9th Circuit Clarifies the Law on Reverse Sexual Harassment in California

The Ninth Curcuit extensively discusses the sexual harassment law as it applies to male victims in it recent decision, filed on September 3, 2010 - EEOC v. Prospect Airport Services, Inc. In that case the claimant - a Christian male was sexually propositioned over and over by a female co-worker over a period of many months. Despite the claimant's complaints to his supervisor and human resources department, they would mostly jokingly dismiss his complaints, nor believing that a male can actually suffer from a woman's advances. 

The lower (trial) has dismissed the case in large part due to the claimant's testimony that other men wouldn't have minded if they were in his position. However, the appellate court was not persuaded that this is a good reason to dismiss the case, stating and rightfully saw that just because some other men would have flattered by such aggressive attention from a woman doesn't mean that this specific plaintiff is not a victim of hostile work environment.

The other significant point that the Ninth Circuit emphasized in its decision to reverse the dismissal and remand the case for further proceeding is total lack of response from the employer. An employer is liable for an employee's sexual harassment of a co-worker if it knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). Harassment is to be remedied through actions targeted at the harasser, not at the victim.  In this case, the management was well aware of the harassment complaints by the victim, but they did absolutely nothing except dismiss his complaints with sexual jokes. This decision further reinforces the well established law that discrimination because of sex protects men as well as women. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 78 (1998).