Oh, man! A guy accused TWICE of touching women inappropriately claimed sex discrimination.


For every unicorn $25.6 million jury verdict you may read about online, thousands of discrimination cases fall well short of that mark. Way more never have a shot at making it to trial. And some don’t even have sufficient facts on the face of the complaint, which, if true, would establish a cause of action. They get dismissed right away.

Just like the case I have for you today.

The plaintiff here worked as an “Echo/Vascular Ultrasound Technologist” starting in November 2015. The plaintiff is male. He claimed that at a meeting with the human resources department on January 3, 2022, HR inquired about a November 29, 2021 incident during which he was instructed to perform a “scan/study” of a female patient. That patient, who had requested a female ultrasound technician, accused the plaintiff of inappropriate touching.

That wasn’t the first time the plaintiff faced a similar accusation. According to the plaintiff, the previous year, another female patient requested a female ultrasound technician, got the plaintiff instead, and accused him of wrongdoing. However, the defendant exonerated him. Nonetheless, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant fired him based on these accusations.

Then he claimed sex discrimination. But what could possibly have been his argument?

The plaintiff accused the defendant of “twice placing him in situations where female patients specifically requested the presence of a female gendered hospital staff” and alleged that “similarly situated female gendered employees” would not have received the same accusations in those situations.


In other words, the plaintiff argued that his patients discriminated against him based on his sex; they would not have lodged complaints had he been female.

Even accepting this as true, a sex discrimination claim hinges on whether an employer treats a worker differently than some of another sex because of sex. Perhaps the plaintiff was suggesting that the defendant intentionally sent him to perform ultrasounds on patients who had requested female technicians, knowing that those patients would complain about the plaintiff.

But that’s implausible.

Closing the loop, the court further noted that “insofar as the amended complaint alleges that [the defendant] harbored a bias in favor of the patients who accused him of inappropriate touching, that alone would not violate Title VII.”

All told,  neither plaintiff’s original complaint nor his amended complaint — the court gave him two bites at the apple — offered any basis to infer that a female employee facing similar allegations would not have been fired.

Case dismissed.

Posted in:

Comments are closed.

“Doing What’s Right – Not Just What’s Legal”
Contact Information