## Facts

- Vivienne Rabidue worked at an oil refinery beginning in 1970 and later held a salaried managerial position as an administrative assistant.
- After a series of acquisitions, the refinery became a division of Texas-American Petrochemicals, Inc.
- Rabidue was the only female salaried employee in her work setting.
- A male coworker allegedly used repeated vulgar, sexually derogatory language about women and directed epithets at Rabidue.
- Sexually explicit or suggestive posters and images of women were displayed in the workplace.
- Management was aware of the coworker’s conduct and attempted, unsuccessfully, to stop it.
- Rabidue alleged sex-based disparate treatment in workplace privileges and social activities given to male managers (e.g., lunches, gasoline, and golf outings).
- Rabidue was discharged in January 1977; the employer attributed the decision to her hostile, rude behavior and refusal to follow company policies.
- Rabidue sued under Title VII, Michigan’s Elliott–Larsen Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Pay Act; after a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the employer on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the successor owner could be held liable for alleged pre-acquisition discriminatory acts absent notice or pending charges at the time of acquisition.
2. Whether vulgar sexual language and sexually explicit posters created a hostile work environment that was sufficiently severe or pervasive under Title VII and Michigan law.
3. Whether Rabidue proved that the employer’s stated reasons for discharge were a pretext for sex discrimination.
4. Whether Rabidue established an Equal Pay Act violation by showing she performed substantially equal work for less pay than male employees.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgment for the employer on all claims.
- The court held the successor was not liable for pre-acquisition discrimination where there were no pending proceedings and the successor lacked notice at acquisition.
- The court held the challenged workplace conduct, though offensive, was not shown to be severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an actionable hostile environment.
- The court held the employer articulated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the discharge and Rabidue failed to prove pretext.
- The court held Rabidue failed to prove substantially equal work and sex-based wage differentials required for an Equal Pay Act claim.
- A dissent would have found the record sufficient to support a hostile-environment claim.

## Legal Principles

- Successor liability for employment discrimination is equitable and commonly turns on notice of the claim and related fairness considerations; liability may be denied where the successor lacked notice and no charges were pending at acquisition.
- A hostile work environment requires conduct sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.
- Under Title VII disparate-treatment analysis, once the employer produces legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for an adverse action, the plaintiff must prove those reasons are a pretext for discrimination.
- An Equal Pay Act plaintiff must show unequal pay for substantially equal work performed under similar conditions; the employer may prevail if differences are not shown to be based on sex.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld a defense judgment, concluding that the record did not support successor liability for earlier acts, that the vulgar language and sexual posters were not legally sufficient to establish a hostile work environment, and that the discharge and pay-related claims failed for lack of proof of sex-based causation and pretext.


Rabidue v. Osceola Refin. Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986)