Fredette v. BVP Management Associates

Appellant
Robert Fredette
Appellees
BVP Managements Associates, Royal Palace Hotel Associates, and Buena Vista Hospitality Group
Appellant's Claim
That same gender sexual harassment is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Tobe M. Lev
Chief Lawyer for Appellees
Arch Y. Stokes
Justices for the Court
R. Lanier Anderson III (writing for the court), Albert J. Henderson, PhyllisA. Kravitch
Judges Dissenting
None
Place
Atlanta, Georgia
Date of Decision
22 May 1997
Decision
Sexual harassment of a male employee by a male supervisor is prohibited by Title VII.
Significance
In ruling that same gender harassment is actionable under the Civil Rights Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit joined a number of other courts of appeals in expanding the protections afforded workers in the workplace. Shortly after the court's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruledthat same gender harassment is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
By the early 1960s, two significant social transformations in the United States merged to produce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Following World War II, an increased number of women began to enter the workplace. This increase in the number of women holding regular jobs coincided, in large part, with anincreased awareness of, and desire to protect, the civil rights of a number of different groups, most notably racial minorities and women. These interestscoalesced in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, Title VII of the act prohibits any discrimination by an employer against an employee on the basis of a person's gender.
As a general matter, Title VII safeguards against workplace harassment. The first type is known as quid pro quo harassment. Quid pro quo isa Latin phrase meaning "what for what," or "something for something." In a quid pro quo harassment situation, an employer or supervisor will condition some aspect of an employee's job on the employee's performance of some sexual act. For example, an employer who agrees to promote an employee if thatemployee has sexual relations with the employer is guilty of quid pro quo harassment. The second type of gender discrimination is known as "hostilework environment" discrimination. In this type of discrimination, the employer creates, or allows his other employees to create, a work environment thatis hostile to an employee because of the employee's gender. For example, an employer who allows employees to display sexually explicit pictures of women may be guilty of creating a working environment which is hostile to female employees.
Protecting Men in the Workplace
Beginning in the late 1980s and continuing through the 1990s, a new social movement began to take shape and gain momentum in the United States. During this time, there began an increased awareness of discrimination against men, andin particular against homosexual men. As the public and the courts became more aware of this discrimination, the courts were asked to consider to what extent Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against men, and especially whether a male employer or supervisor could be guilty of discriminatingagainst another man on the basis of gender. Generally, such same-sex harassment took one of two forms. First, a homosexual supervisor or employer would engage in the same type of quid pro quo harassment which is ordinarilydirected towards female employees. Second, a homosexual employee would be subjected to a hostile work environment, generally by heterosexual male employees who would subject the employee to ridicule and often times outright violence.
Robert Fredette was a waiter at a restaurant owned by BVP Management Association. In 1994, Fredette filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against BVP claiming that Dana Sunshine, the male manager of the restaurant where he worked, sexually harassed him. Specifically,Fredette claimed that Sunshine asked him repeatedly for sexual favors, and offered to give Fredette employment benefits in exchange for these sexual favors. Fredette claimed that these repeated sexual advances constituted both quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment under Title VII.
The district court rejected Fredette's claim, concluding that same gender discrimination is not prohibited by Title VII. The district court noted that Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employee "becauseof" that person's gender. The court then reasoned that Fredette was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation, and not because of his gender. The district court reasoned that "if Fredette suffered the claimed harassment or discrimination at the hands of the restaurant manager, it stemmed notfrom the fact that Fredette was a man, but rather from the fact that Fredetterefused the manager's propositions and did not share the same sexual orientation or preferences as the manager." In reaching this conclusion, the district court relied on the similar decisions of a number of other district courtsand of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Same Gender Harassment Actionable
Fredette appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed the district court. Joining a numberof other courts of appeals, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the approach takenby the district court and the cases upon which the district court relied. The court relied on cases involving sexual advances by a male supervisor towarda female employee. The court reasoned that, in such a case, a women is treated differently "because of sex" as required by Title VII because the male supervisor does not make similar sexual advances toward males. Thus, such a woman is able to prove that, but for her being a woman, she would not have been subjected to the harassment.
The Fredette court concluded that this reasoning is equally applicableto the case where a male employee is harassed by a homosexual male supervisor in a sexual manner. The court stated:

We think [this reasoning]is equally applicable to the situation where a homosexual male propositionsanother male. The reasonably inferred motives of the homosexual harasser areidentical to those of the heterosexual harasser--i.e., the harasser makes advances towards the victim because the victim is a member of the gender the harasser prefers.

Thus, the court concluded that Fredette's claim was actionable under Title VII.
Impact
Less than one year after the court's decision in Fredette, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the conflict among the various federal courts on the same gender harassment issue. In Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Incorporated et al. (1998), the Supreme Court unanimously held that same-genderdiscrimination is prohibited by Title VII, taking the same position as the Eleventh Circuit in Fredette. Following the Fredette and Oncale decisions, employers must be much more conscious of how male supervisors and employees treat not only female employees, but also other male employees.
Related Cases

• Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987).
  
• Goluszek v. H. P. Smith, 697 F. Supp. 1452 (1988).
  
• Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 99 F.3d 138 (1996).
  
• Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Incorporated et al. 118 S.Ct. 998 (1998).