Propensity of Men to Sexually Harass

In Sassaman v. Gamache, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals looked at a somewhat bizarre employment case. A man filed suit claiming sex discrimination arising from an accusation by a woman that the man was guilty of sexual harassment.

A male employee and a female employee had a difference of opinion about who had said what to each other. She accused him of making inappropriate sexual comments. He accused her of the same. The female filed a charge with the local sheriff’s office accusing the male employee of stalking, but the sheriff concluded there was insufficient evidence to support criminal charges.

In the meantime, the male had been suspended. His boss told him that he would be fired unless he resigned. When the male employee protested, the boss defended his decision by saying: “I really don’t have any choice. [The female employee] 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.”

The male employee resigned and then filed suit, claiming sex sterotyping in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. A federal district court in New York granted the employer’s motion to dismiss the case without a trial. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

The Second Circuit concluded that if the male employee could prove what he said had happened, it would be a classic case of sex stereotyping. With little investigation, the boss had determined that the male employee was guilty of sex harassment, because men have a propensity to commit sexual harassment. At the very least, the male employee was entitled to a jury trial.

In previous posts, I’ve suggested that men are prone to commit sex harassment because of The Man Gene. The Second Circuit didn’t even mention The Man Gene.