You’re not going to believe this story I recently heard about a warehouse in Nevada. Picture this: tunes from artists such as Eminem and Too $hort, all of them blatantly explicit and sometimes even violent, echoing around the entire place from commercial-grade speakers. The music was so loud it drowned out any operational noise, making it nearly inescapable. The employees, as you might guess, weren’t too pleased. They brought this up almost every day. But instead of considering their complaints, management chose to defend the music, calling it a morale booster. This situation continued for a solid two years.
Eventually, eight former employees decided they had had enough and took legal action. Their allegation was that the continuous playing of explicit and misogynistic music in the warehouse was fostering a hostile work environment. They believed this to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Fast forward to yesterday, when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals took the time to consider a critical question: could music with explicit and violent content, persistently played in a workplace, create a hostile environment and thus be considered as sex-based discrimination?
To the surprise of many, the Court’s answer was affirmative. They proceeded to explain that harassment, whether it is heard or seen, doesn’t necessarily have to be directed at a specific person to potentially lead to a Title VII claim. Moreover, if the conduct offends multiple genders, it does not automatically prevent the assertion of a Title VII claim.
Understanding this situation requires a little bit of legal context. To establish a hostile work environment, an individual must demonstrate several things: that they are part of a protected group; that they’ve been subjected to unwelcome harassment; that this harassment is connected to their protected class; that the harassment has been significant or consistent enough to change the employment conditions and create a hostile working environment; and finally, that the employer was aware or should have been aware of the situation, but did nothing to address it.
Significantly, in a previous case (Bostock v. Clayton County), the Supreme Court dismissed the idea that an employer could defend themselves by claiming they discriminate against both sexes equally. Far from protecting an employer from Title VII action, this reasoning could potentially double their liability.
According to the Ninth Circuit, lyrics packed with sexist slurs potentially create a unique disadvantage for female employees at their workplace. It’s worth noting that their perspective aligns with previous decisions made by other circuit courts.
So, here’s the takeaway: even in a bid to improve morale or boost productivity, it’s crucial to consider the content of the chosen motivational material. In this case, music. Although some songs might be popular or catchy, the lyrics’ explicit and violent nature could potentially foster a hostile work environment, leading to serious legal repercussions.
Be Audit-Secure™!
Lisa Smith, SPHR, SCP
Sign-up HERE and Save $170!
Here is what all you will get:
- Boss Calls™ – Access to EVERY Boss Call™ – Past & Future.
- HelpDesk for HR VAULT – Access to all 8 of our proprietary tools and applications to make your workday simple.
- Forms, Docs, Policies and Procedures Library – 700+ samples you can download and edit to fit your needs.
- U.S. ePoster Club – Download state, city, and local posters. Both required & recommended, for all 50 states & D.C.
- Same-day email support – Write to our team of SPHR and SCP professionals with all your HR questions.
