As to the sexual harassment, the Seventh Circuit held that while the employee alleged that the harassment took the form of a joke with sexual connotation and four incidents of physical contact - three on his buttocks and one between his legs, he failed to show that he was harassed "because of his sex". The Seventh Circuit reasoned that there was no suggestion that the harasser was homosexual, and the physical contacts were not so patently indicative of sexual arousal that trier-of-fact could reasonably conclude that harassment was because of the plaintiff's sex. Sexual overtones to the conduct is not enough, like sexual horseplay instead of sexual discrimination.
As to the retaliation, the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff also failed to establish viable retaliation claim, even though termination came within two days of his complaint about co-worker's conduct, as: (1) the complaint did not concern the type of conduct that Title VII prohibits because it did not entail motive that Title VII prohibited, and thus any belief by plaintiff that he was making sexual harassment complaint was objectively unreasonable; and (2) the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant's reasons for plaintiff's termination, i.e., failure to timely report harassment and insubordination, did not occur or that defendant did not honestly believe that plaintiff had committed said infractions. Judge Rovner filed a dissent as to the retaliation claim.