Dive Brief:
- A former football staffer for The Ohio State University alleged in a Feb. 3 lawsuit that the school failed to properly investigate his harassment complaint because he is male (Lyberger v. The Ohio State University).
- Both the plaintiff and a female co-worker filed complaints about each other with their employer. Following an investigation, the school concluded that the plaintiff had engaged in sexual harassment and stalking and would be fired — outlining its process, findings and decision in a eight-page public record that it released to HR Dive.
- The individual sued, alleging that “throughout this process, OSU applied gendered assumptions about credibility, aggression, and victimhood that disadvantaged Plaintiff because he is male.” Specifically, he claimed OSU presumed he was less credible as a male accused of harassment by female co-workers. OSU declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Dive Insight:
The Lyberger lawsuit comes amid an apparent — and anticipated — focus on “reverse” discrimination cases. Both a U.S. Supreme Court opinion and shifting cultural stances on diversity initiatives set the stage for these claims, employment law attorneys predicted in recent months.
Many of the plaintiffs bringing such claims alleged they were passed over for a job or promotion because of their sex or race, but Lyberger adds another workplace issue to the mix: discipline.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating against workers based on race and sex, among other factors. It applies to hiring, firing and pay, for example, but also to other factors like discipline, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “For example, if two employees commit a similar offense, an employer may not discipline them differently” based on Title VII-protected factors, the commission’s website explains.
Attorneys’ advice to HR professionals has remained the same, despite the current climate. “Company policies should be applied uniformly, with documentation to demonstrate equal treatment,” a management-side attorney wrote in a November op-ed for HR Dive.
An increased focus on “reverse” discrimination claims may, however, give HR reason to review its practices. “If your team has room for improvement in documentation,” the author continued, “now is the time to make the necessary changes.”
