Seventh Circuit Opinion in Golat Offers Helpful Primer on Objective Severity Standards for Unlawful Harassment

In Golat v. Skwierawski, a former court reporter for the Wisconsin Circuit Court for Rusk County filed a federal lawsuit alleging, among other claims, that she suffered a hostile work environment based on her sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (“Western District”) granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. In affirming, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals provided a useful primer on Title VII’s “objective severity” or pervasiveness standard.

What Happened in Golat v. Skwierawski?

Golat worked as a court reporter at the Rusk County Circuit Court from 2017 to 2022. Golat alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment because the male judge she worked for made sexist comments to her, including:

• That she must be a lesbian because she drove a Subaru;
• That she was a “typical woman” who nagged him;
• That she was like a “junior high school girl,” and asked if she was going to go back to her office and cry; and
• That he had a large penis, could sleep with any woman in the county, and made jokes about a condom factory.

Golat also alleged the judge used a mug in the courtroom that was decorated with male genitalia and had the words “hung jury” printed on it.

Golat also alleged that the judge permitted others to make sexist comments about Golat, including:

• A court security officer joking about Golat’s physical appearance; and
• An attorney stating that Golat was attractive.

Golat reported these events to the District Court Administrator. Ultimately, Golat’s employment ended when the Judge she worked for retired and the incoming Judge chose not to hire Golat because of her disciplinary history. The Western District granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, dismissing Golat’s federal lawsuit. Golat appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (“Seventh Circuit”), which hears appeals from Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana.

Why Did the Seventh Circuit Affirm Summary Judgment Dismissing the Sexual Harassment Claim?

The Seventh Circuit ultimately affirmed the Western District’s summary judgment decision. First, the Seventh Circuit discussed that in order to support a Title VII hostile work environment claim, Golat must show:

1. She was subjected to unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature;
2. The conduct was severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment;
3. The conduct was directed at her because of her sex; and
4. There is a basis for employer liability.

The Seventh Circuit then reviewed the judge’s alleged “sex-specific and derogatory” comments because a reasonable jury could conclude that they were made because of Golat’s sex. Next, the Seventh Circuit turned to deciding whether the alleged comments were objectively severe, noting that the objective severity standard is not “mathematically precise” and “depends on all of the circumstances.” As such, the Seventh Circuit analyzed the alleged comments with attention to principles from case law discussing objective severity, including cases holding that:

• Comments perceived as threats, expressions of sexual interest, sexual advances, or comments that are demeaning and embarrassing, are more likely to be severe; yet, conduct does not need to be overly sexual to be actionable;
• Comments that can be characterized as jokes or “vulgar banter” are less likely to be severe;
• Comments directed at someone other than the plaintiff, or at a group of people that includes the plaintiff, are less likely to be severe than comments made directly and exclusively to the plaintiff; and
• Comments made by a supervisor are more likely to be severe than comments uttered by a co-worker.

Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the alleged comments were not objectively severe. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit noted that the alleged comments were not threatening, and Golat did not believe they were sexual advances. Moreover, even though the judge was Golat’s supervisor, some of the alleged comments were not directed directly at Golat, and the rest did not amount to more than “occasional vulgar banter.” Finally, the Seventh Circuit held that the alleged incidents were not pervasive enough to be actionable because the six incidents happened sporadically over a five-year period. As such, the alleged comments were neither objectively severe nor pervasive, and therefore were not actionable under Title VII.  Golat v. Skwierawski, No. 25-3164 (7th Cir. Aug. 4, 2026).

Bottom Line

Whether alleged conduct is objectively severe or pervasive enough to be actionable under Title VII is considered on a case-by-case basis. Employers should promptly and thoroughly respond to any reports of alleged harassment and maintain records memorializing their investigations so that details of alleged incidents can be provided in litigation.

This article, slightly modified to note recent updates, was featured online in the Great Lakes Employment Law Letter and published by BLR®—Business & Legal Resources. Reproduced here with the permission of BLR®—Business & Legal Resources.