A male employee who was forced to resign after being accused of sexual harassment can proceed on his claim of sex discrimination because of his supervisor’s statement indicating that men have a propensity to commit sexual harassment and management’s failure to properly investigate the harassment allegations lodged against the employee, the Second Circuit rules.

A female co-worker had claimed that the male employee was “harassing and stalking her,” and her complaint was referred to the Sherriff’s Office for criminal investigation; the employer did not conduct an internal investigation. The Sherriff’s Office subsequently determined that there was “insufficient evidence” to support a criminal charge. However, the male employee’s supervisor gave him an ultimatum of resigning or being fired, saying “you probably did what she said you did because you’re male and nobody would believe you anyway.”

Overturning a lower court decision to dismiss his case, the Second Circuit decides that “a reasonable jury could construe [the supervisor’s] statement as an invidious sex stereotype.”

“We appreciate that employers who fail to address claims of sexual harassment expose themselves to civil liability,” the Court says. “However, fear of a lawsuit does not justify an employer’s reliance on sex stereotypes to resolve allegations of sexual harassment, discriminating against the accused employee in the process.”

The Court also points out that the “minimal—if any” effort by management to verify the accusations could be construed by a reasonable jury “as further evidence that [the employee’s] forced resignation occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent.” Sassaman v. Gamache