ipl-logo

Vulgar Language Case Paper

718 Words3 Pages

Case Scenario Introduction
Everyone ask if using vulgar language in the workplace is sexual harassment? From the perspective of the federal law state, it prohibits all employers from applying discrimination in the workplace within the base of individual’s color, race, sex, religion, or the national origin. The hostile working environments often claim the sexual harassment in the workplace. This lead to vulgar language as well as conduct that is directed at the claimant. Even though, vulgar language cannot be termed as actionable as always as sexual harassment as stated by the Title VII court. The court declares that it is not a civility code and within all the profane, conduct, and sexual harassment will not involve discrimination in the workplace …show more content…

Hence, the context in the offending words, as well as the conduct, is essential to the analysis. With Reeves, while concluding that most of the vulgar language was used under the plaintiff’s office was found to be general and very indiscriminate, and that the substantial portion of the profane words and vulgar were specific to the female gender, the offensive words referred to the female anatomy and promiscuity. It was noted by the court and such specific word and conduct could be found liable for sexual harassment, even though those words were specifically not directed to the plaintiff (EEOC, …show more content…

The hostility in the workplace environs that Reeve complaints are not of "gender neutral". It is because, the plaintiff is found to be exposed to humiliations, but the male counterparts don't face it; a free pass from boorish employers is not achieved by tolerating the pervasiveness without the profanity indiscriminate. Profanity types are inherent and are found to be more degrading when it comes to women. Finally, a jury can be right to infer the requisite intent to discriminate if employees are to complain to their managers and find out that the conduct is unabated persisted. Even when determining that the vulgar language and conduct are not directed specifically to the plaintiff (Watson,

Open Document