Judges: WRITTEN BY: Don Stenberg, Attorney General Alfonza Whitaker, Assistant Attorney General
Filed Date: 5/30/1996
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
REQUESTED BY: Roberta S. Stick, Executive Director, Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission You have asked our opinion regarding whether the NEOC is required by Nebraska law to take charges from persons who believe they have been sexually harassed by others of the same sex.
The Commission is required to take cases, as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. §
We conclude that, under certain circumstances, a same-sex harassment claim is cognizable under Title VII and the NEOC would be required to take the case.
The Supreme Court recognized that the prohibition against discrimination included the protection against "discriminatory sexual harassment" in Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v.Vinson,
[T]he language used by the [Meritor] Court in defining sexual harassment as discrimination based on sex was not limited to opposite sex situations. Sexual harassment of a subordinate by a homosexual supervisor of the same sex is an adverse employment action that the subordinate would not have faced but for his or her sex.
EEOC v. Walden Book Co.,
Further, the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Compliance Manual unequivocally states that Title VII protects employees from same sex discrimination.
The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex from the harasser. Since sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination, the crucial inquiry is whether the harasser treats a member or members of one sex differently from members of the other sex. The victim and harasser may be of the same sex where, for instance, the sexual harassment is based on the victim's sex (not on the victim's sexual preference) and the harasser does not treat employees of the opposite sex the same way.
EEOC Compliance Manual, Sec. 615.2 (1981).
Though the courts are not bound by the EEOC interpretation, it is appropriate to consider the EEOC's view, as the agency charged with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. Several district courts throughout the country have found the EEOC's interpretation of Title VII to be persuasive. SeeEcklund v. Fuisz Technology, Ltd.,
The focus of the Title VII claim is whether an employee was discriminated against "because of" his or her status as a female or male, and the harasser's gender is not relevant to such an inquiry.
[S]ince the language of Title VII prohibits sex discrimination based solely on the employee's gender without consideration of the gender of the person effecting the discrimination, because of the holding in Meritor the Act must be construed also to prohibit sexual harassment against an employee because of that employee's gender, regardless of the harasser's gender.
Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas Electric Co.,
Title VII also does not reach discrimination based on the employee's prudery, or sexual shyness. McWilliams v.Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors,
The Fifth Circuit is the only appellate court to refuse to recognize a claim under Title VII for same sex harassment.Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America,
One case often cited for refusing to recognize a Title VII same-sex harassment claim is Goluszek v. Smith,
While there is no current Eighth Circuit precedent on same-sex harassment claims, the Seventh Circuit has at least commented on how it might determine such a case, stating:
Sexual harassment of women by men is the most common kind, but we do not mean to exclude the possibility that sexual harassment of men by women, or men by other men, or women by other women would not also be actionable in appropriate cases.
Baskerville v. Culligan Int'l Co.,
Sincerely,
DON STENBERG Attorney General
Alfonza Whitaker Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED BY:
Don Stenberg Attorney General
Joyner v. AAA Cooper Transportation , 597 F. Supp. 537 ( 1983 )
Prescott v. Independent Life & Accident Insurance , 878 F. Supp. 1545 ( 1995 )
Freddy Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America, D/B/A Ozark ... , 28 F.3d 446 ( 1994 )
Valerie A. Baskerville v. Culligan International Company , 50 F.3d 428 ( 1995 )
george-e-hopkins-jr-v-baltimore-gas-and-electric-company-american , 77 F.3d 745 ( 1996 )
mark-mcwilliams-v-fairfax-county-board-of-supervisors-ward-lee-cash-jr , 72 F.3d 1191 ( 1996 )
Darrell N. WILLIAMSON, Appellant, v. A.G. EDWARDS AND SONS, ... , 876 F.2d 69 ( 1989 )
Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson , 106 S. Ct. 2399 ( 1986 )
McCoy v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. , 878 F. Supp. 229 ( 1995 )
Raney v. District of Columbia , 892 F. Supp. 283 ( 1995 )
Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico , 890 F. Supp. 60 ( 1995 )
Griffith v. Keystone Steel and Wire , 887 F. Supp. 1133 ( 1995 )
Goluszek v. Smith , 697 F. Supp. 1452 ( 1988 )
Wright v. Methodist Youth Services, Inc. , 511 F. Supp. 307 ( 1981 )
Polly v. Houston Lighting & Power Co. , 825 F. Supp. 135 ( 1993 )
Ecklund v. Fuisz Technology, Ltd. , 905 F. Supp. 335 ( 1995 )