Wasek v. Arrow Energy Servs., Inc., 682
F.3d 463, 467-68 (6th Cir. 2012).
Id. at 468.
16
See id. at 465-67 (describing the harassing conduct and events leading to
the plaintiff's abandonment of his job).
17
See infra note 18.
18
No. 11-30770, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS
19867, at *16 (5th Cir. Sept. 27, 2013).
19
490 U.S. 228 (1989) (holding that the
plaintiff could prevail if she could show
that her sex played a role in an employment action and the employer did not
overcome this showing by a preponderance of the evidence). In Price Waterhouse, the plaintiff relied on
evidence that she was not viewed as
sufficiently feminine to support her
claim.
20
Boh Bros., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS
19867, at *22. The Fifth Circuit stated
that "[e]very circuit to squarely consider
the issue has held that the Oncale categories are illustrative, not exhaustive, in
nature." Id., at *20. Noting that the
Sixth Circuit "arguably treated the Oncale categories as if they were exclusive
in Wasek, it did not expressly consider
the issue . . . . In any event, the Sixth
Circuit follows the rule of orderliness,
so Vickers, not Wasek, controls." Id., at
*21 n.6.
21
378 F.3d 566, 575 (6th Cir. 2004).
22
Macy v. Holder, Appeal No.
0120120821, 2012 EEOPUB LEXIS 1181, at **3435 (EEOC Apr. 20, 2012). In Macy, the complainant was rejected for employment by the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after revealing that she was in the process
of transitioning from male to female.
23
E.g., Scarbrough v. Morgan County Bd. Of Educ.,
470 F.3d 250, 261 (6th Cir. 2006) (finding that
plaintiff stated a claim under § 1983 for an equal
protection violation where he offered evidence
that he was not hired by a school board out of an
animus against homosexuals).
24
No. 3:09-CV-00947-H, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
57323 (W.D. Ky. Apr. 24, 2012).
25
Id., at *10.
26
See Stroder v. Commonwealth of Ky. Cabinet for
Health & Family Servs., No. 3:09-CV-00947-H,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38394, at **7-8 (W.D. Ky.
Mar. 21, 2012).
27
579 F.3d 722 (6th Cir. 2009).
28
Id. at 725.
29
Id. at 727.
30
Id. at 728-29.
31
Id. at 728.
32
Id.
33
"Although most courts have found protection for
transgender people under Title VII under a theory of gender stereotyping, evidence of gender
stereotyping is simply one means of proving sex
discrimination. Title VII prohibits discrimination
based on sex whether motivated by hostility, by a
desire to protect people of a certain gender, by
assumptions that disadvantage men, by gender
stereotypes, or by the desire to accommodate
other people's prejudices or discomfort." Macy,
2012 EEOPUB LEXIS 1181, at **29-30 (footnotes
omitted).
34
See supra note 5.
35
S. 815, 113th Cong. (2013); H.R. 1755, 113th
Cong. (2013).
36
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-set-to-approve-gay-rights-bill/
2013/11/07/05717e4a-47c1-11e3-a1963544a03c2351_story.html.
37
Id.
14
15
Annotated Statutes
Annotated Rules: Supreme Court
Civil - Criminal & Rules of Evidence
Appellate Decisions For
All 50 States - Federal & Bankruptcy Courts
Thousands of Kentucky Topics in our Legal Digest
Weekly Synopsis of All KY Appellate Decisions!
Still Just $34.95 per Month
Call for a Free Trial (502) 732-4617
www.LawReader.com
th
19
314 7 Street - Carrollton, KY 41008
B&B; • 1.14
