The law prohibits discrimination because of sex. The question is whether persons of one sex suffer disadvantageous working conditions that members of the other sex do not. To create liability, the offensive conduct must be severe and pervasive, judged from the perspective of a reasonable employee. Employees, supervisors, and employers sometimes fear they will be sued for socializing with one another. The Supreme Court emphasized that the prohibition against sexual harassment requires neither asexuality nor androgyny in the workplace.
Nothing can prevent disgruntled employees from filing frivolous complaints on their own.
However, attorneys may be reluctant to take a case if the comments are sporadic and if the employer has done a good job of disseminating its policy and taking prompt corrective action. A strong and clear policy should allow employers and employees to engage in normal socializing without fear of repercussions. Top of this page Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. In the last of the four decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that a school district is not liable under Title IX for a teacher's sexual harassment of a student. The student may only recover from the school district if a district official with authority to correct the problem knew about it, and was deliberately indifferent to the misconduct.