Fredette v. BVP Management Associates

Fredette appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which reversed the district court. Joining a number of other courts of appeals, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the approach taken by the district court and the cases upon which the district court relied. The court relied on cases involving sexual advances by a male supervisor toward a 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 applicable to 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 propositions another male. The reasonably inferred motives of the homosexual harasser are identical 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.