About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

70 Wash. L. Rev. 1125 (1995)
Without Distinction: Recognizing Coverage of Same-Gender Sexual Harassment under Title VII

handle is hein.journals/washlr70 and id is 1135 raw text is: Copyright 0 1995 by Washington Law Review Association WITHOUT DISTINCTION: RECOGNIZING COVERAGE OF SAME-GENDER SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE VII Trish K. Murphy Abstract: Federal court decisions conflict regarding the applicability of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to sexual harassment cases where the alleged harasser and victim are members of the same gender. This Comment examines the courts' treatment of same-gender sexual harassment claims and argues that same-gender sexual harassment claims fall within the purview of Title VII as impermissible discrimination. In reaching this position, this Comment demonstrates that Title VII lacks gender-based limitations. It then argues that no valid justification exists for distinguishing between same-gender sexual harassment and sexual harassment involving members of different genders. Finally, this Comment suggests that the inquiry should focus on the discriminatory and unwelcome nature of the conduct alleged. Elizabeth suffered from sexual harassment at her place of employment. Her supervisor, Terry, repeatedly made sexually explicit comments to Elizabeth, also propositioning and touching her in a sexually offensive manner. Terry failed to treat male employees similarly. Unable to tolerate such conditions, Elizabeth filed a Title VII sexual harassment claim in federal court.' If Terry is male, Elizabeth should have little difficulty stating a Title VII sexual harassment cause of action. However, if Terry is female, Elizabeth has then alleged a same-gender sexual harassment claim. Depending on the jurisdiction, Elizabeth may face defeat on summary judgment for failure to show a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII. Prior to 1988, Terry's gender would have been irrelevant because courts agreed that Title VII covers sexual harassment regardless of the gender of the harasser and victim.2 However, in Goluszek v. Smith,3 a federal district court departed from established precedent by refusing to recognize a Title VII claim brought by a male plaintiff against his employer, alleging sexual harassment by his male co-workers. In 1994, other courts began to follow suit.4 Consequently, federal court decisions 1. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l) (1988). For a description of the provisions of Title VII, see infra part I.A. 2. See, e.g., Joyner v. AAA Cooper Transp., 597 F. Supp. 537 (M.D. Ala. 1983), affd mem., 749 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1984); Wright v. Methodist Youth Serv., 511 F. Supp. 307 (N.D. Ill. 1981). 3. 697 F. Supp. 1452 (N.D. Il. 1988). 4. See, e.g., Garcia v. Elf Atochem N. Am., 28 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 1994). See also infra note 82. 1125

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most