The district court's reasoning is thus:
Title VII is not a code of workplace conduct, nor was it “designed to bring about the magical transformation in the social mores of American workers.” (though, let's face it, it pretty much has.) Rather, Title VII targets discrimination based on gender, and “if the nature of an employee's environment, however unpleasant, is not due to her gender, she has not been the victim of sex discrimination as a result of that environment.”In the instant case, Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that Thompson's allegedly harassing behavior-namely, the fact that Thompson used the penis pump and had his penis exposed-was due to Plaintiff's gender. . . . Absent facts demonstrating that Thompson's conduct was motivated in some manner by Plaintiff's gender,Plaintiff's claim cannot survive summary judgment.
Hindman v. Thompson, 2008 WL 596106 (N.D. Okla 2008).
Note: Do not think this defense would necessarily fly in the Great State of California.
Note: Do not think that this decision means you can use a penis pump at work. If you do, and you are caught, you may get fired (heck, you will get fired), and you may go to jail, just like the good Judge Thompson did.
No comments:
Post a Comment