Nicholas Sanchez was subjected to mockery and insults by coworkers at Azteca Restaurant due to his sexual orientation. Though Azteca's policy prohibited harassment, the manager took little action in response to Nicholas' complaints. Nicholas sued under Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination but not harassment based on sexual orientation. The court ruled that harassment due to sex is a Title VII violation. It agreed Nicholas experienced such harassment and that Azteca failed to address it. The court advocated expanding Title VII's protections to include sexual orientation harassment.
Nicholas Sanchez was subjected to mockery and insults by coworkers at Azteca Restaurant due to his sexual orientation. Though Azteca's policy prohibited harassment, the manager took little action in response to Nicholas' complaints. Nicholas sued under Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination but not harassment based on sexual orientation. The court ruled that harassment due to sex is a Title VII violation. It agreed Nicholas experienced such harassment and that Azteca failed to address it. The court advocated expanding Title VII's protections to include sexual orientation harassment.
Nicholas Sanchez was subjected to mockery and insults by coworkers at Azteca Restaurant due to his sexual orientation. Though Azteca's policy prohibited harassment, the manager took little action in response to Nicholas' complaints. Nicholas sued under Title VII, which prohibits sex discrimination but not harassment based on sexual orientation. The court ruled that harassment due to sex is a Title VII violation. It agreed Nicholas experienced such harassment and that Azteca failed to address it. The court advocated expanding Title VII's protections to include sexual orientation harassment.
Facts: During the period that Nicholas Sanchez had been working at Azteca Restaurant, he had been subjected to mockery and insults a couple of times. He had reported this to his employer but the employer seemed to have done little to stop the vulgarities that were being hurled at him. Azteca policy had prohibited other employees conduct of sexual harassment and retaliation towards their colleagues. Title VII has not addressed actions on harassment by a person of the same sex. The manager had addressed Nicholas case lightly because despite the actions of other employees were against the restaurant's policy, he didn’t see it being addressed on Title VII. Issue: The employee Nicholas had brought up a case to sue his fellow employees who were harassing him because of his gender orientation which was not covered by Title VII. He claimed that the employer had done little to stop the harassment. Rule of Law: The rule of law dictated that; under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual concerning his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of sex. Discrimination has not been prohibited based on sexual orientation under Title VII, I would disagree with this and advocate for discrimination on sexual orientation to be added to Title VII Application: The court conducted an investigation and found out that the working environment at Azteca was not hostile. It was the language that was being used on Nicholas that got him feeling harassed. The court also found out that the manager at Nicholas workplace took little action despite Nicholas having complained to him numerously. Conclusion: The court concluded that sexual harassment is actionable under Title VII. The court agreed with the employee that this constituted a violation of Title VII even though the employee was gay. The VII should be revised and new adjustments made to it, like adding harassment on sexual orientation to be penalized. People should live in a free world that they should not get mocked or humiliated because of sexual orientation. At any workplace, the managers should take serious action on any complaint against sexual harassment. Citations i. Bennett-Alexander, Dawn D. Employment law for business. Irwin, McGraw-Hill, 1998.