## Facts

- Christopher Vickers worked as a private police officer for Fairfield Medical Center in Lancaster, Ohio.
- After Vickers befriended a homosexual doctor and assisted the doctor with an internal complaint, Vickers alleged that coworkers and his supervisor subjected him to persistent harassment over several months.
- Vickers alleged coworkers repeatedly used sexually based slurs and comments, alleging he was homosexual and questioning his masculinity.
- Alleged conduct included obscene gestures, inappropriate physical contact, humiliation in front of other employees, and circulating a photograph depicting a simulated sexual act involving Vickers.
- Vickers alleged the harassment intensified after he took a vacation with a male friend.
- Vickers alleged his supervisor observed the conduct, failed to stop it, and at times participated.
- Vickers resigned and sued, asserting Title VII sex-discrimination theories (hostile environment and retaliation), federal civil-rights conspiracy claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986, and numerous Ohio state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations of harassment centered on perceived homosexuality and attacks on masculinity plausibly state discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII through a sex-stereotyping (gender non-conformity) theory.
2. Whether Sixth Circuit sex-stereotyping precedent permits a Title VII claim absent allegations that the plaintiff’s workplace appearance or conduct failed to conform to gender norms, as opposed to allegations tied to perceived sexual orientation.
3. Whether the complaint stated claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3) and 1986 requiring a class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus and a viable predicate violation.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment on the pleadings for defendants on all federal claims.
- The court held the complaint did not state a Title VII claim because it alleged harassment based on perceived sexual orientation, not actionable sex stereotyping or gender non-conformity.
- The court held the § 1985(3) conspiracy claim failed for lack of a cognizable class-based discriminatory animus on the pleaded theory; the § 1986 claim failed because it depends on a valid § 1985 violation.
- With no surviving federal claims, the district court properly declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of sex” includes claims based on sex stereotyping (gender non-conformity), but a plaintiff must plausibly allege adverse treatment because of failure to conform to gender norms.
- A complaint that, in substance, pleads harassment based on perceived sexual orientation does not state a Title VII sex-discrimination claim under the court’s then-governing interpretation.
- Courts may reject efforts to recharacterize sexual-orientation-based allegations as sex stereotyping where the pleaded facts do not describe workplace gender non-conformity.
- A § 1985(3) claim requires a conspiracy motivated by a class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus and a viable predicate deprivation; a § 1986 claim fails absent a valid § 1985(3) claim.
- When all federal claims are dismissed at the pleadings stage, a federal court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that Vickers’s allegations described harassment based on perceived sexual orientation rather than discrimination because of sex through gender non-conformity, and it therefore affirmed dismissal of the Title VII claims, rejected the related §§ 1985(3) and 1986 theories, and left the state-law claims to proceed, if at all, outside federal court.


Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006)