Home  ı  Article's Table of Contents

Introduction to
Sex or Gender Discrimination Law
 

Some Title VII Cases

• Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211 (2nd Cir. 2005) - Court determines whether claims are based on sexual orientation (which are not actionable under Title VII) or gender stereotyping (which is actionable).
   

• Hugh v. Butler County Family YMCA, 418 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2005) - Employer cannot argue that employee did not meet the objective qualifications for the position (and hence cannot establish that prong of the prima facie case) where the employer was aware of these facts when it originally chose to place the employee in the position.
   

• Patton v. Keystone RV Co., - F.3d - (7th Cir. August 1, 2006) - The court finds sufficient evidence to support Patton's claim of constructive discharge. A jury could find that Patton had a reasonable fear that Ramey (the alleged harasser) was an obsessed man who was capable of physically assaulting her and that she should quit immediately to protect herself.
   

• Preston v. Wisconsin Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2005) - A male executive's romantically motivated favoritism toward a female subordinate is not sex discrimination even when it disadvantages a male competitor of the woman.
   

• Tenge v. Phillips Modern Ag Co., 446 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2006) - No sex discrimination where female employee is fired by the owner after the owner's wife insists on termination because of inappropriate sexual conduct between owner and the female employee.
   

• McWilliams v. Jefferson County, - F.3d - (10th Cir. September 6, 2006) - The County provided a legitimate reason for her termination -- her inappropriate behavior with co-workers and her numerous unexcused absences. McWilliams blames her behavior and her absences on her depression, but that does not make the County's proffered reasons pretextual. Therefore, her Title VII claim fails.

END OF ARTICLE

Article's Table of Contents   ı   Previous Page