In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. In that case, Ann Hopkins did not make partner at an accounting firm. Her supervisor told her that if she wanted a promotion, she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” The Supreme Court said, “We are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they match[] the stereotype associated with their group.” Unfortunately, employers still treat employees poorly simply because they do not conform to the gender stereotypes associated with their sex. When that happens, it often constitutes illegal sex discrimination and, with the aid of a skilled New York sex discrimination lawyer, can lead to a successful sex discrimination lawsuit.
T.S. was a woman who worked in New York City for a London-based market research and data analytics entity. T.S. also allegedly was a woman punished for her appearance and its divergence from feminine stereotypes.
During a corporate reorganization in 2021, T.S. expressed an interest in becoming the company’s “Chief Executive Officer of the Americas.” However, the woman did not become CEO of the Americas—a male colleague did. Additionally, according to her lawsuit, “the responsibilities that [the parent company’s CEO] promised her when they met were ‘quickly taken away’” after the reorganization and given to men.
An Insulting Nickname
T.S. had to navigate more than just an unrealized promotion and the alleged loss of promised responsibilities (to men). She also faced a frequently toxic workplace and endured disparaging nicknames like “Mama Fratelli. “
By 2021, the woman felt she had to resign. In December 2022, she sued her former employer for Title VII sex discrimination based on disparate treatment.
A disparate treatment lawsuit under Title VII is a pursuit in three primary parts. The first involves the employee demonstrating the existence of a “prima facie case of discrimination.” That part consists of establishing four critical elements, including that: “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she is qualified for her position; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.”
The second part requires the employer to present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse action. Once the employer does that, the employee must offer evidence that the reason stated was just a pretext for discrimination.
In T.S.’s case, the employer attacked the third piece. The woman, however, had “several types of evidence” tending to demonstrate pretext, and the court decided she had enough to defeat the employer’s arguments. One key component was the insulting nickname several higher-ups gave T.S. The employer contended that merely using nicknames in the workplace could not establish discriminatory motives. The court, however, rejected that position.
The ‘Mama Fratelli’ Nickname and Sex Stereotyping
“Mama Fratelli” was a character and the chief antagonist in a 1985 teen comedy/adventure film. Mama Fratelli is portrayed as domineering, curt in her communication, severely homely by traditional notions of feminine attractiveness, and largely devoid of any stereotypically feminine attributes. Given those inherent (and prominent) attributes in the Mama Fratelli character, T.S., a lesbian woman working in a male-dominated industry, could viably use the nickname as proof of gender bias.
The employer’s proof that male employees also endured negative nicknames did not save the day. Although T.S. alleged disparate treatment, the fact that higher-ups handed out nicknames to men like “Papa Smurf” and “Deputy Dog” -- in addition to labeling her “Mama Fratelli” -- did not doom the case. As the court explained, the fact that the company was “apparently a hotbed for derogatory nicknames doesn’t move the needle in its favor. A reasonable juror could find that they underscore [T.S.’s] allegations of a toxic workplace and that her nickname was uniquely based on her failure to conform to traditional female stereotypes.”
Although it is wrong, women in 2025 still must fight against notions of what a “proper” woman in the workplace must look, sound, and act like. If that happens to you and you are punished at work for failing to conform, you may have a viable case of sex discrimination under federal, state, or city law (or all of the above.) Get in touch with the diligent New York sex discrimination attorneys at Phillips & Associates. Our team has extensive experience necessary to help workers -- whether they are women, men, cis, or trans, to pursue justice in a sex stereotyping case. Contact us online or at (833) 529-3476 to set up a free and confidential consultation.