Three Incidents of Exposure to Porn Can Violate Title VII, Says Eleventh Circuit
An employee who was exposed to pornography involving a co-worker on three separate occasions stated a claim for a sexually hostile work environment under Title VII, according to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in an "unpublished" opinion released last week, Criswell. v Intellirisk Management Corp., Case No. 07-15280 (11th Cir., July 15, 2008). The court held that the pictures to which Criswell was exposed "were severe enough to have altered the terms and conditions of Criswell’s employment."
In the Eleventh Circuit, although unpublished opinions are not considered binding precedent, they may be cited as persuasive authority. 11th Cir. R. 36-2. So, putting salacious interests aside, it would be instructive to learn some details about the photographs. What was so shocking about them that they could be deemed to have altered the terms and conditions of Criswell's employment? Alas, we will never know because the pictures were filed under seal, and the court's opinion does not describe them.
One thing that can be said for sure is that Florida employers generally should not tolerate any pornography in the workplace. Even a few photographs may raise the specter of Title VII liability, as the Criswell case illustrates. And no, private sector employees do not have First Amendment rights from censorship by their employers.
