the Easter Louisiana District Court. His complaint held that the physical harassment containing such blatant sexual overtones was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Louisiana courts held that Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America 28 F.3d 446, was standing precedent. In Garcia, the court held that a male employee's alleged sexual harassment by a male superior does not constitute a claim under Title VII even though the harassment had sexual underpinnings. The Louisiana court maintained their finding that the law does not cover same-sex harassment therefore Oncale had no cause of action under Title VII for harassment by same gender co-workers. Same sex harassment has been an issue that courts around the nation have been forced to address, and they have reached varying and conflicting conclusions. With such a controversial issue arising more often in Federal District Courts, the Supreme Court decided to grant a writ of certiorari so that the topic could be resolved. As in most Supreme Court cases there were many political concerns by interest groups and lobbyists. One of the most predominant concerns raised was that by recognizing same sex harassment, Title VII would become a general civility code for conduct in the workplace. The other was that those who have never had reason to be discriminated upon in the workplace, will now have an outlet against their employers. In the Supreme Court decision these questions as well as others were addressed. The court held that same gender harassment may be actionable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, even if the harasser is heterosexual. The Supreme Court explained that it could find "no justification in the statutory language or our precedents for a categorical rule excluding same sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII." The court also acknowledged that the decision to outlaw same sex harassment raises questions as to what constitutes sexual har...
