Although sexual orientation discrimination is not prohibited under Title VII, same-sex sexual harassment is  —  as a species of gender-based sexual harassment.  The distinction is important.   (While Title VII affords no protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation, an increasing number of states and municipalities have passed such laws, such as NYS and NYC.   See our post of June 27, 2013).

The EEOC, having sued a bank for same-sex sexual harassment, just agreed to accept a settlement of the case for $290,000.

The EEOC alleged that both a female manager and a female bank teller subjected four female employees to “graphic sexual comments, gestures and images. The harassment included inappropriate touching and a suggestion that the bank tellers wear sexually provocative clothing to attract customers and to advance in the workplace.”

The EEOC San Francisco Regional Attorney said that the bank “could have immediately nipped this behavior in the bud. We are hopeful that the settlement terms will ensure a quicker response going forward.”   Another EEOC attorney said that “Sexual harassment is illegal, regardless of whether the harasser is female or male, the same or opposite gender as the victim.”

This is not the first time that the EEOC has sued — and settled such cases.  As we posted this past June 13th, the EEOC settled a case with a North Carolina private security and public safety for $155,000.  In that case, a class of male employees was allegedly subjected to sexual harassment by the company’s male captain and male lieutenant:   “the captain ma[de] offensive sexual comments to his male subordinate employees [–] soliciting nude pictures from them; asking a male employee to undress in front of him; and soliciting male employees for sex. The captain and lieutenant also allegedly forced male employees to accompany them to a gay strip club while on duty. The complaint further alleged that the captain touched the chests and genitals of some of the male employees and offered promotions to certain male employees in exchange for sex.”

This was similar to a case case we wrote about on April 2nd, where a New Mexico car dealership agreed to pay over $2 million, along with “a very strong consent decree,” to settle an EEOC same sex sexual harassment (and retaliation) lawsuit  on behalf of over 50 men.  The complaint there alleged that for ten years company managers “subject[ed] a class of men to egregious forms of sexual harassment, including shocking sexual comments, frequent solicitations for oral sex, and regular touching, grabbing, and biting of male workers on their buttocks and genitals.”

The EEOC’s General Counsel Lopez said then that “This settlement serves to remedy the egregious sexual harassment that the EEOC alleged the men were subjected to … It also raises awareness that all employees, male and female, are entitled to work in an environment free of sexual harassment and retaliation.”