Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

A Pinch of “Baby Steve” and “Little Momma” May Not Produce Sexual Harassment

In the case of Vogel v. N.E. Ohio Media Group, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-176, the appellate court dismissed claims of reverse gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims asserted by a male supervisor against a city employer as there was no meaningful distinction between the way the male supervisor was treated compared to his female counterparts, the use of sexual words do not automatically amount to sexual discrimination, and the city’s conduct was not so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency.

In this case, the male supervisor argued that he was subjected to reverse gender discrimination by his city employer asserting that the city discriminates against non-minority employees based upon the allegation that a female non-supervisory employee also engaged in inappropriate behavior against him (e.g., the female non-supervisory employee routinely called him “Baby Steve;” discussed her personal life with him; and engaged in regular, inappropriate office joking and banter with him), but only he was investigated and terminated for alleged misconduct. In response, the city employer argued that, while the female non-supervisory employee filed a complaint against the male supervisor for inappropriate behavior (e.g., the male supervisor physically touched others; leered and sexualized co-workers; invited others to meet up outside of the office; and called her “little momma”), he never filed a discrimination complaint against the female non-supervisory employee so the city could never have either investigated or terminated her in the first place. The appellate court agreed with the city employer and explained that, “’[i]n practical terms, two employees are not similarly-situated in all relevant respects if there is a meaningful distinction between them which explains their employer’s differential treatment of them.’” 2023-Ohio-176 at ¶ 12.

In this case, the male supervisor argued that he was subjected to a hostile work environment by his city employer asserting that the city conducted the investigation and termination against him differently than his female counterpart based upon his male gender based upon the allegation that a female non-supervisory employee also used words having a sexual content and connotation. In response, the city employer argued that a complete investigation was conducted, the female non-supervisory employee and other witnesses were determined to be more credible than the male supervisor, and the male supervisor did not object to the alleged banter between the female non-supervisory employee and him. The appellate court agreed with the city employer and explained that, on the one hand, “’[h]arassing conduct that is simply abusive, with no sexual element, can support a claim for hostile-environment sexual harassment if it is directed at the plaintiff because of his or her sex,’” but, “[o]n the other hand, ‘harassment is not automatically discrimination because of sex merely because the words used have sexual content or connotations.’” 2023-Ohio-176 at ¶ 16.

In this case, the male supervisor argued that he was subjected to intentional infliction of emotional distress by his city employer asserting that the city knew or should have known that making false allegations of sexual harassment against him, conducting a sham investigation, placing him on administrative leave without proof of the allegations, providing an “anonymous tip” to the media that misrepresented that he had been escorted from city hall by police, stripping him of the electronic devices he needed to defend himself from the allegations, and terminating him without justification would result in serious emotional distress to him. In response, the city employer denied these allegations and argued that, even if these allegations were true, the city’s conduct was not so extreme and outrageous that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency. The appellate court agreed with the city.

WARNING: This holding was based upon the undisputed material facts in this case. The outcome may have been much different had the facts been different.

To read this case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.