Court OKs gay man’s suit against MGM Grand

Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2002 | 11:10 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A divided federal appeals court has ruled that an openly gay man is entitled to bring a sexual harassment lawsuit under the U.S. Civil Rights Act, even though all his accused tormentors were fellow male employees.

Tuesday's 7-4 decision overturned a summary judgment granted by U.S. District Judge Philip Pro in favor of the MGM Grand hotel-casino, which was sued by Medina Rene.

The majority decision, written by Judge William A. Fletcher, said the harassment of Rene was sexual in nature and was therefore covered by the federal law.

Rene worked from December 1993 until his termination in June 1996 as a butler on the 29th floor of the MGM, catering to wealthy, high-profile and famous guests, for which this floor was reserved. All of his fellow employees and his supervisor were men.

In his deposition, Rene said the other workers whistled and blew him kisses and called him "sweetheart." He said he was forced to look at pictures of naked men having sex. On a number of occasions, other workers grabbed him in the crotch and poked their fingers into his body, Rene said.

Rene said he believed their behavior was due to the fact he was gay.

Pro had ruled in favor of the MGM, saying that the Civil Rights Act prohibiting sexual discrimination applies only on the basis of gender "and is not extended to include discrimination based on sexual preference."

Fletcher said the physical conduct "was so severe and pervasive as to constitute an objectively abusive working environment. It is equally clear that the conduct was of a sexual nature."

Fletcher said the sexual orientation of the victim is irrelevant. The federal civil rights act, Fletcher said, forbids severe or pervasive same-sex offensive sexual touching.

But Judge Procter Hug, who wrote the dissent, said the word "sex" in employment discrimination cases has been used interchangeable with the word "gender."

"The dispute is whether he was discriminated against because of his gender," Hug said.

Hug disagreed with Fletcher on the interpretation of the ruling of the Supreme Court involving harassment of a man by another male worker.

"The alleged harassment in this case was not on account of the plaintiff's sex; i.e., this plaintiff was not treated differently from all other male butlers because he was male," Hug said. "Rene contended that he was treated differently because he was homosexual." The case will return to Pro for further hearings.