127.4 Harassment because of gender

Complainant’s contention that the Respondent tolerated a sexist work environment, in violation of the WFEA, was rejected. The Act prohibits sexual harassment and harassment of employees based upon sex, as well as discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment based upon sex, but does not specifically protect employees from working in an environment that could be considered “sexist.” Neither the fact that the Respondent employs more men than women nor the fact that it does not require sexual harassment training is a circumstance that can be said to constitute a violation of the Act, nor does the fact that some female employees may have considered the workplace a “man’s world” compel a different conclusion. While some employees may perceive a specific work environment as being more male-oriented than female-oriented, or vice versa, this is not a sufficient basis upon which to rest a finding that there has been a violation of the Act, in the absence of evidence that the employee was subjected to harassment or discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. Holmes v. Manitowoc Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, (LIRC, 09/30/14).

Sec. 111.36(1)(br), Wis. Stats., prohibits engaging in harassment that consists of unwelcome verbal or physical conduct directed at another individual because of that individual’s gender that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment or has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the individual’s work performance. The first requirement is that the conduct be directed at the individual claiming harassment. The evidence in this case shows that some of the comments the male Complainant complained of were directed in jest to another employee and had nothing to do with the Complainant. Another comment referred to the Complainant but was not directed at him. The action of another employee (putting the employee’s own name on a sign and placing it around a cut-out of a female athlete) was done as a humorous reference to that employee’s own failure to attend an office Halloween party. A reasonable person similarly situated to the Complainant would not have considered this labeled cut-out to be offensive. The next question is whether the remaining conduct was directed at the Complainant because of his gender. The record established that the woman who made the comments which the Complainant objected to raised her voice and was antagonistic to males and females alike. As a result, her comments were not shown to be related to the Complainant’s gender. The final two remarks the Complainant objected to, although at least arguably directed at the Complainant because of his gender, did not come close to establishing the level of severity or pervasiveness required for the creation of an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Braunschweig v. SSG Corp. (LIRC, 08/31/06).>