Date: Mon, 19 Dec 1994 15:37:31 -0500
From: ASLeonard@aol.com

Craig Waldo requested references to cases of sexual harassment that involved
same-sex (particularly male-male) harassment.

You may have seen that such a case was in the news recently from
Philadelphia.  A gay male restaurant employee complained about unwanted
sexual advances from his gay male supervisor and filed a complaint with the
city human rights agency.  The papers trumpeted this as an unprecedented
case.  

Not so.  Here are a few cites of same-sex sexual harassment cases:

Joyner v. AAA Cooper Transportation, 597 F.Supp. 537 (M.D.Ala. 1983), aff'd
without opinion, 749 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1984); later opinion, 41 Fair Empl.
Prac. Cas. (BNA) 492 (M.D. Ala. 1984).

Wright v. Methodist Youth Services, 511 F.Supp. 307 (N.D.Ill. 1981)

The above are both quid-pro-quo type harassment cases.

Carreno v. Local Union No. 226, 54 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 81, 55 Empl.
Prac. Dec. (CCH) para. 40,412 (U.S.Dist. Ct., Kan. 1990).

The above is a "hostile environment" case where the plaintiff is a man who
was harassed because he was perceived as being gay.

The most famous case, unfortunately on unofficially published by the
commercial reporting services, is Dillon v. Frank, 58 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas.
(BNA) 144, 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) para. 41,332 (6th Cir. 1992).  Dillon
actually testified about his horrific experiences and the lack of redress
under Title VII at the Congressional hearing this summer on ENDA.

There are some more recent cases since the above that don't really change the
legal conclusions any, which you can find by Shepardizing these cases.  In
brief: same-sex quid pro quo harassment is usually found to be covered under
Title VII and similar state laws as sex discrimination; hostile environment
harassment based on the perception that an employee is gay is usually not
covered.

Art Leonard  NY Law School 57 Worth St., NY, NY 10013
ASLeonard@aol.com