Judge Clay explained that even acts which don’t independently qualify as discrimination may still contribute to a hostile work environment. “Actions that may not, on their own, constitute Title VII discrimination may nonetheless contribute to a jury’s evaluation of the overall environment in which the plaintiff worked,” he wrote.
Harrowing Experiences and Gender-Specific Harassment
Schlosser’s lawsuit, filed in 2020, detailed how her supervisor regularly subjected her to verbal abuse, taking her off diving rotations while allowing a male counterpart to remain on. She also lost her driving privileges after getting stuck in the mud, even though a male colleague who damaged a truck in a separate incident kept his driving duties.
Further, she alleged that her male colleague cursed at her, used expletives, and threatened to make her life “a living hell.” The appeals panel found that such behavior, coupled with gender-specific slurs, provided ample evidence for a jury to conclude the harassment was based on Schlosser’s gender.
VRHabilis Sex Harassment Verdict : Personal Conflict or Gender-Based?
Judge Clay acknowledged that VRHabilis attempted to argue that Schlosser’s treatment may have stemmed from personal conflict rather than gender. However, he emphasized that the court would not reweigh the jury’s evaluation of the evidence.
