Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)

Citation: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Parent Document: Rolfs v. Home Depot, 2013 DNH 121 (2013)
Jurisdiction: New Hampshire (state)
Effective Date: 2013-09-20
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10693813/rolfs-v-home-depot/ ↗

Full Text

1,061 chars

The Supreme Court has made clear in Oncale v .
     Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (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 [ 8 0 ] . The statutory “because of . . . sex”
     requirement is not met merely because workplace
     harassment involves sexual matters: the substance of
     the violation is discrimination based on sex o r , 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). On appeal, the plaintiff in Higgins recast his claims, and presented two new theories to explain why the harassment he suffered was because of his sex.      See 194 F.3d at 259.

Other Sections in This Document (677)

Full Text