21 May 2004

If you are harassed because others perceive you to be queer -- whether you are or not -- then isn't that, in a very profound way, based upon your sex? I.e., if your being male causes people to harass you because you don't act the way "a man should act" in the workplace, is it not directly analogous to men harassing women who are inherently "too masculine" because they choose to work outside the home?

The Supreme Court and the EEOC don't buy the above argument. Because they SUCK! I am tearing my hair out trying to find a way around this.

Try this one on for size:

Title VII covers a variety of different types of harassment. Would it constitute a hostile environment due to race if a [race x] supervisor was complicit in the harassment of a [race x] worker by other [race x] workers, and that harassment was based upon the fact that the harassed worker "acted too [race y]" ?

Could you do the same with national origin, or religion? Keep in mind, the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that (a) discrimination of individuals, though generally found in situations where a person from a historically disadvantaged group is discriminated against by a person or people of a historically powerful group, may, and has, proceed in the "reverse" direction; and (b) there is nothing in the law to suggest that, in some cases, discrimination (for example, by a superior against underlings) may even proceed from a "general hostility" toward persons of the *same* race.

Stupid federal law. Blah!