitive damages under Title VII require proof the employer acted with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights, generally requiring sufficient culpable involvement or knowledge by a managerial agent; negligent failure to address harassment does not, by itself, satisfy that standard.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that a jury could reasonably find a sex-based hostile work environment where male coworkers repeatedly used explicit talk and sexual props in front of the only female employee and the employer failed to correct it, but it vacated punitive damages absent proof of the heightened managerial culpability required for such an award.


Ocheltree v. Scollon Prods., Inc., 335 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2003) (en banc)