This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: n inference that there was general hostility
toward men in the workplace. Finally, Vickers included no information regarding how
women were treated in comparison to men at FMC. In fact, defendants-appellees
maintain that Vickers worked in an all-male workforce, an assertion that Vickers has
apparently not disputed.
The Sixth Circuit has previously rejected hostile work environment claims brought by
plaintiffs in very similar factual scenarios in one published and two unpublished cases.
See EEOC v. Harbert-Yeargin, Inc., 266 F.3d 498, 519-23 (6th Cir.2001) (hostile work
environment claim rejected where plaintiff experienced frequent inappropriate touching
because though harassment was sexual in nature, it could not be said to be "because of ...
sex" as required by Title VII); King, 68 Fed.Appx. at 664 (rejecting hostile work
environment claim where plaintiff was subject to verbal and physical abuse insinuating
that plaintiff was a homosexual because his claim did not fit into the three examples
given in Oncale of same sex harassment); Dillon v. Frank, No. 90-2290, 1992 WL 5436,
at * 7 (6th Cir. Jan. 15, 1992) (rejecting plaintiff's claim where plaintiff suffered severe
verbal harassment and physical assault based on co-workers' belief that plaintiff was a
homosexual, because the plaintiff failed to allege that "harassment was directed at [him]
for a statutorily impermissible reason"). Other circuits have also failed to recognize 156 hostile work environment claims in similar factual situations because the plaintiff could
not show that the harassment occurred because of sex. See e.g., Bibby, 260 F.3d at 264
(hostile work environment claim fails where plaintiff was subjected to vulgar statements
regarding his sexual orientation and practices accompanied by physical assault and
graffiti because the plaintiff "[h]is claim *766 was, pure and simple, that he was
discriminated against because of his sexual orientation."); Spearman v. Ford Motor Co.,
231 F.3d 1080, 1085 (7th Cir.2000) (male employee who endured threatening and hostile
statements, taunting, and g...
View Full Document
- Spring '08