Unformatted text preview: ant,
FAIRFIELD MEDICAL CENTER, Steve Anderson, Kory J. Dixon, John Mueller, and
"Jane Doe" Dixon, Defendants-Appellees.
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
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.
David M. Lawson, District Judge, sitting by designation, filed dissenting opinion.
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
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 09/30/2012 for the course ENC 102 taught by Professor Deria during the Spring '08 term at FIU.
- Spring '08