Listening to vulgar music that others can hear at work? You might be harassing your coworkers, a federal judge ruled

• A US appeals court ruled that offensive music played loudly in the workplace may violate sex discrimination laws.
• A 2020 lawsuit against a Nevada company alleged that complaints about offensive music were ignored.

If you listen to music with vulgar or offensive lyrics too loud at work, you may be harassing your coworkers and be legally liable for sex discrimination.

That's the opinion of M. Margaret McKeown, an appeals court judge in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. McKeown wrote an opinion earlier this week stating that a lawsuit against S&S Activewear, which alleged the warehouse company's management ignored complaints about offensive music, was incorrectly dismissed.

The original lawsuit, proposed as a class action in 2020 by a group of former employees made up of seven women and one man, will now be allowed to proceed after the panel of appeals court judges found that "sexually graphic, violently misogynistic music" being blasted throughout at least five speakers across a large warehouse might legally be seen as grounds for a harassment claim.

Artists like Eminem, Lil Wayne, and Too Short are mentioned in the original complaint as examples of the music that was played that many employees felt was offensive, particularly because of vulgar language and songs that depict violence towards women.

One song specifically cited is Eminem's 2000 hit "Stan." The song depicts an obsessed fan sending increasingly hostile letters to his hero, Eminem, until he takes the rap star's music too literally and kills his pregnant girlfriend and himself by driving off a bridge.

Employees' complaints to management about the music being played loudly throughout the Nevada warehouse were allegedly ignored, according to the suit.

The lawsuit alleges that the company ignored its own sexual harassment policy by allowing the music to play. The suit also claims that the company's HR manager told at least one woman to just ignore the music, and that it fostered a harassment-filled environment where employees allegedly shared porn videos and images, and made inappropriate remarks and gestures towards several female employees.

The lawsuit claims that S&S Activewear's management did not adequately protect its female employees from sexual harassment because they continued to play the music and said the music was acceptable because it motivated employees.

Judge McKeown wrote in a Wednesday ruling that the lower court was incorrect in granting S&S's motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that since the music offended both men and women, it "did not constitute discrimination because of sex." McKeown disagreed with this conclusion, writing that harassment does not have to be directed at any one individual to be considered harassment, and multiple genders being offended by the same content doesn't make it impossible to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the anti-discrimination law the original suit was based on.

"Whether sung, shouted, or whispered, blasted over speakers or relayed face-to-face, sexist epithets can offend and may transform a workplace into a hostile environment that violates Title VII," McKeown wrote.

Notably, the district court only dismissed the music-based harassment claims, and said it would allow the other allegations of harassment and a toxic workplace to be considered. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission supported the appeal from the employees who said they were harassed, and said any offensive music being played in a workplace was concerning, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Ninth Circuit judges cited several prior cases that established gender-specific, harmful language like "bitch" qualifies as harassment based on sex, and that those words and phrases don't need to be directed at a specific person for it to affect the morale of a workplace or offend people. Therefore, music with that language being played loud enough for dozens of employees to hear could qualify as grounds for claim of workplace harassment.

The court cited another case in which a female employee successfully brought a Title VII claim against her employer because of male coworkers playing a "crude morning show" on the radio loudly for everyone in an office to hear, and other cases where women successfully sued over sexual content in the workplace that offended them, but wasn't directed at them specifically.

S&S Activewear did not immediately respond to a request for comment ahead of publication.