Fredette v. BVP Management Associates

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, and in 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 discriminating against 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 ordinarily directed 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 "because of" 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 not from the fact that Fredette was a man, but rather from the fact that Fredette refused 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 courts and of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.