I kid you not! A snow fairy meme that claims it will bless you if you pass on a message with a couple of pictures of a naked male fairy in it!
This meme, among others, has even cost an employee her credibility and the sexual harassment suit she filed, which was pretty ridiculous in light of the whole context. On the one hand, she accused some man of sexual harassment over some pictures in which he was not nude. Yet she laughed her head off at the Snow Fairy meme, which shows a nude man with only boots, wings, and a halo on. She thought that meme was so funny that she forwarded it on to her husband and daughter.. But she made a big fuss over her supervisor's picture of himself in a pair of overalls.
Here is the case file. I will show you a snippet of that at the end of this mangle - the part that deals with the Snow Fairy meme email in particular.
Now, let's mangle this meme!
❄️🧚♂️❄️⛓Meme: You have been chosen to receive the blessing of the Snow Fairy.
🧝♀️Ocean Elf: How does that work? I mean, of all the forwarders out there, which one of them is really the Snow Fairy and how does he choose people who don't choose to get memes from their friends? I don't see a choice here other than that a chain originator, started a meme and a bunch of people chose to spread it.
❄️🧚♂️❄️⛓Meme: The Snow Fairy can bring you good fortune for one whole year.
🧝♀️Ocean Elf: Uh, that works better in a fictional setting, but you're trying to convince real people in the real world, including some who don't believe in fairies as real at all, that some pixels and text can make a year-long blessing happen. It doesn't work that way... Anyway, it doesn't look as if he even has the means to take proper care of himself.
❄️🧚♂️❄️⛓Meme: May YOU be blessed by his good deedsÖ..
🧝♀️Ocean Elf: Wha!? How can something that only shows up on a computer monitor via meme actually perform good deeds? Big hint: They cannot.
❄️🧚♂️❄️⛓Meme: You must pass the Snow Fairy to 7 people within 60 seconds to receive your one year blessingÖ.
🧝♀️Ocean Elf: *Scoffs* Well, if you're going to believe in chain letters, you might as well believe in fairies too. Anyway, it's clear to me he's the one in need of a few clothes to put on his back, given how he's been described to me, it's apparent he is not in any position to grant blessings.
This could even be an anti-chain given the short time limit a person has to re-share to several people.
Hey you, Snow Fairy, get your bod inside, put some clothes on even if you have to borrow someone else's that'll fit you, and don't play the martyr by trying to shovel snow with next to nothing on unless you want hypothermia to cancel any potential future fictional blessings from you via fictional death.
Center>🧚♂️
That's better.
Now, as promised, the blurb from the ruling. I'll include the introductory bit before it, the document section dealing with the Snow Fairy is page 15/16.
--
Case 3:10-cv-00422-WDS -PMF Document 63 Filed 09/17/12 Page 1 of 42 Page ID #1058
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BETTY A. JACOBER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )
v.
) CIVIL NO. 10-cv-422-WDS
) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) AGRICULTURE AGENCY, and GARY ) MERSINGER, Defendants.
Case 3:10-cv-00422-WDS -PMF Document 63 Filed 09/17/12 Page 15 of 42 Page ID #1072
Notably, during her deposition, plaintiff admitted that she was not present when the pictures were taken, she was not involved in preparing the power-point presentation, she was not present when the power-point presentation was presented, nor did she receive a paper copy of the presentation. Furthermore, Mersinger did not show the pictures or power-point presentation to plaintiff or discuss them with her, nor did he ask her to pose for similar pictures. Plaintiff became aware of the pictures via either Sweetin or Bolen, and she voluntarily accessed the power-point presentation file from her computer.
Plaintiff, during her deposition, asserted that she found the photographs offensive because Mersinger was a supervisor in a working environment, he was with a college student, he took his shirt off during the day, wore bib overalls which were not buttoned up and therefore showed skin, and the images were put on a government computer. Further, plaintiff admitted that she forwarded the power-point presentation to two other women, but did not consider her own activity of sending these so-called offensive pictures to others via government email to constitute harassment. Plaintiff also admits that although Sweetin took the pictures and admitted that the concept was her own idea, plaintiff did not file a sexual harassment claim against Sweetin.
Defendants also provided evidence that the plaintiff received a number of unrelated emails at her work email address, including photographs of men who plaintiff admits are wearing less clothing than Mersinger, but plaintiff did not file sexual harassment claims based on these photographs. One such email contained a picture of a man from the rear view with his buttocks showing, and who was only wearing boots, wings, and a halo, to which plaintiff responded “That’s too funny.” (Doc. 53-2 at 21). Plaintiff forwarded the email containing this photograph to her
Case 3:10-cv-00422-WDS -PMF Document 63 Filed 09/17/12 Page 16 of 42 Page ID #1073
husband and daughter.
Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that she meets the first prong of a prima facie case: that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual conduct. The photographs were not of a sexual nature, nor was plaintiff “subjected” to view them or participate in their production. In other words, Mersinger never showed the pictures to plaintiff, or discussed them with her, and the pictures were simply saved as a power-point presentation in a directory that was accessible to her. According to the Supreme Court, “[i]f the victim could have avoided harm, no liability should be found against the employer who had taken reasonable care, and if damages could reasonably have been mitigated no award against a liable employer should reward a plaintiff for what her own efforts could have avoided.” Faragher, 524 U.S. at 807. Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on the failure of this element alone. See Lewis v. City of Chicago, 496 F.3d 645, 652 (7th Cir. 2007).
As noted above, the plaintiff must show that the conduct was both objectively and 16
Case 3:10-cv-00422-WDS -PMF Document 63 Filed 09/17/12 Page 17 of 42 Page ID #1074
subjectively offensive for her claim to survive. Kampmier, 472 F.3d at 941. Plaintiff has shown neither. While plaintiff may not have liked the pictures of Mersinger in overalls, or personally found it to be unprofessional, she cannot make a claim that these photographs were subjectively sexually offensive, in that her own work email account contained pictures of males wearing far less clothing, one of which contained a photograph showing the full buttocks of a male, which she found humorous and even forwarded to her own daughter. Plaintiff’s own actions therefore, make it unbelievable to this Court that she could find the photographs to be unwelcome sexual conduct that made her work environment intolerable. She tolerated, and, in fact, generated further distribution of images that were more revealing, and therefore could be considered much more sexual in nature than the one of Mersinger.
--
Over and out.
--