Hostile Work Environment in Arizona

Background

“The Arizona Civil Rights Act grants a remedy to a victim of workplace discrimination based on sex.” (See Peterson v. City of Surprise (2018) 418 P.3d 1020, 1025.)

“Sexual harassment falls into two categories according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"): quid pro quo and creating a hostile environment.” (See Northern Ins. Co. of New York v. Morgan (1996) 186 Ariz. 33, 35.)

“The EEOC has also deemed sexual harassment a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A quid pro quo claim is one in which the offender conditions job benefits or advancements on the employee's performance of sexual favors, while a hostile-environment claim is one in which the offender creates a sexually hostile or offensive working environment.” (See State, Dept. of Admin. v. Schallock (1997) 189 Ariz. 250, 259-60.)

“To be successful on a sexual harassment claim, the plaintiff must show that [t]he working environment must both subjectively and objectively be perceived as abusive.” (See Manzo v. Hayman, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0073, at *4 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015).)

Prima Facie Case

"To make a prima facie case of a hostile work environment, a person must show that:

1. she was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature,
2. this conduct was unwelcome, and
3. the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment."

(See Manzo v. Hayman, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0073, at *3-4 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

"We examine the totality of the circumstances and whether a reasonable person with the same characteristics as the victim would perceive the workplace as hostile." (See Manzo v. Hayman, No. 1 CA-CV 14-0073, at *4 (Ariz. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2015).)

“In doing so we consider the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance." (See id.)

“The standards for judging hostility are sufficiently demanding to ensure that [the ACRA] does not become a general civility code." (See id.)

“As a result, isolated incidents, unless extremely serious, will not amount to discriminatory changes in the "terms and conditions of employment." (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “disparate treatment occurs when an employer treats some employees less favorably than others because of protected characteristics, but, in such a case, [p]roof of discriminatory motive is critical, although it can in some situations be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment.” (See State ex rel. Goddard v. Phoenix Union High School District No. 210 (2004) 208 Ariz. 516, 525.)

As such it is well settled that “where hostile work environment is pervasive, employer's knowledge may be imputed or inferred.” (See State, Dept. of Admin. v. Schallock (1997) 189 Ariz. 250, 261.)