Opinion ID: 174894
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conduct of a Sexual Nature

Text: [2] Whether Lamas was subjected to “verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature”9 is an easy question. Munoz propositioned him for sex. Munoz wrote to him that she dreamed of him in a bath, that she gave good “body wash,” and that she wanted him “sexually.” She performed gestures simulating fellatio, and gave him a photograph of herself emphasizing her breasts and possibly without clothes on. Her proposition was for sex, not a cup of coffee together. After she recruited coworkers to pressure Lamas, they mocked him by suggesting that he was homosexual. 6 Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 210 (1976) (invalidating a state law that created different legal drinking ages for men and women as unconstitutionally discriminatory); Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 78 (1998) (“Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination because of sex protects men as well as women. . . .”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 7 Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F.3d 1522, 1527 (9th Cir. 1995); see also M & O Agencies, 496 F.3d at 1055. 8 Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 871-72 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 787 (1998)). 9 Fuller, 47 F.3d at 1527. EEOC v. PROSPECT AIRPORT SERVICES 13389