Consider a Second Circuit case holding that "ten racially-hostile incidents of which [plaintiff] allegedly was aware during his 20-month tenure," of which only four occurred in his presence, were enough to create a potential harassment case. incidents that did not occur in Schwapp's presence," including one "made prior to Schwapp's employment" and "two comments made during Schwapp's employment [but outside his presence] that were hostile toward minority groups of which Schwapp is not a member. Some cases have held that even a single incident of speech -- for instance, one racial slur by a supervisor, or a "single incident of verbal abuse and negative comment concerning Japanese people" -- may be "severe or pervasive." 56 a First Circuit case, affirmed a harassment finding based on three incidents: two personal slurs (one including a threat), plus the words "White Supremacy" spray-painted in a parking lot. "The district court," the Circuit held, "erred in failing to consider the eight . 57 Other cases have granted summary judgment against harassment claims based on single incidents, or even based on several incidents, on the grounds that they weren't "severe or pervasive" enough. 4, § 208 (1997) (barring discrimination against members of national guard); City of Boston Code §§ 12-9.2, 12-9.3 (barring discrimination against past or present military members).
But as one might expect, "severity or pervasiveness" is generally in the eye of the beholding judge and jury. text accompanying note 18 (describing veteran status harassment case); Ill.
Complaints regarding the offensive postings and verbal harassment were brought to the attention of University Executives. 35 centerfold with the candidate's picture superimposed over the model's head.
The trial court concluded that this constituted sexual harassment of the candidate.
In the EEOC's words, "disparag[ing] the religion or beliefs of others" in the workplace may be illegal; "a Christian employee would have recourse under Title VII if a `secular humanist´ employer" -- or presumably secular humanist coworkers -- "engaged in a pattern of ridiculing the employee's religious beliefs.´" 29 A state administrative agency has found that an employee was religiously harassed by a Seventh Day Adventist coworker who often talked about religion to everyone.
There was no allegation that the coworker used any religious slurs, though he did "[make] negative comments to [plaintiff] about her Lutheran faith," did "criticize (and tr[y] to change) [plaintiff's] personal life style," and did "depress [plaintiff] a great deal" with what plaintiff saw as "Seventh Day Adventism's `pessimistic doomsday´ outlook." Likewise, a federal district court has held that a pattern of religiously themed comments, which mostly consisted of statements that the target was a sinner and had to repent, and didn't include any religious slurs, could be religious harassment.
The Inevitable Need to Suppress Isolated Statements B. It goes far beyond slurs, hardcore pornography, repeated vulgar sexual propositions, and the like, and can suppress, among other things, I aim to prove this claim below. 775 § 5/2-102 (1997) (barring discrimination in "terms, conditions or privileges of employment" -- a phrase that has been interpreted to include harassing speech -- based on "citizenship status"); N.