Our post of December 11th, “Supervisor Squeezing Subordinate’s Nipple: Does The Subordinate’s Gender Matter Under Title VII?” drew a number of comments.

To recap:  A supervisor allegedly grabbed and squeezed his subordinate’s nipple, and took a towel and rubbed it on the employee’s crotch, according to the opinion of a federal appellate court.  The employee sued, claiming hostile work environment, and claimed that the supervisor “received some perverse sexual gratification” from these acts.

Both were male, and the Court dismissed the case.

We asked if the result might have been different if the victim had been female.

Link:  https://employmentdiscrimination.foxrothschild.com/2014/12/articles/sexual-harassment-1/supervisor-squeezing-subordinates-nipple-does-the-subordinates-gender-matter-under-title-vii/

male victim of harassment : A bully pulls a wedgie on an unsuspecting victim. Illustration

Jane Ayaduray, a group diversity and inclusion expert in Singapore:

“An interesting and important question. My guess would be that while the outcome may have been the same, the way in which the situation was viewed within the organisation, in the courts and by the individuals involved, is very likely to have been different.”

Ian Bush, an executive in the Ottawa, Canada area:

“Indubitably, if the gender was female, the results would have been 180 degrees different. It’s a feminist misandrist world out there.”

Steve Larsen, an adjunct professor at Texas Women’s University:

“Of course the result would have been different. Unfortunately, Title VII was never meant to provide equal rights in the courts.”

Carol Westberry, an HR compliance specialist in Tampa/St.Pete:

“What happened to the Oncale vs.Sundowner Offshore Services case law?  I can’t even imagine what would have happened if this had been a male on female.”

Re’hab Karim, an HR specialist in the Stockton, CA area:  

“Very inappropriate and gender should not matter.  This is wrong and immediate action required.”