Civil Rights Act extend beyond the physical workplace
Lindsay Okonowsky was a staff psychologist in a federal prison located in Lompoc CA.
Her work environment took a dark turn in January 2020, when a corrections lieutenant
named Steven Hellman created an Instagram page filled with sexist, racist, antisemitic,
homophobic, and transphobic content. This page explicitly or implicitly referred to the
Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Lompoc staff, and inmates. To make matters worse, Hellman
targeted Okonowsky directly, posting derogatory images and statements, including
threats of sexual violence, which made her feel unsafe at work.
Despite Okonowsky’s repeated reports to her supervisors and the prison’s
management, the BOP failed to take effective action. Okonowsky appealed The District
Court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of the government which argued
that the harassment did not occur within the physical workplace and that the posts were
not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s ruling based on two
aspects of a hostile work environment claim under Title VII: (1) Totality of
Circumstances, and (2) Employer Liability.
The 9th Circuit underscored that a hostile work environment claim requires
consideration of the totality of circumstances, including behavior that occurs outside the
workplace if it impacts the employee’s work environment. This broader view is essential
for understanding the effect of harassment, which may not always manifest within the
physical location of the workplace but can still significantly alter the conditions of
employment.
Hence, in Okonowsky’s case, the harassment occurred outside of the workplace. By
considering the totality of the circumstances, the 9th Circuit recognized that the
environment was objectively hostile and that this hostility impacted Okonowsky’s ability
to work, thus reversing the lower court’s decision.
The 9th Circuit also addressed the inadequacy of the BOP’s response to Okonowsky’s complaints. The court noted that despite some basic initial actions, the Bureau’s failure to take prompt and corrective measures allowed the harassment to continue, thereby
exacerbating the hostile work environment. The court highlights an employer’s
responsibility under Title VII to not only investigate but also to take immediate and
effective action to stop harassment and prevent it from recurring. As of the date of the
first complaint, the BOP’s response was inadequate, which eventually led to Okonowsky
resigning from her position 1 year after she had submitted her first complaint. For 1 year
straight, Oknowsky was subjected to harassment as a result of the BOP’s failure to take
prompt and corrective measures.
Okonowsky’s case highlights the importance of making sure that your voice is heard. If
you believe you are experiencing a hostile work environment, it’s essential to document
all incidents and report them to your employer. If your employer fails to take adequate
action, you may have legal recourse under Title VII. The protections offered by Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act extend beyond the physical workplace and into the digital spaces
where employees may face harassment.
At the Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, we are hear to hear your story and provide you
with the protections you deserve under the law. If you have been subjected to workplace
harassment, whether in or out of the workplace, give us a call today.
