Same-Gender Sexual Harassment: Title VII Harassment By Any Other Name…

Joe Morelli

---

DOI: 10.2190/56UX-GQAJ-332H-36RU

Abstract

The initial purpose of this article was to recognize the inherent inconsistency in refusing to acknowledge same-gender sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII. However, as the research progressed and continually led to the arena of sexual orientation harassment, a change in the overall purpose of the article occurred. A review of Title VII's intentions reveals that the overriding concern of the drafters was the eradication of discrimination in employment. In 1964, it became politically correct to afford blacks and women the right to work in an environment free of discrimination. Later, the elderly and disabled became deserving of equal treatment in the workplace. However, with the exception of few early judicial decisions and still fewer recent state legislative enactments, sexual orientation harassment and same-gender sexual harassment have been denied recognition under Title VII. Most recently in Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas & Electric, a Maryland District Court held that it was impossible for a male employee to bring a Title VII sexual harassment claim against another male. This article's primary emphasis is to prove that same-gender harassment can be resolved within Title VII's prohibition against employment discrimination. Specifically, the Courts' illogical reasoning that the sex of the aggressor and victim does not play a role in the harassment is far from correct. Whether it be seethingly liberal or just plain honest, a prohibition against same-gender harassment, as well as orientation harassment, would clearly further the purpose of Title VII of creating a discrimination free workplace.

---

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.