_________________________________________________________________________
Sue Sattel wrote:
>
> 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>