127.13 Sex discrimination against males

The Complainant established probable cause to believe that he was discriminated against on the basis of sex when the Respondent advised him that only female employees were permitted to wear earrings and that he must remove his earring or lose his job. Differences in male and female uniforms may be permitted if they have some justification in commonly accepted social norms and if they are reasonably related to business needs. However, earrings for males have become commonplace and acceptable. Moreover, at the hearing on probable cause, the Respondent did not demonstrate that its rules allowing only female employees to wear earrings was reasonably related to its legitimate business needs. Vernon v. Wackenhut Corp. (LIRC, 10/18/11).

A union’s claim that the Milwaukee Board of School Directors had discriminated against its members on the basis of sex by denying coverage for Viagra and other drugs used for the treatment of erectile dysfunction, impotence or sexual dysfunction or inadequacy would constitute sex discrimination under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. However, this claim was dismissed on procedural grounds relating to the union’s failure to identify any individual who had been denied coverage. Milwaukee Teachers Educ. Ass’n v. Milwaukee Bd. of Sch. Dir. (LIRC, 07/30/10).

The Complainant, a male, alleged that he had been sexually harassed by his lead worker, another male, when the lead worker hit him in the groin on several occasions. This conduct did not amount to sexual harassment. The alleged assault on the Complainant lacked sexual implications. Indeed, the Complainant testified that the lead worker never made any sexual advances or comments towards him, and that he was a bully. Markgren v. Hartzell Mfg. (LIRC, 09/02/99).

The sex discrimination provisions of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act may be applied in cases involving a claim of sex discrimination by a male. Naill v. Western Wis. Tech. College (LIRC, 02/12/99).

The discharge of a male employee for a rule infraction, for which female employees were only suspended, violated the Act and was based upon a belief that male employees should be held to a higher standard of conduct than females. Evidence that the employer refused to allow the male to transfer to a position where the employer believed females performed more efficiently supported the finding. Rathsack v. Crescent Woolen Mills (LIRC, 09/25/84).

It was sex discrimination to discharge a male because of an alleged anti-nepotism policy, where the employer retained a female who would have been similarly disqualified by such a policy. Scheidel v. Am. Council of the Blind (LIRC, 04/06/82).