00-2494 Rizzo v. Sheahan

Listen to this article

“Rizzo’s claim cannot succeed because she has produced no evidence indicating that Mahon’s offensive behavior towards her was based on her sex. To the contrary, Rizzo spent significant time both in her brief and at oral argument documenting the animosity Mahon harbored towards Rizzo’s husband, and explaining that this animosity was the reason Mahon was ‘going after’ Rizzo. Additionally, Investigator Bennett, who ultimately concluded that Mahon’s behavior constituted simple harassment, reinforced Rizzo’s explanation, observing that ‘Mahon has a strong dislike and animosity against Investigator Harriet Rizzo’s Husband, Joe Rizzo, and has succeeded in directing his hostility against Joe Rizzo through his Wife, Harriet Rizzo.’ Although we have concluded in other cases that a reasonable trier of fact may deduce that an individual is being harassed because of her sex even where the harassing behavior is not overtly gender based, see Haugerud, 2001 WL 869361, at *9, this case presents the unique situation where the plaintiff has produced clear evidence that the harassing behavior was not motivated by sex, and thus does not comply with the requirements of Title VII… Therefore, Title VII does not provide a remedy for Mahon’s conduct. Finally, because we are unable to find that Rizzo was subjected to a hostile work environment within the meaning of Title VII, we need not analyze whether Sheahan could be held vicariously liable for Mahon’s actions.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Nolan, Mag. J., Kanne, J.