his employer is responsible for the harassment or to rebut an affirmative defense,
Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co.
, 513 F.3d 1261, 1286–87 (11th Cir. 2008), our Court has not ruled that this kind of “me too” evidence can prove that a work environment is objectively hostile. We now hold that an employee alleging a hostile work environment cannot complain about conduct of which he was oblivious for the purpose of proving that his work environment was objectively hostile. We nevertheless conclude that seven of the employees presented sufficient evidence that their work environments were objectively hostile, and we vacate the summary judgments against them. We affirm the summary judgments against the remaining six employees and affirm the two jury verdicts.
Austal is an Australian company that builds custom aluminum ships for commercial and military use. In 1998, Austal established a shipyard in Mobile, Alabama.
Austal began operations with fewer than 100 employees, but it currently employs more than 2,000 workers. The record contains substantial evidence of serious racial misconduct at the shipyard owned by Austal. Austal disputes much of this evidence, but we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc.
, 680 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2012). The employees allege,
Case: 12-11507 Date Filed: 06/17/2014 Page: 3 of 38