1. Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. How would you characterize this case? How would you characterize this case? Do you see the discrimination as being based on sexual orientation and thus not protected by Title VII, or as based on gender, and thus protected by Title VII?

2. Why do you think the managers did not address the employee’s complaints?

3. What would you have done differently here if you had been Sanchez’s manager?

Issue: Whether it is violation of Title VII’s proscription on gender harassment if a male employee is harassed because he is considered to be effeminate.

Facts: A male employee who worked as a server at a restaurant endured “a relentless campaign of insults, name-calling, and vulgarities” during his entire tenure. Co-workers as well as a supervisor repeatedly referred to him by female pronouns, said he carried his tray like a woman, and taunted him weekly and often daily as a “faggot” and a “f**king male whore.”

Decision: Yes, the court determined that this harassment based on a male being considered effeminate was cognizable under Title VII since, as in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the discrimination is based on gender stereotypes which were prohibited in Price Waterhouse as illegal gender discrimination. The court said the “systematic abuse directed at Sanchez reflected a belief that Sanchez did not act as a man should act. Sanchez was attached for walking and carrying his tray “like a woman”—i.e., for having feminine mannerisms.” The court held that the verbal abuse issue occurred because of gender.