Opinion ID: 612670
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Harassment Was Based upon Sex

Text: We have previously explained that, when harassment is motivated by a failed attempt to establish a romantic relationship, the victim's sex is inextricably linked to the harasser's decision to harass. Forrest v. Brinker Int'l Payroll Co., 511 F.3d 225, 229 (1st Cir.2007). Moreover, Santiago's own comment to Benítez suggesting that she had sexually aroused Pérez-Cordero by sucking on his neck sufficiently conveys that her conduct was at least slightly sexual. Contrary to the implication in the district court's decision, Pérez-Cordero is not required to demonstrate that Santiago's act was motivated by sexual desire, Oncale, 523 U.S. at 80, 118 S.Ct. 998, but merely that the harassment was gender-specific. Forrest, 511 F.3d at 229. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Pérez-Cordero, a jury could reasonably conclude that Santiago was attempting to humiliate Pérez-Cordero, as she had when she scolded him the previous day, through an unwelcome public act of sexual aggressiveness. Cf. Marrero v. Goya of P.R., Inc., 304 F.3d 7, 20 (1st Cir.2002) (considering, as evidence of a hostile work environment, that a supervisor criticized [the plaintiff's] work unfairly, sometimes embarrassing her by yelling at her in front of her co-workers). Thus viewed, Santiago's conduct is unquestionably a gender-specific form of harassment. Cf. Oakstone v. Postmaster Gen., 332 F.Supp.2d 261, 271-272 (D.Me.2004) (concluding that a false allegation of physical abuse filed by a female employee against her male co-worker was gender-specific harassment because it exploited sensitivities to male-on-female violence) (cited with approval in Forrest, 511 F.3d at 230 n. 5). The fact that not all of the complained-of conduct has obvious sexual connotations does not diminish the force of the evidence indicating gender-based animus. Rosario v. Dep't of the Army, 607 F.3d 241, 248 (1st Cir.2010).