Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)

Citation
Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)
Parent Document
Rolfs v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 197 (2013)
Jurisdiction
New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date
2013-09-20

Other Sections in This Document (163)

Full Text

853 chars
The Supreme Court has made clear in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998) that, in same-sex harassment cases as in all sexual harassment cases, the plaintiff “must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive sexual connotations,” but in fact constituted discrimination “because of ... sex.” Id. at [80], 118 S.Ct. 998. The statutory “because of ... sex” requirement is not met merely because workplace harassment involves sexual matters: the substance *211of the violation is discrimination based on sex or, as the Court put the matter, “whether members of one sex are exposed to disadvantageous terms or conditions of employment to which members of the other sex are not exposed.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Id. at 258-59 (parallel citations omitted).