In order to be actionable under the statute, a sexually objectionable environment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, one that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so …. Most recently, we explained that Title VII does not prohibit "genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with members of the same sex and of the opposite sex." A recurring point in these opinions is that "simple teasing," offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the "terms and conditions of employment." These standards for judging hostility are sufficiently demanding to ensure that Title VII does not become a "general civility code." (Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998)This single event would not give nprigoda reason to sue. In addition, the boss's First Amendment rights are probably enhanced by the fact that his conduct took place outside of the typical work environment. However, that doesn't mean the conduct would be viewed as acceptable from a corporate policy standpoint, so the issue probably should be referred to HR.
posted by angry modem at 12:47 PM on April 24, 2005