## Facts

- Dawn Dawson, an openly lesbian woman who said she did not conform to stereotypical femininity, worked at a Manhattan hair salon as a hair assistant while enrolled in the salon’s rigorous stylist training program.
- The training program required successful completion of classes and performance of specified haircuts on models to instructors’ satisfaction; only a small percentage of trainees graduated.
- Dawson alleged coworkers mocked her and made offensive remarks, including repeatedly calling her “Donald,” stating she “wore her sexuality like a costume,” and telling her she “needed to have sex with a man.”
- Dawson was terminated in July 2000. She alleged the supervisor cited poor performance and criticized her appearance (dress and hairstyle), including a comment that she could not be sent outside the city because she would “frighten people.”
- The employer asserted legitimate reasons for termination: inadequate performance in the job and training program and professional presentation expectations in a client-facing salon; the salon employed individuals with varied gender presentation.

## Issues

1. Whether Dawson produced sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment actionable under Title VII as sex discrimination, including discrimination based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes.
2. Whether Dawson produced sufficient evidence that her termination occurred because of sex or gender stereotyping, rather than performance or other nondiscriminatory reasons.
3. Whether the record supported a cognizable sex-stereotyping claim or instead primarily alleged sexual-orientation discrimination, which was not actionable under Title VII in the Second Circuit at that time.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer on all federal, state, and city claims.
- The court held Dawson failed to raise a triable issue that the challenged conduct or her termination occurred “because of sex” within Title VII.
- The court concluded the alleged workplace remarks and treatment, read as a whole, most strongly reflected hostility toward Dawson’s sexual orientation rather than actionable sex stereotyping.
- The court held the alleged harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment under the governing standard.
- The court found the employer’s evidence of performance-based reasons and the salon’s workplace context supported the conclusion that Dawson failed to show discriminatory motive or pretext.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII prohibits discrimination “because of sex,” which can include adverse treatment based on failure to conform to gender stereotypes.
- A plaintiff may not convert a sexual-orientation discrimination claim into a Title VII sex-discrimination claim by labeling it “sex stereotyping” without evidence that adverse action was motivated by gender-based expectations.
- A hostile work environment requires conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment, and it must be linked to a protected ground covered by the statute.
- At the time, discrimination based solely on sexual orientation was not cognizable under Title VII in the Second Circuit.
- Where state and city discrimination claims are presented on overlapping theories and the plaintiff’s proof fails to establish discrimination under those theories, summary judgment may be affirmed on those claims as well.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because Dawson’s proof did not permit a reasonable finding that harassment or discharge resulted from sex-based stereotyping under Title VII, and the alleged mistreatment was either insufficiently severe or primarily tied to sexual-orientation bias, which the court treated as outside Title VII’s coverage at that time.


Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble, 398 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2005)