CourtCases2010

Zashin zashin rich cleveland ohio for appellees before

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ant, v. FAIRFIELD MEDICAL CENTER, Steve Anderson, Kory J. Dixon, John Mueller, and "Jane Doe" Dixon, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-3776. Argued: June 8, 2005. Decided and Filed: July 19, 2006. Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 27, 2006. [FN*] FN* Judge Lawson would grant rehearing for the reasons stated in his dissent. Background: Former employee brought action against employer, three co-workers, and co-worker's spouse alleging sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII, conspiracy to violate employee's equal protection rights, failure to prevent conspiracy, and 21 state law claims. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Gregory L. Frost, J., dismissed action. Former employee appealed. Holding: The Court of Appeals, Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge, held that employee did not establish that he was discriminated against because of sex stereotyping. Affirmed. David M. Lawson, District Judge, sitting by designation, filed dissenting opinion. West Headnotes Male employee, who claimed that he was discriminated against because of his association with homosexual male doctor, did not establish that he was discriminated against because of sex stereotyping, as required to prove sexual harassment claim under Title VII, where employee did not allege that his harassers were motivated by sexual desire, that they were hostile to men in the workplace or in employee's particular job, or that employee was harassed because he failed to comply with societal stereotypes of how men ought to appear or act. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). 148 Sexual orientation is not a prohibited basis for discriminatory acts under Title VII; however, individuals who are perceived as, or who identify as, homosexuals are not barred from bringing a claim for sex discrimination under Title VII. Civil Rights Act of 1964, § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In order to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to an adverse employment...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online