‘Mansplaining’ doesn’t constitute gender harassment

Article here. Excerpt:

'A female doctor’s claims of gender discrimination and retaliation failed to survive summary judgment when she couldn’t demonstrate that workplace tensions stemmed from gender-based animus rather than general interpersonal conflicts, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The decision in O’Horo v. Boston Medical Center Corporation reinforces that while Title VII prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, it does not serve as a “general civility code” for the workplace. Employers can take steps to address interpersonal conflicts while remaining vigilant against genuine discrimination.

“[The plaintiff’s] claim rests, in large part, on incidents with no apparent relation to her gender, and she makes no effort — beyond pointing to her subjective beliefs — to demonstrate such gender-based discriminatory animus,” Gelpí stated.

“Take first [the plaintiff’s] contention that she felt [her colleague] ‘mansplained’ to her on one occasion and, throughout 2018 and 2019, treated her worse than her male colleagues. But harassment coupled with a plaintiff’s subjective belief of discrimination ‘doesn’t tell us much,’ because ‘there is a plethora of reasons’ why [her colleague] could have treated [the plaintiff] poorly ‘that have no nexus to her gender,’” Gelpí said.'