by Michael Fox
The Court begins by reiterating what is required to establish intentional sex discrimination -- evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to infer that plaintiff was terminated because of his sex. And although there was much evidence of perceived anti-male talk, the 7th Circuit's careful parsing of those statements to see what they really mean, leaves the plaintiff coming up short and the court affirming summary judgment. Steinhauer v. DeGolier (7th Cir. 2/24/04) [pdf]. If you want a model for careful examination of language, you would be hard pressed to find a better example.