holding summary judgment improper where same-sex harasser complimented the plaintiffs physical appearance, requested oral and anal sex, touched himself in the plaintiffs presence, and exposed himself to the plaintiff
How later courts described this case
- holding summary judgment improper where same-sex harasser complimented the plaintiffs physical appearance, requested oral and anal sex, touched himself in the plaintiffs presence, and exposed himself to the plaintiff
- holding that witness may clarify ambiguous or incomplete deposition testimony
- finding that Oncale’s examples were illustrative, not exhaustive
- inference of sexual dis crimination can be drawn when the harasser made “explicit or implicit proposals of sexual activity” to persons of the same gender, and there existed “credible evidence that the harasser was homosexual”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BAUER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While not being willing to tackle the lengthy and very fact-specific opinion on a page-by-page or encounter-by-encounter basis, I believe the district court was absolutely correct; the undisputed facts show that the hostile work environment was not a gender-based hostility. The obnoxious, crude and outrageous behavior the plaintiff complains of was directed at male and female alike; it was offensive to male and female alike. It is even offensive in the repeating. Nevertheless, Shepherd has failed to meet the requirement of a prima facie sexual harassment case based on a hostile work environment.
I join that position of the opinion which affirms the district court’s dismissal of the retaliatory firing claim. As to the rest, I would adopt the quite persuasive opinion of the trial judge.