Roberts v. Archbold Med. Ctr., No. 7:14-cv-210 (WLS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158240 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2016).

The workplace comments are better understood, not as harassment based on all of these employees’ failure to adhere to some unnamed and unknown gender stereotype, but “simply expressions of animosity or juvenile provocation.” Hamm v. Weyauwega Milk Prod., Inc., 332 F.3d 1058, 1064 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Johnson v. Hondo, Inc., 125 F.3d 408, 412 (7th Cir.1997)); see also Luke A. Boso, Real Men,37 U. Haw. L. RevHaw. L. Rev. 107 (2015) (“Social scientists . . . commonly find that men harass other men to prove or shore up their own masculinity.”).
Roberts v. Archbold Med. Ctr., No. 7:14-cv-210 (WLS), 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158240, at *36 (M.D. Ga. Nov. 16, 2016).