Shane Dawson, a male homosexual, worked for Entek International. Some of Dawson’

Question

Shane Dawson, a male homosexual, worked for Entek International. Some of Dawson’s co-workers, including his supervisor, made derogatory comments about his sexual orientation. Dawson’s work deteriorated. He filed a complaint with Entek’s human resources department. Two days later, he was fired. State law made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual based on sexual orientation. [Dawson v. Entek International, 630 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2011)] (See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.) (523, Miller)

1. Could Dawson establish a claim for retaliation? Explain.

2. Should homosexuals be a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act? Discuss the arguments for and against amending federal law to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Explanation / Answer

1. Dawson could establish a claim for retaliation because the state law has made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an individual based on sexual orientation. Hostile environment harassment occurs when a pattern of sexual offensive conduct runs throughout the workplace and employer has not taken steps to prevent or discourage the same. Here Dawson has undergone a series of harassment when his coworkers and supervisor made derogatory comments about his sexual orientation and the same has deteriorated his work. When he complained to HR, the company has fired him instead of taking necessary steps to prevent the harassment. Hence the employer is liable for the harassment and Dawson could establish a retaliation claim.

2. In my opinion homosexual should be protected under the Title VII of the civil rights act because sexual orientation comes under individual rights and the individual’s ability to perform the job responsibilities does not depend upon the sexual orientation. Every individual has the right to be treated fairly in the workplace irrespective of the gender. When gender discrimination is prohibited in workplace, discrimination based on sexual orientation also should be a part of title VII to make it meaningful because harassment based on sexual orientation is also a type of discrimination based on gender. Only the negative side of amending the law is certain issues that may arise based on privacy, but the same can be solved by ensuring reasonable accomodation like separate rest rooms for homosexuals.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.