The court held that the proliferation of pornography and demeaning comments, if sufficiently continuous and pervasive "may be found to create an atmosphere in which women are viewed as men's sexual playthings rather than as their equal coworkers." Barbetta, 669 F. Supp. At 573. The Commission agrees that, depending on the totality of circumstances, such an atmosphere may violate Title VII. See also Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 50 EPD ¶ 39,106 (5th Cir. 1989), in which the 5th Circuit endorsed the Commission's position in its amicus brief that evidence of ongoing sexual graffiti in the workplace, not all of which was directed at the plaintiff, was relevant to her claim of harassment. Bennett v. Coroon & Black Corp., 845 F.2d 104, 46 EPD ¶ 37,955 (5th Cir. 1988) (the posting of obscene cartoons in an office men's room bearing the plaintiff's name and depicting her engaged in crude and deviant sexual activities could create a hostile work environment).

I use this to show that the bar needed to show a hostile environment is a lot lower than you likely think it is.

It's even low enough to include sexual jokes. While sexual jokes in the workplace are not prohibited under Title VII:

"In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome."

I interpret this to mean that someone who finds that "dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes" are not (or no longer) welcome can provide notice under Title VII. (And Title VII is quite broad about what constitutes 'provide notice.') If those jokes continue, then it may be a sign of sexual harassment.

But the very first step is to provide notice. Which is what happened here.

How do you conclude, based on the body of court cases and EEOC decisions on this topic, that complaining about dick jokes "is a slap in the face to all the men and women who actually have to endure sexual harassment" when the EEOC says that someone who doesn't like dick jokes should complain about it, and that continued exposure to unwanted dirty jokes can be an indication of sexual harassment?

Also your conclusion re: dirty jokes displays a basic logical reasoning error. What the case says is that participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome. It does not say a dirty joke should be responded to by filing notice.

If someone has a reasonable belief that a workplace is sexist (and there's a broad definition of what "reasonable" means), then that person can file a report (and there's a broad definition of what "report" means), and the company may not retaliate (and there's a broad definition of what "retaliate" means).

That doesn't mean that the report must be true in order to make a report, or that dirty jokes necessarily indicate a hostile workplace. Nor does it mean that if a report isn't true then the company may retaliate.

Yes, "participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome". That is correct and you, I, and the courts are all in agreement. But you are ignoring the second part, which is that stopping participation isn't enough to indicate that the jokes are unwelcome. Someone must first complain in order to indicate that there is a change in status.

So it most certainly does say that if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person once participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.

Using 'basic logical reasoning', if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person has never participated participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.

The reason you may have difficulties is you are looking at the results of an incident where the courts have decided that a "proliferation" of pornography is an example of sexual harassment which is not allowed under Title VII. However, PyCon does not want to be a place where sexual harassment is allowed.

The Title VII reporting mechanism which end up in court are the same as the Title VII reporting mechanisms used to point out possible cases of sexual harassment in a company, so that a company might correct the situation and avoid going to court.

That's why there does not need to be a "proliferation" of sexual discrimination before people can complain about their civil rights being violated.