A female who worked in a supermarket bakery complained of mistreatment by a female coworker. — The smacked employee buttocks least six occasions molded dough into shapes resembling
Law & GovernanceGeneralCase Study
A female who worked in a supermarket bakery complained of mistreatment by a female coworker. The coworker smacked the employee’s buttocks on at least six occasions, molded dough into shapes resembling genitalia and shoved them into the employee’s face, pushed the employee up against a wall and held her there for ten to fifteen seconds while she demonstrated how she would conduct a rape, and showed the employee Barbie dolls that the coworker had placed in sexual positions. Besides this conduct directed at the employee, the coworker also regularly told dirty jokes, baked sexually explicit cakes, struck other male and female employees on the buttocks, and engaged in simulated sex acts with both male and female employees. The woman’s complaints about the coworker were ignored by managers. She sued for sexual harassment. What should the court decide? Why?
🔒
Unlock the complete assignment
You are viewing the free preview. Purchase this assignment once to reveal the complete resource.
$9.99 USD
Secure checkout is completed by Stripe.
SOLUTION
As is common in same-sex harassment cases, this case centered on the issue of whether the alleged harassment was “because of sex.” The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. Although the case was brought under Missouri state law, the court looked to the Supreme Court’s Oncale decision and applied basically the same analysis as under Title VII. In essence, the court determined that this was a case of an “equal opportunity harasser” who indiscriminately subjected both males and females to the same conduct. Physical touching of the plaintiff’s body and the sexual nature of the co-worker’s actions were not sufficient to establish that the conduct was “because of sex.” According to the court, the evidence did not show that the co-worker was motivated by sexual desire or attraction toward the plaintiff. Regarding another of Oncale’s evidentiary routes, there was also insufficient evidence to show that the acts were motivated by a general hostility to the presence of females in the workplace. Nor did the plaintiff treat male and female employees differently. “Instead, the facts on record show that Lynch treated all employees, both male and female, in the same vulgar and inappropriate way.” Although it could be argued that the co-worker singled out the female plaintiff for particular humiliation, including a simulated rape, the court chose not to take notice of any such differences. This case is another example of how the availability of same-sex harassment claims is more apparent than real.