Foul Balls: When Locker-Room Talk Leads to Title VII Trouble
In baseball, you don’t lose games on home runs—you lose them by booting routine grounders.
It’s the same in employment law: miss the basics—prompt investigation, consistent discipline, real confidentiality—and you’re suddenly down three runs in the first inning.
That may be the case according to a recent federal complaint filed in the Northern District of Illinois by a facilities employee against a major league team, alleging sex and gender identity discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the federal anti-discrimination law.
Let’s see what this case is all about, shall we?
The Alleged Facts
In the Complaint, the plaintiff identifies as a transgender woman and disclosed her gender identity during her interview. She alleges she consistently presented as female at work and met or exceeded performance expectations.
Further, Plaintiff alleges that from day one, coworkers targeted her with slurs, misgendering, threats, and hostility, and that management did nothing when she complained.
What kinds of slurs did coworkers allegedly hit this employee with?
Well, she alleges coworkers repeatedly used slurs such as “sissy,” “faggot,” “tranny,” and “it,” and told others she was “a man” and “not a woman.”
Plaintiff adds that coworkers threatened her associates for being friendly with her and, despite written requests, management continued schedule with coworkers who harassed her.
Why Didn’t the Plaintiff Complain, You Ask?
She did. Plaintiff alleges that she notified HR and management multiple times, in writing, starting in May 2025, but management took no effective action.
Rather, Plaintiff claims HR told her “Maybe this job isn’t a good fit for you,” publicly discussed her complaints, and limited her HR access compared to others.
The complaint describes retaliatory discipline for language others used without consequence, threats of violence after her concerns spread internally, and a physical shove by a coworker’s friend at a train station - - and still, management did nothing.
Could Such Conduct Be Sex Or Gender Discrimination?
Sure could, if the allegations are true.
At the pleading stage of a disparate treatment claim, a plaintiff must typically allege membership in a protected class, satisfactory performance, adverse actions, and less favorable treatment than similarly situated comparators outside the protected class.
The Complaint seems to check those boxes.
It alleges protected statuses (sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation), satisfactory performance. disparate treatment compared to similarly situated employees, and adverse actions including write-ups for conduct allegedly tolerated in others. If true, those allegations plausibly state a claim.
Moreover, the plaintiff alleges that comparators outside her protected classes were not written up for similar language and enjoyed unrestricted HR access, while she did not.
That kind of differential treatment, if proven, supports an inference of discrimination.
In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court of the United States unequivocally determined that Title VII prohibits discrimination based on sex (which it determined sexual orientation and transgender status was) even if that was only part of the reason for an adverse action. It ruled:
The statute’s [Title VII] message for our cases is equally simple and momentous: An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions. That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.
The employer may strike out on this one.
A Hostile Work Environment
Sexually charged comments or locker room-type banter about sex, a person’s sex life, a person’s body or attractiveness etc., made by coworkers or supervisors may subject an employer to liability under federal law or state law if it rises to the level of sexual harassment by creating a hostile work environment.
For you newbies, a hostile work environment is one type of sexual harassment.
Generally, a claim for a hostile work environment requires allegations of unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic (like sex) that is severe or pervasive (under federal law), both subjectively and objectively, and a basis for employer liability.
Here the complaint directly pleads all those elements, asserting severe or pervasive harassment, that it was unwelcome, and that employer liability exists because the employer knew or should have known about the harassment yet failed to act.
The allegations—repeated slurs and misgendering, threats of violence, public disclosure of HR complaints, and a physical shove—could easily qualify as conduct that a reasonable jury could find severe or pervasive if proven.
The complaint also alleges multiple reports to supervisors and HR and continued exposure to harassers, which, if true, builds the employer-liability bridge.
Retaliation
Finally, the complaint alleges that HR told her the job might not be a “good fit” after she complained, publicized her confidential complaints, and allowed threats to persist without disciplining the alleged aggressor—facts that, if true, can support an inference of retaliatory motive and action.
Oy. Doesn’t look good for that team. (Which one? You’ll have to read the complaint to find out, but, hint, rhymes with Bubs.)
A claim for retaliation requires a plaintiff to demonstrate (1) engagement in a “statutorily protected activity” by opposing an employment practice which she has a good faith, reasonable basis to believe is unlawful; (2) an adverse action was taken by the employer; and (3) there is some causal connection between the two, i.e., an adverse action following a statutorily protected activity.
Here, the complaint alleges repeated protected activity through internal complaints beginning in May 2025 and again in September 2025; adverse actions including write-ups, HR access restrictions, and continued exposure to harassers; and failed investigations and corrective measures after her complaints.
If those facts prove out, such conduct would dissuade a reasonable person from engaging in protected activity.
Employer Takeaways
While the allegations are just that, this case offers some important lessons for employers:
Create a fast, thorough, and confidential response protocol, and follow the protocol. The complaint repeatedly alleges that HR failed to initiate a prompt, objective investigation (or any action) and improperly disclosed HR complaints. This was avoidable.
The workplace is not a frat house. Employers investigating misconduct should follow up with the individual who reported the harassment to ensure they feel safe and that they are not being retaliated against; document all findings.
Enforce anti-harassment rules evenly and document it. Allegations that comparators weren’t disciplined, while the complainant was, fuel both discrimination and retaliation narratives. Consistent discipline and careful records cut against those inferences.
Separate alleged harassers from the complainant and monitor the situation. When an employee identifies specific harassers, separating schedules and supervising interactions are basic interim steps. The complaint alleges the opposite—the complainant had daily assignments with named harassers.
Don’t punish the person making the complaint. Comments like “Maybe this job isn’t a good fit” after a complaint, and restricting HR access to the complainant, are exactly the kind of facts that make retaliation claims viable.
Employers have a legal obligation to provide a safe and respectful work environment. Now that would be a home run.