Plaintiffs filed actions pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 charging that they had been discriminated against by their employer, the Hertz Corporation. Chief District Judge Robert M. McRae, Jr. heard the consolidated cases without a jury. In a memorandum opinion published at 542 F. Supp. 123 (1981), Judge McRae found that plaintiffs had been discriminated against and denied promotions on the basis of their sex. He further found that both plaintiffs were well qualified for the positions sought by them, and that the articulated nondiscriminatory explanations advanced by the employer were pretextual. Further, Judge McRae found that plaintiffs were denied promotions to positions for which they were qualified and men were appointed instead "because a cadre of male management preferred men in management positions at Hertz and disfavored the promotion of women." ( 542 F. Supp. at 125).
Id. at 943-44 (citing Rogers v. EEOC, 454 F.2d at 238) (emphasis omitted). See also Walter v. KFGO Radio, 518 F. Supp. 1309, 1315-16 (D.N.D. 1981); Morgan v. Hertz Corp., 542 F. Supp. 123, 27 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 990, 994 (W.D.Tenn. 1981); Brown v. City of Guthrie, 22 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1627, 1631-33 (W.D.Okla. 1980).
" Josey v. John R. Hollingsworth Corp., 996 F.2d 632 (3d Cir. 1993). Similarly, in Morgan v. Hertz Corp, 542 F. Supp. 123 (W.D.Tenn. 1981), the court admitted evidence of a "history of vulgar and indecent language tolerated by management and directed toward women employees." The court held that such evidence was probative of workplace hostility.
The fact that some female employees did not complain of the work environment or find some behaviors objectionable does not affect this conclusion concerning the objective offensiveness of the work environment as a whole. See Priest v. Rotary, 634 F. Supp. 571, 582 (N.D.Cal. 1986); Morgan v. Hertz Corp., 542 F. Supp. 123, 128 (W.D.Tenn. 1981), aff'd, 725 F.2d 1070 (6th Cir. 1984). 15. The Court recognizes the existence of authority supporting defendants' contention that sexually-oriented pictures and sexual remarks standing alone cannot form the basis for Title VII liability.
Defendant Rotary failed to rebut plaintiff's prima facie case either by showing the events to be trivial, or perpetrated by someone else. Although the evidence revealed that some Fireside waitresses did not object to defendant's conduct, this does not constitute the required showing that the conduct of which plaintiff complained was objectively inoffensive. Morgan v. Hertz Corporation, 542 F. Supp. 123, 27 FEP Cases 990 (W.D.Tenn. 1981). Thus, having proven that the acts complained of did occur, and that these were not trivial, and further that they were perpetrated by her employer, plaintiff has established a prima facie case.
Citing both state and federal law, defendant argues that the trial court should not have prevented it from showing to the jury that plaintiff utilized foul language and made threats of harm to coworkers and to one member of the public. In particular, defendant claims support for this proposition in Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich. 368; 501 N.W.2d 155 (1993), Henson v Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (CA 11, 1982), Scusa v Nestle USA Co Inc, 181 F.3d 958 (CA 8, 1999), and Morgan v Hertz Corp, 542 F. Supp. 123 (W.D. Tenn, 1981). None of these cases, however, supports the specific argument made by defendant.