Re[2]: Oncale Case

Sue Sattel (ssattel@inet.educ.state.mn.us)
Tue, 10 Mar 98 06:57:09 cnt

This is the current interpretation by judges and justices, but I am
thinking that it will eventually not pass the smell test. I say
does this mean that if four kids line up at the Title IX office
(ho ho) to get a complaint form, and each can get one but the gay
kid, and they are each experiencing sexual harassment? Currently,
it may, same words, same actions, but the one to whom it most
applies, and who may be terrified, isn't covered? I know you are
correct, K.galles, but I think this interpretation is temporary
and with enough pressure and the right cases, the judges will come
around just as in Onacle.

"Sue Sattel" <ssattel@Inet.educ.state.mn.us>

_______________________ Reply Separator _______________________

Subject: Re: Oncale Case
Author: edequity@tristram.edc.org at internet
Date: 3/9/98 12:02 PM

You are right. Sexual orientation harassment is NOT covered. Demeaning
someone in a sexual manner IS covered, but tormenting them for BEING gay
is not. The harasser has to have the sexual motive.
<kgalles@erols.com>
__________________________________________________

PaulEdison wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how likely it is that the
> Supreme Court's decision this week on the Oncale
> same-sex harassment case will result in cases
> arising from _sexual-orientation_ harassment?
>
> I've heard this in some of the coverage, but was
> under the impression that previously (including
> in the OCR Guidance on sexual harassment) sex-
> orientation harassment has definitely _not_ been
> covered.
>
> Thanks
> Paul Edison, Gender Issues Education
> Curriculum/Video for Grades 6-12
> <PaulEdison@aol.com>

new message to this message