Articles Posted in Sex

facebookfanpageteh.jpg

So captivating that, at 35 pages long, it held my attention for 24 of them. Winning! 

I’ll whet your whistle with the opening paragraph of EEOC v. The McPherson Cos., Inc.:

This Title VII case revolves around repeated churlish, childish, gross, sordid, vulgar, foul, disgusting, profane utterances in the workplace. The question in the case, however, is not how vile and obnoxious this workplace language was. It was vile and obnoxious enough to score nine on a scale of ten. This will become apparent as the story unfolds. The question for the court is rather whether this verbal mayhem morphed from a competition to see who could beat whom in the foul-mouth game into a cause of action under Title VII by an offended employee for same-sex sexual harassment.

After jump, I’ll keep my babbling to a minimum and, instead, highlight the matter-of-fact prose of Judge William M. Acker, Jr. from the Northern District of Alabama. And we’ll answer the question: Does the reach of Title VII preclude same-sex sexual harassment where offensive workplace language is not directed at a man because he’s a man?

* * *

Continue reading

Posted in:
Updated:

A federal court described Charles “Chuck” Wolfe, a crew superintendent in of an all-male construction crew, as a “world-class trash talker” and a “master of vulgarity.” One of the members of Wolfe’s crew was Kerry Woods, a straight male. Woods claimed that his supervisor, Wolfe another straight man, had engaged in unlawful “same sex” harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by referring to him in “raw homophobic epithets and lewd gestures.”

A jury heard Woods’s claims and awarded him nearly $500,000. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the employer’s appeal, threw out the jury award, and dismissed the complaint (in this opinion).

 

 

Why? Find out after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

Posted in:
Updated:

Oklahoma PumpjackWhen Harold Wasek signed on to work at an oil rig in Pennsylvania, he had no idea what lay in store for him, especially when one of his co-workers discovered that Wasek would get easily riled with sexually explicit stories, jokes, fantasies, and names.

  • “You’ve got such a pretty mouth.”
  • “Boy you have pretty lips.”
  • “You know you like it, sweetheart.”

Wasek complained to his supervisor. But the harassment worsened. He was touched in a sexual manner: grabbing his buttocks, poking him in the rear with a hammer handle and something described as a long sucker rod.

So Wasek sued claiming sex discrimination. And he lost. Why? Because his harasser was a straight man.

Seriously.

I’ll explain after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

 

Yesterday, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Title VII is the federal statute that prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin). You can read a full press release on the updated Enforcement Guidance here.

The press release includes a link to questions and answers about the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance. However, I will summarize the most important points for employers after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

I can pinpoint the exact moment that this blog transcended to the next level of internet excellence.

 

It was back in late March, when I blogged here about a female bartender/server who had sued her employer, the Wild Beaver Saloon, for pregnancy discrimination. The retweets that day were off the heezy fo sheezy, yo. (The hyperlink is a courtesy to my NPR listeners).

***Wait. Hold on one sec. I have to take this call from “1993”. They say they want their dated hip-hop lingo back. OK, I’m back.***

When I first wrote about the Wild Beaver Saloon, the question was whether a business could make an employment decision based on the preferences of co-workers, the employer, clients or customers. I concluded, in this instance, that the Beave could not get away with it.

Well, the case ended last week. So was I right? Click past the jump to find out if I know my stuff…

* * *

Continue reading

I can’t make this stuff up if I tried.

The Associated Press reports that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commissions has ordered a local employer to pay $38,700 in back pay and interest to a female employee it fired for fighting at a cheese-making plant. According to the report, Rosalind Brown prevailed on her gender discrimination claim because she apparently received harsher discipline than male employees who had engaged in more egregious behavior:

The commission agreed with Rosalind Brown who claims it was unfair for her to be fired when two men who fought at the Dairy Farmers of America Inc. plant in West Middlesex received only 3-day suspensions. 1 of the men was injured when the other threw a 20-pound block of cheese.

Congratulations!

Because you are reading this post, you somehow made it past your company’s internet firewall. That, or you’re a horny perv, Googling some effed-up search terms. But I’m a lawyer; I don’t judge.

Either way, continue reading.

After the jump, it’s the female bartender/server who is now suing her employer, the Wild Beaver Saloon, *** borderline-NSFW link *** because she claims they fired her for getting pregnant!

* * *

Continue reading

Recently, I read an article by Bob Egelko in
the San Francisco Chronicle
about a speech from U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
in which he told law
students from U.C. Hastings that the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution
, which guarantees equal protection to all U.S.
citizens, do not preclude discrimination based on sex. Justice Scalia
believes that the drafters of the Constitution did not have sex
discrimination on the brain when they passed the 14th Amendment.

Continue reading

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information