## Facts

- Joseph Oncale, a male roustabout, worked on an eight-person offshore oil platform crew operated by his employer, Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.
- Oncale alleged male co-workers, including supervisors Danny Pippen and John Lyons, subjected him to sex-related, humiliating actions in front of the crew.
- Oncale alleged Pippen and Lyons physically assaulted him in a sexual manner and Lyons threatened him with rape.
- Oncale complained to supervisory personnel, but he alleged the company took no corrective action and a safety clerk minimized the conduct while using a slur suggesting homosexuality.
- Oncale resigned and requested that his separation form reflect he left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse; he testified he feared rape or being forced to have sex if he stayed.
- Oncale sued under Title VII, alleging discrimination “because of . . . sex” based on a hostile work environment.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying circuit precedent that treated same-sex harassment as not actionable under Title VII.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex” allows a hostile-environment claim when the alleged harasser and the plaintiff are the same sex.
2. Whether courts may impose a categorical bar on same-sex sexual harassment claims under Title VII based solely on the sexes of the parties.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that same-sex sexual harassment can constitute actionable sex discrimination under Title VII.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from Title VII coverage.
- The Court left for remand whether Oncale could prove the harassment was “because of sex” and sufficiently severe or pervasive under the ordinary hostile-environment standards.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s ban on discrimination “because of . . . sex” applies to men and women and is not limited by the sex of the harasser.
- Same-sex harassment is not automatically sex discrimination; a plaintiff must prove the challenged conduct actually occurred “because of . . . sex.”
- “Because of sex” may be shown by evidence such as: credible sexual advances indicating sexual desire; sex-specific and derogatory terms or hostility toward one sex in the workplace; or comparative proof that one sex was treated worse than the other.
- Title VII is not a general workplace civility rule; liability requires conduct that is discriminatory and sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment.
- Objective severity is assessed from the standpoint of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, considering all the circumstances.
- Statutory coverage is governed by the enacted text and may extend beyond the specific scenarios Congress most directly contemplated.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Title VII permits same-sex sexual harassment claims and that lower courts may not bar such suits categorically; the plaintiff must still prove the conduct was because of sex and severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.


Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998)