John Bibby v. Phila. Coca Cola Bottling Company

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that plaintiffs claims for same-sex harassment failed to state a cognizable claim for discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII
• noting that “Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would have extended Title VII to cover sexual orientation”
• stating that harassment did not fit into any of the three Oncale categories
• discussing the theory as a plausible basis for stating a Title VII claim without specifically ruling on it
• noting the evidentiary routes stated in Oncale and stating: “[b]ased on the facts of a particular case and the creativity of the parties, other ways in which to prove that harassment occurred because of sex may be available”
• noting the evidentiary routes stated in Oncale and stating: “[b]ased on the facts of a particular case and the creativity of the parties, other ways in which to prove that harassment occurred because of sex may be available”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).