This week, referring to his favorite object, my iPhone, my two and a half year old proclaimed: “I’m going to charge it like a man.”

What? Who taught him the phrase “like a man”? What does he think it means? I asked him these questions, and he just beamed at me, inscrutable. I investigated further. Did my husband teach him the phrase? His uncle Russell? Both denied responsibility. Oh, no, I reflected: is it possible that I taught him the phrase? I don’t remember using the phrase “like a man,” but maybe I have. Have I?

Societies have gender norms—expectations for how men and women should behave—and we pass those norms onto our children. Sometimes it’s conscious, sometimes it’s unconscious. Children grow up and bring those expectations with them into the workplace. But did you know that making employment decisions based on an employee’s failure to conform to gender norms is illegal?

In one recent case from the Northern District of Ohio, a homosexual employee changed his last name when he got married. According to the employee, his supervisor refused to call him by his married name, went out of her way to call him by his previous last name, and informed him that she did not recognize same-sex marriages. After the employee was terminated, he sued for sex discrimination. Arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were an attempt “to bootstrap protection for sexual orientation [an unprotected class] into Title VII,” the employer moved for summary judgment. Result? Because changing your last name when you get married is a “traditionally feminine practice,” the court held that plaintiff presented a colorable claim of sex stereotyping. Summary judgment denied.

By contrast, in another recent case from the Fifth Circuit, a male employee sued his employer for sexual harassment after his male supervisor called him “faggot” and “princess” and would approach him from behind to simulate having sexual intercourse while the employee was bent over to perform job duties. The supervisor teased the employee for using “Wet Ones” when he went to the toilet and exposed himself to the employee numerous times. Despite finding that the supervisor was a “world-class trash talker” and “master of vulgarity,” the Court held that there was insufficient evidence that the supervisor’s behavior was motivated by the employee’s failure to conform to gender norms. The court therefore rendered judgment for the employer. I am puzzled by this ruling. Doesn’t the supervisor’s referral of the male employee as “princess” indicate that the supervisor perceived the employee as effeminate?

Bottom line for employers: the boundaries of sexual stereotyping are fuzzy. Don’t wait for a lawsuit to find out where they are. Train your employees how to avoid sexual stereotyping, and invite me and my toddler to attend.