Wednesday, October 15, 2008

the solitary vice

Some light reading from the Seventh Circuit:

In Baskerville, we held that the plaintiff could not establish an objectively
severe environment even though, over a seven-month period, the plaintiff's
supervisor had: called her a “pretty girl”; grunted “um um um” when the
plaintiff wore a leather skirt to the office; told the plaintiff that her
presence made the office “hot”; suggested that all “pretty girls,” a category
that presumably included the plaintiff, “run around naked”; told the plaintiff
that he left the company Christmas party early because he “didn't want to lose
control” at the sight of “so many pretty girls”; and suggested to the plaintiff
that the solitary vice was his chief consolation in his wife's
absence
. Id. at 430. After reviewing the record in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, we observed that the plaintiff's supervisor was “not
a man of refinement,” but we concluded that no reasonable jury could find the
environment plaintiff endured to be objectively offensive and *753 therefore held that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. Id. at 431.

Rogers v. City of Chicago, 320 F.3d 748, 752-53 (7th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added). First of all, apparently someone at your office has to slap you in the face with a penis in order for your workplace environment to be objectively offense! Second, note the excellent use of euphemism in the above passage. Took me a couple passes to understand that one.

1 comment:

there'll be no butter in hell said...

um, the f'ing seventh circuit has so much bad civil rights law! fight the power m!