Yanik's attorney, Herbert A. Terrell of McMurray, on Monday said Yanik is alleging his coworkers sexually harassed him based on their perception of his sexual preference.
"He's alleging injury because he was harassed, and disrespected, because of a perception that he's of a different persuasion," Terrell said.
In the lawsuit, Yanik alleges coworkers openly referred to him as a homosexual. They allegedly slammed security doors on him and locked him out of his computer.
A male corrections officer, who is not identified in the suit, reportedly started a rumor indicating he had obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Yanik. That rumor fueled speculation that Yanik was in a same-sex relationship, according to the lawsuit.
Yanik alleges coworkers and superiors felt he lacked "masculinity or masculine traits," according to the lawsuit. At one point, coworkers allegedly "began to insinuate (Yanik) had too feminine a voice while using the staff radio."
How can you do anything but shake your head at that stupidity -- too effeminate to use the radio? How would you measure that, exactly?Anyway, this is an interesting case because of a similar argument set forth in a case that has been cleared to go ahead in the Federal Courts, involving a local man and the Women's Law Project. The premis is that if someone, male or female, can be fired because they don't meet the workplace expectations of gender behavior -- well, this poses a grave threat for women and men in non-traditional work environments as well as all of us who don't conform to societal gender expectations.
I mock the radio voice thing, but seriously -- imagine if your employer failed to take action if your coworkers took up a similar mantra at your place of employment? It wasn't too long ago that Ledcat was chastised for appearing in court (when she was practicing law) wearing a pant suit rather than a skirt or dress.
Let's watch to see what happens in both cases.
