This week, I cornered people on the street, pushed a camera into their faces, and asked them if they’ve ever experienced sex discrimination in their lifetimes. Most of them had at least been called a “sissy” once. Above, D.C.’s men and women tell their tales of low-cut T-shirts, unwelcome sexual fantasy, and one too many Zoolander jokes.

Sexual discrimination in the office has come a long way. Once predictable—spurning male secretaries and sexually harassing female underlings—on-the-job sexism has since tackled more subtle arts, from cutting strategic holes in female bartenders’ uniforms to mocking the diet of male models. A recent hunt for sexism on the streets of D.C. revealed an evolution of sexism, from its golden age to its next frontier.

Read More “Nice Harass!: A Sexist History of D.C.” »

Yesterday, local cat-calling chronicler Hollaback DC asked for some street-harassment intel: “Have you been harassed on your bike in the DC Metro area?” According to Hollaback, “We have received several stories from individuals who have been harassed by a biker, but have yet to hear from any folks who have been harassed while biking.”

The inquiry was sparked by a recent Guardian piece, titled “What is it about a woman on a bike that attracts such unwelcome attention?” Author Jessica Reed, frustrated by the cat-calls she suffered while biking in skirts, resorting to a program of “dressing head-to-toe in black lycra” while riding the city streets. “And wouldn’t you know?” she reports. “The catcalling ceased immediately, except for that recent time when I had the incredible audacity to go on a bike ride wearing shorts.”

My experience biking in the city has been similar to Reed’s, though the harassment I’ve experienced has been less sartorially-motivated. Usually, just biking while female is enough. And I think I’ve figured out what it is about a woman on a bike that attracts such unwelcome attention.

Read More “Why Female Bikers Get Harassed” »

Last month, I wrote a story about a sexual harassment complaint filed against D.C. police photo lab head William “Bill” Gresham. The story speculated on a finer point of the extremely graphic lawsuit filed by former Gresham employee Mary N. Gilkey—an allegation in paragraph 14 that “Defendant Gresham introduced what he called a ‘peter meter’ to the office.”

Read More “Peter Meter Denied” »

The new sexual harassment lawsuit against Metropolitan Police Department photographic laboratory head William “Bill” Gresham details nearly 14 years of abuse within the D.C. police photo lab. The 14-page complaint, filed in federal court last week by 50-year-old MPD photographer Mary Gilkey, alleges years of routine verbal and physical sexual assault within the department.

In the strangest allegation, the suit accuses photo boss Gresham of having “purchased panties with a MPD insignia and provided them to the females in his office.” In the most violent, the lawsuit alleges Gresham “hit [Gilkey] on the top of her head with a telephone receiver so hard she bled because [Gilkey] made a disapproving face and mouthed disapproving words when she witnessed Defendant Gresham lying to his wife while he spoke to her on the telephone.”

The suit accuses Gresham and the District of Columbia of “sex harassment,” creating a “hostile work environment,” “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” and “retaliation.” The District of Columbia is also accused of “negligent training and supervision.” The suit alleges that “MPD knew about Defendant Gresham’s proclivities as a sexual predator, was informed of Defendant Gresham’s actions towards Plaintiff, and failed to take appropriate remedial actions against Defendant Gresham.” The complaint requests damages for “physical and emotional distress” and asks that Gresham be removed from his post.

Gresham picked up the phone at MPD’s photo lab yesterday. When asked about the case, Gresham said he hadn’t heard anything about the lawsuit. “I have no comment, and don’t know anything about [the allegations],” Gresham said.

Gilkey’s attorney, Ted J. Williams, previously represented MPD employee Tina Hall-Johnson in another sexual harassment case against Gresham and D.C., which the city settled in 2001. When asked about the new case against Gresham, Williams said, “I find it shocking that the Metropolitan Police Department would continue to employ this person, who clearly is a sexual predator and harasser and a wart, knowing what he had done to one employee. Also of concern is they were on notice of the actions of this man, and there is absolutely nothing that we’ve seen to show that they’ve taken any appropriate action.”

According to the complaint, Gresham’s alleged verbal harassment began shortly after Gilkey was hired on as an MPD lab technician in June of 1994. Gresham, Gilkey’s superior, is accused of commenting that Gilkey “had big full breasts” and “walked like she had good pussy.” Gilkey also alleges that Gresham told her “he would give her money if she would permit him to lick her pussy” and that “if he gave her his penis she would be wearing a mattress on her back.” According to the complaint, Gresham made many of these comments while he “licked his tongue” or “while touching his penis. Gresham is also accused of introducing a “peter meter” in the office, a term the complaint does not explain.

The complaint also accuses Gresham of several instances of physical harassment:

While in the dark room, Defendant Gresham would walk behind the Plaintiff and touch her body with his erect penis. Defendant Gresham on one occasion grabbed the Plaintiff’s breast and told the Plaintiff that if she informed anyone he would make it hard for her. Defendant Gresham repeatedly showed Plaintiff pornographic pictures and pictures of nude women on beaches. Plaintiff informed Defendant Gresham over and over that his actions were unwanted and asked him to stop.

While MPD was investigating Gresham in regards to the Hall-Johnson suit, the complaint reports that “Gresham was detailed out of the MPD Photo Lab for approximately one year.” Following the absence, however, the suit states that Gresham returned to work, “where he began his sexual harassment as if he had never left the photo lab.”

After reassuming his post, Gresham is accused of continuing his verbal and physical harassment of Gilkey between the years of 2000 and 2006, including exposing Gilkey’s breast, displaying pornography “where one man had his arm up the other man’s ass,” and constantly telling Gilkey “how good she looked and [that] he would do anything to fuck her.”

The suit claims that Gilkey reported the abuse to supervisors in 1998 and 2003, as well as during the course of the Hall-Johnson investigation. In both ’98 and ‘03, the suit alleges that supervisors “failed to act on Plaintiff’s complaint and did not either investigate Plaintiff’s complaint, refer Plaintiff to the MPD EEO office or restrain Mr. Gresham in any way.”

In response, the suit alleges, the harassment intensified. According to the complaint, Gresham:

created a situation by which Plaintiff’s co-workers would not speak to her or assist her so that she was forced to ask him for assistance. Defendant Gresham would then take advantage of [Gilkey] having to seek assistance from him and would touch her inappropriately or ask her for sex while complying with her request for assistance. He also encouraged Plaintiff’s co-workers to harass her with the ultimate goal of increasing control over Plaintiff and force Plaintiff to have sex with him.

When contacted yesterday, MPD spokesperson Traci Hughes said that the police department “cannot comment on matters that are currently in litigation.”