|
|
| 'Men Are Harassers' Is Biased |
In 2003, Carl Sassaman was hired as Elections Administrator under David Gamache, the Dutchess County (NY) Elections Commissioner. However, after a printing problem with a 2004 ballot, Gamache demoted Sassaman and promoted Sassaman's former subordinate, Michelle Brant, to be Elections Administrator (and thus to be Sassaman's superior).
Although Sassaman and Brant previously had a friendly lunch-break and cigarette-break relationship, it soured when their positions switched. No longer worktime companions, in March 2005 Brant officially complained to Gamache that Sassaman was "harassing and stalking her."
Gamache referred the complaint to the Sheriff, which determined that "insufficient evidence exists to support any type of criminal charges." Brant, however, was not satisfied. Instead, she hired a lawyer and continued to complain to Gamache.
Ultimately, on March 21, 2005, Gamache told Sassaman to quit or be fired. "I really don't have any choice," Gamache explained. "Michelle knows a lot of attorneys. I'm afraid she'll sue me. And besides you probably did what she said you did because you're male and nobody would believe you anyway."
Sassaman resigned. Then, he sued Gamache for discrimination under Title VII. According to Sassaman, he lost his job due to illegal sex stereotyping.
The Court ruled in his favor. "Considering first ... that Gamache told [Sassaman], 'you probably did what [Brant] said you did because you're male,' we agree with Sassaman that a reasonable jury could construe this statement as an invidious sex stereotype," the Court wrote.
"As the [US] Supreme Court explained ... we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group," the Court noted. In this case, "the alleged sex stereotyping is more overt: Gamache appears to have defended his decision to credit Brant's allegations of sexual harassment by pointing to the propensity of men, as a group, to sexually harass women."
"We appreciate that employers who fail to address claims of sexual harassment expose themselves to civil liability. However, fear of a lawsuit does not justify an employer's reliance on sex stereotypes to resolve allegations of sexual harassment," the Court warned.
"Title VII requires employers to take claims of sexual harassment seriously," the Court continued. "It also requires that, in the course of investigating such claims, employers do not presume male employees to be 'guilty until proven innocent' based on invidious sex stereotypes."
"Here, it is reasonable to infer a discriminatory state of mind from Gamache's remark that men have a propensity to sexually harass women," the Court concluded. Thus, "a reasonable jury could infer from the inadequacy of [the Election Board's] investigation, if proven, that [the Board] relied solely on a sex stereotype ... as the basis for the decision to pressure Sassaman to resign." [Sassaman v. Gamache (2nd Cir. 2009) no. 07-2721-cv]
For information on this topic tailored to your company profile, request Memos: |
5560 Sex Discrimination: Overview
5935 Employer's Response to Sexual Harassment Claims
5065 Proper Steps to Investigate Wrongful Conduct
|
 |