Publications

On May 22, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a supervisor’s statement indicating that men have a propensity to commit sexual harassment, coupled with the employer’s failure to properly investigate allegations of sexual harassment, are sufficient to infer that the accused harasser was the victim of illegal sex stereotyping. Sassaman v. Gamache (2d Cir. 2009). This case is particularly noteworthy because reverse discrimination claims are quite rare and almost never succeed.

In early 2003, plaintiff Carl Sassaman joined the staff of the Dutchess County Board of Elections as an elections administrator working under David Gamache. After an error in printing ballots in October 2004 caused an additional expense for the board, Gamache demoted Sassaman to elections specialist, effective January 1, 2005, and promoted Michelle Brant, an election specialist, to elections administrator. Sassaman and Brant enjoyed a friendly working relationship prior to the reversal of their job positions. But their relationship subsequently soured in late January 2005 following a telephone call Sassaman placed to Brant. The particulars of the call were the subject of a sharp debate, but both parties allegedly came away feeling the other was interested in a sexual relationship.

In early March 2005, Sassaman logged into Brant’s computer to read an email containing his name that he observed her typing the previous day. Brant reported to Gamache that her email account had been breached. When questioned by Gamache and a deputy commissioner of the Board, Sassaman admitted to accessing Brant’s email account. The parties disputed whether Sassaman was warned against continuing the conduct.