Court Opinion

ID: 9489719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:22:20.073455+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:40.646064
License: Public Domain

MURNAGHAN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
At the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) stage at which the case now stands, no doubt exists that the homosexual harassers of Wrightson, a heterosexual, could be found liable for breaking the law and held responsible for damages. State causes of action for assault, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress readily come to mind. Moreover, Pizza Hut, as an employer, allegedly took grossly inadequate steps to halt the behavior of Howard and the other homosexuals and should be held liable to Wrightson too, perhaps on re-spondeat superior grounds, if not directly. As to the potential liability of Pizza Hut, Howard, and the other homosexual harassers, I do not have any disagreement with the majority.
I can not, however, agree with the majority’s transformation of Title VII to provide a remedy for all distasteful workplace conduct. As the court has stated previously, “[ejvery example of offensive and tasteless workplace conduct does not provide the basis of a cause of action under Title VII.” Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., 77 F.3d 745, 755 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 70, 136 L.Ed.2d 30 (1996) (Judge Wilkinson and Judge Hamilton concurring in part). To interpret Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of’ sex to allow for the federal recognition of a same-sex harassment claim, i.e. heterosexual male on one side, homosexual male on the other, whereby the heterosexual alleges that he was discriminated against because of his sex, is to stretch Title VII’s “because of’ sex language to include “unmanageably broad protection of the sensibilities of workers simply ‘in matters of sex.’ ” McWilliams v. Fairfax County Bd. of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191, 1196 (4th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 72, 136 L.Ed.2d 32 (1996).
The majority does not dispute that when Title VII was enacted Congress was concerned with discrimination against women by men in the workplace. Title VII, however, *145does not only apply to women. See Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 370, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) (“The phrase ‘terms, conditions, or privileges of employment’ evinces a congressional intent ‘to strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women’ in employment ...”); see also Quick v. Donaldson Co., Inc., 90 F.3d 1372, 1377 (8th Cir.1996) citing McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273, 279-80, 96 S.Ct. 2574, 2578-79, 49 L.Ed.2d 493 (1976) (“Congress did not limit Title VII protections to only women or members of a minority group.”) Rather, Title VII represents Congress’ concern with the creation of workplace equality for women and men.
As the majority points out, sparse legislative history exists to guide the courts as to the meaning of the term “sex” as used within the Title VII context. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 63-64, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2403-04, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986). The majority treats the absence of legislative history as a license to “legislate” and impermis-sibly to rewrite Title VII to include claims never intended, nor contemplated, by Congress. The majority’s approach ignores the context within which Congress enacted Title VII. The absence of legislative history to guide the courts can be read in either of two ways. Either, as the majority argues, Congress’ failure to exclude the possibility of same sex claims should be interpreted as allowing for such claims. Or, Congress simply never fathomed that Title VII would be used in the manner in which the majority today holds, and hence, Congress, not the courts, should address, in the first instance, whether Title VII’s “sex” language should apply when a heterosexual male alleges that he was harassed by a homosexual male. The instant case demonstrates the wisdom of the Constitution’s three branches of government, which leaves to the legislative branch, not the judiciary, the task of making the law.
Therefore, in the absence of any legislative history addressing the inquiry before the court, the O.E.D. dictionary definitions of sex should be employed as guides. The dictionary defines “sex” as, “[ejither of the two divisions of organic beings distinguished as male and female respectively, the males or the females ... viewed collectively,” or of “sexual” as, “[o]f or pertaining to sex or the attribute of being either male or female.”
As “[sjexual” activity between two male, or female, heterosexuals does not fall within Title VII’s ambit, McWilliams, 72 F.3d at 1196, neither logically may “sexual” activity between two male, or female, homosexuals be actionable. See Williamson v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc., 876 F.2d 69 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1089, 110 S.Ct. 1158, 107 L.Ed.2d 1061 (1990); DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co., 608 F.2d 327 (9th Cir.1979). Williamson and DeSantis render illogical a conclusion that a heterosexual and a homosexual situation involving two males is one falling under Title VII because of the sex of one of the protagonists.
As the Fifth Circuit stated in Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America, 28 F.3d 446, 451-52 (5th Cir.1994):
harassment by a male supervisor against a male subordinate does not state a claim under Title VII even though the harassment has sexual overtones. Title VII addresses gender discrimination.*
In the instant case, both parties are male, though Howard’s group is homosexual and Wrightson is heterosexual. To hold Title VII applicable to heterosexual/homosexual but not to heterosexual/ heterosexual conduct produces a result more discriminatory than a ruling following Garcia that same sex discrimination is not covered by Title VII. The statute was intended to lessen, not to increase, discrimination.
Another panel of the court in McWilliams held that same sex heterosexual on heterosexual harassment is not actionable. If McWilliams were read with the single factual difference being proof by the plaintiff that he was homosexual rather than heterosexual, I do not envision that the disgusting remarks not found to be actionable under Title VII would become so where the behavior on one side was heterosexual and the other homosexual. As the court stated in McWilliams:
*146There perhaps “ought to be a law against” such puerile and repulsive workplace behavior even when it involves only heterosexual workers of the same sex, in order to protect the victims against its indignities and debilitations, but we conclude that Title VII is not that law.
McWilliams, 72 F.3d at 1196.
Wrightson, if he proves what he alleges, should recover for the torts against him, but Title VII was not intended, nor does the statute provide, a path for Wrightson to obtain the relief he seeks. Accordingly, I dissent.

 See Goluszek v. Smith, 697 F.Supp. 1452, 1456 (N.D.Ill.1988).