By: Loyd Willaford and Sarah Burke
In Pipes v. City of Falkville, a former Alabama police officer and chaplain alleged he was the victim of sexual harassment after the Police Chief hit his groin area on two occasions. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama disagreed and found there was no evidence this was done because of the officer’s sex. The Court ruled that it was merely horseplay.
Jady Pipes was a former police officer and chaplain with the City of Falkville. During his time with the City, Pipes experienced two instances of conduct he described as sexual harassment by the Chief of Police. The Police Chief engaged in “racking” which is when one man hits another man on the groin, buttocks, or wherever. The first racking incident occurred when Pipes arrived for his shift, and he heard Alabama’s fight song playing loudly in Police Chief Christopher Free’s office. During Police Chief Free’s celebration, he reached toward Mr. Pipes and tried to grab him on the genitals. The second incident occurred in early December 2011. Mr. Pipes, Police Chief Free, and other members of the Falkville police and fire departments had gathered for breakfast at the fire station, when, according to Mr. Pipes, Police Chief Free again hit him as hard as he could on the genitals.
Mr. Pipes argued that Police Chief Free’s actions were done to assert control over other male workers and therefore the conduct was done because of Mr. Pipes’ sex.
Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII. For conduct to run afoul of Title VII, the conduct must create a discriminatorily abusive working environment and must place the employee complaining of discrimination at a disadvantage as compared to members of the other sex, such that the evidence demonstrates that the harasser is motivated by general hostility to the presence of the harassed sex in the workplace.
The District Court did not agree with Mr. Pipes that the Police Chief engaged in this conduct because of his sex. Further, the District Court rejected Mr. Pipes’ theory of asserting control because when looking at where the conduct occurred – a football celebration and a breakfast gathering—it was more reasonable to the Court to assume this was merely the type of male on male horseplay Title VII was not designed to regulate.
This case is yet another illustration of how some Courts, especially Courts in the South, go out of their way to limit claims of discrimination. The Court concluded as matter of law that “racking” was not sex-based harassment, even though the same behavior, if it had been engaged in against a woman, would almost certainly have been actionable harassment. While a jury might have also concluded that this was mere horseplay and not harassment, the Court chose to decide the issue as a matter of law. The lesson here is to be cautious about bringing novel claims of discrimination.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Gender Discrimination.**
