Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law 9th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 2

Krasner v. HSH Nordbank AG
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, 680 F.Supp.2d 502 (2010).
FACTS David Krasner worked in the New York branch of HSH Nordbank AG (HSH), an international commercial bank headquartered in Germany. Krasner claimed that his supervisor, Roland Kiser, fostered an atmosphere "infected with overt sexism." According to Krasner, career advancement was based on "sexual favoritism," and women's advancement was governed by a "casting couch." Krasner alleged that Kiser and other male supervisors promoted a sexist and demeaning image of women in the workplace. Krasner also stated that Kiser pressured male subordinates, such as Krasner, to go to strip clubs with him when on business trips abroad. Krasner repeatedly objected to Kiser's and other supervisors' sexist attitudes, and particularly to Kiser's relationship with a female employee, Melissa Campfield. According to Krasner, Campfield was promoted at the expense of the "career advancement and reputations of other far more senior and qualified employees," including Krasner. Krasner complained both to Kiser and to the company's human resources department that Kiser's actions were violating the company's ethics policy. HSH investigated Krasner's complaints but found no violation of the law or of its own ethics policy. Shortly thereafter, Krasner was summarily terminated. Krasner sued HSH and Kiser in a federal district court, alleging that the defendants had discriminated against him on the basis of gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendants moved to dismiss the case.
ISSUE If a man complains about the sexist attitudes of his supervisors at work and is subsequently fired, can he sue his employer for being discriminated against on the basis of his gender?
DECISION No. The federal district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court acknowledged that federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual because of that individual's sex, but it did not find such discrimination in Krasner's case.
REASON Because Krasner did not contend that he had been disparaged, badly treated, or subjected to an unpleasant work atmosphere because he was a male, his complaint had to fail. Furthermore, the court noted that federal law prohibits a sexually hostile work environment where "the harassment is so pervasive that it changes the conditions of employment." But no law prohibits employers from maintaining "nasty, unpleasant workplaces, or even ones that are unpleasant for reasons that are sexual in nature." None of the alleged acts of harassment experienced by Krasner supported a claim that he was "being harassed because he is a male employee."
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Assume that Krasner was a female employee who had experienced the same type of treatment that Krasner had. Would the female employee succeed in a Title VII claim of gender-based discrimination? Why or why not?