Monthly Law Journal Article: Workplace Harassment by Law Enforcement and Correctional Supervisors, Part 1, Sexual Harassment, 2013 (9) AELE Mo. L. J. 201.

Also see: Homosexual & Transgender Employee Rights
     A heterosexual man who was a city employee asserted a valid claim for same-gender sexual harassment under California law against a male supervisor who allegedly made numerous gifts and frequent lunch purchases for him, along with making sexual jokes and displays of pornographic computer images over a period of several months. Summary judgment was properly granted, however, on similar claims against a second male supervisor. While he had displayed pornographic computer images to a group of employees, there was no allegation that he in any way tried to pursue a romantic or sexual relationship with the plaintiff, that he made any sexual proposals, either explicit or implicit, towards him, or that he acted out of any sexual interest in the plaintiff. Judgment for the defendant city on sexual harassment and unlawful retaliation claims were reversed. The trial court should not have excluded the plaintiff's testimony about explicit sexual images that he saw on a supervisor's computer, as it was relevant to whether the employee later suffered adverse employment actions in retaliation for engaging in the protected activity of complaining about those images. Lewis v. City of Benicia, #A134078, 2014 Cal. App. Lexis 282.
    A female employee of the state parole department stated a viable claim for hostile environment sexual harassment by alleging that a female supervisor repeatedly touched her breasts, and that these touches were homosexual advances. A jury could permissibly find that this conduct was humiliating and that the actions were not incidental or minor, but rather intentional and repeated. There were factual issues to be resolved about the sufficiency of the employee's complaints about this conduct which were relevant to the issue of the employer's liability. Redd v. New York State Division of Parole, #10-1410, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 9194 (2nd Cir.).
     A male homosexual city emergency management employee claimed that co-workers "mocked" him. His alleged romantic relationship with a male co-worker ended when the co-worker started an involvement with a co-worker. He then told his supervisor that he wanted to not have to work together with his ex-boyfriend, and that he feared a possible physical attack. He was transferred to a "graveyard" shift, and later also transferred to administrative duties at a cemetery. He sued the city and its mayor, claiming that his transfers and the ridicule of his co-workers amounted to sex discrimination, a hostile work environment and unlawful retaliation in violation of his equal protection rights. He sought damages for violation of his federal civil rights. The supposed mocking was not shown to be significant enough or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment, and the transfer, even if not what he desired, had no impact on his rank, duties, or pay. Ayala-Sepulveda v. Municipality of San German, #10–2123, 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 947; 114 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 234 (1st Cir.).
     An award of more than $2 million to a male police officer who claimed that he was fired for filing a sexual harassment claim against a male co-worker was overturned by a California appeals court. He had told an Internal Affairs investigator that the co-worker had asked him for a date, which he turned down, saying that he was not gay. He claimed that the co-worker then made a number of harassing sexually-oriented comments to him. His allegations were later investigated, determined to have been fabricated, and he was fired. It was determined that he would have made his accusations earlier if they were true, and it was believed that he made them as the basis of a defense to possible discipline over an incident in which he went "end of watch" without checking out with the co-worker. The appeals court found that the plaintiff did not present substantial evidence at trial that his termination was motivated by retaliation for filing the sexual harassment complaint. Additionally, the jury instructions did not adequately spell out that retaliatory intent was necessary as an element of the officer's claim. Joaquin v. City of Los Angeles, #B226685, 202 Cal. App. 4th 1207, 2012 Cal. App. Lexis 35 (Cal. App.).
     Employer was not entitled to a summary judgment of a same-sex, sexual harassment claim under Title VII, where a supervisor frequently hugged the plaintiff, repeatedly jumped into her lap, touched her buttocks 30 times and often commented that she could turn any women gay. Kampmier v. Emeritus Corp., #06-1788, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 12 (7th Cir. 2007). [N/R]
     California appeals court affirms a $1.9 million verdict awarded to a gay employee at a California correctional facility because of pervasive harassment by coworkers. His immediate supervisor had called him a "motherfuckin' faggot" and a "homo." Hope v. Calif. Youth Auth., #B171593, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. Lexis 8210 (2005). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects a male-on-male claim; although the supervisor engaged in unwanted sexually offensive conduct, there was no evidence he was a homosexual or that he wanted to have sex with the plaintiff. McCown v. St. John's Health System, #03-1478, 349 F.3d 540, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 23079 (8th Cir. 2003).. [2004 FP Feb]
    Third Circuit affirms a jury award of $1.2 million to an ex-lieutenant for retaliation and due process violations, after complaining of sexual orientation harassment. Bianchi v. City of Philadelphia, #02-2687, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 22726 (3d Cir. unpub. 2003). [2004 FP Feb]
     A divided federal appeals court holds that college security officers cannot recover under §1983 for same-gender sexual harassment, occurring between 1983 and July 1998. Same gender harassment was not recognized as actionable in federal court until after that time period. Snider v. Jefferson State Community College, #02-12472, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 19070, 92 FEP Cases (BNA) 1009 (11th Cir.). {N/R}
     California appellate court holds that a county can be liable for a hostile environment claim brought by a worker who complained of same-gender harassment. Sheffield v. Co. of Los Angeles, #B161081, 2003 Cal. App. Lexis 774 (2003). {N/R}
     Ninth Circuit allows a gay worker to sue his employer for a hostile work environment. Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, #98-16924, 305 F.3d 1061, 89 FEP Cases (BNA) 1569, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 20098 (9th Cir. 2002). [2002 FP Dec]
     Ninth Circuit rules that a male employee who was taunted for effeminate behavior had suffered sexual harassment for purposes of Title VII. Nichols v. Azteca, #99-35579, 256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     Ex-officer fails to win back his job after he was separated for major depression. The fact that a gay sergeant was overly friendly did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment. Federal court also rejects his stress disability claim. Pollard v. City of Northwood, #3:99cv7624, 161 F.Supp.2d 782, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4277 (N.D. Ohio 2001). [2002 FP Jan]
     Seventh Circuit upholds a jury verdict for compensatory damages for same-gender sexual harassment. A punitive damages award was reversed because there was no evidence that anyone in upper management had any knowledge that the offending supervisor was engaging in sexually harassing behavior. Cooke v. Stefani Mgmt., #00-1265, 250 F.3d 564, 2001 U.S. App. Lexis 9223, 85 FEP Cases (BNA) 1294 (7th Cir.). {N/R}
     Professor who was sexually harassed by the dean, wins $448,000 in same-sex suit against the university. Mota v. University of Tex. at Houston, #H-98-1328, 37 (1839) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1538 (S.D. Tex. 11/8/99). {N/R}
     A defendant accused of harassment based on sexual orientation is entitled to summary judgment under Title VII. Hamner v. St. Vincent Hosp., 99-3086 (7th Cir.).{N/R}
     Federal appeals court allows a same gender claim to proceed, even though there is evidence the employee also harassed workers of both genders. Shepherd v. Slater, #97-3265, 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 2621, 168 F.3d 998, 79 FEP Cases (BNA) 311 (7th Cir.). [1999 FP 77-8]
     Pennsylvania appellate court holds that employer liability standards and defenses are the same for both homosexual and heterosexual advances. Johnson v. Unemp. Comp. Bd., #1932 C.D. 1998, 725 A.2d 212, 1999 Pa.Commw. Lexis 45. [1999 FP 60]
     Gay male police officer awarded $380,000 for enduring nine years of harassing conduct by his fellow officers. Public employees who are harassed because of their sexual orientation can sue under 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1983 for violation of their equal protection rights. Quinn v. Nassau Co. Police Dept., #97-CV-3310, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9902, 53 F.Supp.2d 347, 80 FEP Cases (BNA) 286 (E.D.N.Y.). Verdict reported at 37 (1820) G.E.R.R. (BNA) 851. [1999 FP 131]
     California East Bay jury awards $360,000 to a public employee for lesbian harassment. Payne v. City of Oakland, 36 G.E.R.R. (BNA) 794 (Cal. Super. 1998). [1998 FP 140]
     Supreme Court recognizes that same-sex abuse, because of one's gender, is prohibited by Title VII. Court adopts a principled, common sense approach for all sex discrimination cases. Oncale v. Sundowner, #96-568, 1998 U.S. Lexis 1599, 76 FEP Cases (BNA) 221. [1998 FP 60] Note: The case was settled after the Supreme Court's opinion and before the trial date; 159 LRRM (BNA) 303 (10/21/98).
     Threatening homosexual acts with coworkers is not necessarily a hostile environment workplace. #73143, 1998 WL 767620 (Ohio App.). {N/R}
     Federal jury awards a male, former California park ranger $415,000 because his male sergeant "stared" at him when he changed clothes, and called him at home. Kelly v. City of Oakland, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17234, 17235 and 21501 (N.D.Cal.); summary on 9-16-1997 in San Fran. Chronicle, p. A-18. [1997 FP 172] Award later affirmed against one defendant, overturned against another defendant. 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 30402, 81 FEP Cases (BNA) 1455 (9th Cir.).
     Arbitrator upholds termination of fire lieutenant who engaged subordinates in unwanted "horseplay" of a sexual nature. Ft. Worth (City of) and Grievant B., 108 LA (BNA) 924 (Moore, 1997). [1997 FP 139]
     Mitsubishi Motors USA adopts "zero tolerance" ‘Model Workplace’ sexual harassment policy. EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motor Mfg., 102 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. 1996) and 960 F.Supp. 164 (C.D.Ill. 1997). [1997 FP 139]
     Employer could be sued for a supervisor's same-gender harassing language, creating a hostile environment. However, calling a sarcoidosistic worker a "cocksucker with a two inch dick," a "dago guinea" or a "short, ugly and stupid Italian" was not defamatory. Grille v. John Alden Ins., 939 F. Supp. 685 (D.Minn. 1996). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rules that same gender harassment is actionable if the harasser is a homosexual, but not if the harasser is straight. Wrightson v. Pizza Hut, 65 L.W. 2311 (4th Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     Federal appeals panel upholds M-on-M harassment claims; EEOC Compliance Manual Sec. 6152(b)(3) adopted. Yeary v. Goodwill Indus., 73 FEP Cases 146, 107 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 1997). {N/R}
     D.C. federal court allows a same-gender harassment complaint of a corrections officer to proceed. Williams v. Dist. of Col., 916 F.Supp. 1, 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 1338, 70 FEP Cases (BNA) 294 (D.D.C.). [1996 FP 92]
     Same gender sexual harassment not actionable under Title VII. McWilliams v. Fairfax Co. 72 F.3d 1191 (4th Cir. 1996). [1996 FP 92]
     Same gender harassment not actionable under Title VII. Wrightson v. Pizza Hut, 69 FEP Cases (BNA) 1378 (W.D.N.C. 1995). {N/R}
     Fed. ct. in Va. recognizes same-gender harassment (female/female) claim under Title VII; Ecklund v. Fuisz Technology, 69 FEP Cases (BNA) 701 (E.D.Va. 1995). Another fed. ct. in N.Y. allows a similar claim in a male/male Title VII case; Sardinia v. Dellwood Foods, 69 FEP Cases (BNA) 705 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). {N/R}
     Same gender harassment actionable in Oklahoma. Ladd v. Sertomana, 70 FEP Cases (BNA) 350 (N.D.Okla. 1995). {N/R}
     Federal court in DC concludes that under existing case law, a bisexual supervisor cannot violate Title VII by sexually harassing a subordinate. Because Title VII prohibits harassment because of the victim's gender, the harassment must be caused by a heterosexual or homosexual person, as a bisexual person would be attracted by both genders. Ryczek v. Guest Services, 67 FEP Cases (BNA) 461, 887 F.Supp. 754 (D.D.C. 1995). {N/R}
     Same-gender sexual harassment claims are not actionable under Title VII. Hopkins v. Baltimore G&E, 871 F.Supp. 822 (D.Md. 1994). Affirmed on other grounds, 70 FEP Cases (BNA) 184 (4th Cir. 1996). {N/R}
     A workplace "saturated" with homosexual writing, drawings and discussions does not constitute sexual harassment unless the complainant reasonably believes they attack him because of his gender. Fox v. Sierra Devel., 66 FEP Cases (BNA) 1775 (D.Nev. 1995). {N/R}
     Same-gender sexual harassment claims are cognizable under the Massachusetts civil rights statute. Smith v. Brimfield, 1995 FEP Summary (BNA) 29, #90-SEM-0150 (MCAD 1995). {N/R}
     Same-gender sexual harassment claims are not actionable under Title VII. Fredette v. BVP Mgmt., 68 FEP Cases (BNA) 1335 (M.D.Fla. 1995). {N/R}
     Same-gender sexual harassment claims are not actionable under Title VII. Ashworth v. Roundup Co., 68 FEP Cases (BNA) 869 (W.D. Wash. 1995). {N/R}
     Same-gender harassment is actionable under Title VII. EEOC v. Walden Book Co., 885 F.Supp. 1100 (M.D.Tenn. 1995). {N/R}
     Same-gender sexual harassment claims are cognizable under the California Fair Employment & Housing Act. Matthews v. Super. Ct. (Regents U. of Cal.), 1995 Cal.App. Lexis 395, 35 Cal.App. 4th 138, 67 FEP Cases (BNA) 1127 [1995 FP 108]
     Title VII is applicable to sexual harassment by males of another male as the statute was intended to apply to claims of sexual harassment without regard to the gender of the complainant or of the harassing party. Polly v. Houston Light Co., 62 FEP Cases (BNA) 633 (S.D.Tex. 1993). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects Title VII "hostile environment" suit brought by employee who claimed coworkers harassed him because he was perceived a homosexual. Dillon v. Frank, 60 LW 2471 (6th Cir. 1992); not certified for publication. [1992 FP 57]
     See: FEP Manual (BNA) on Sexual Harassment - Sexual Orientation, 421:461-463 (as updated).