California Supreme Court Upholds Summary Judgment in Business Relationship Sexual Harassment Case Brought Under CC§51.9
Filed Under Main Content | Leave a Comment
On Thursday, July 2, 2009, the California Supreme Court in Hughes v. Pair upheld summary judgment against the plaintiff in a sexual harassment case against her trustee, brought under California Civil Code §51.9, which prohibits sexual harassment in certain business relationships, including professional relationships with physicians, psychiatrists, dentists, attorneys, real estate agents, accountants, bankers, building contractors, executors, trustees, landlords, and teachers. The Court ruled that the trustee’s sexual requests to the plaintiff were neither quid pro quo nor hostile environment sexual harassment. However, it appears that the problem for plaintiffs is curable, at least as to the quid pro quo claims, with proper pleadings.
In this case, plaintiff Suzan Hughes, former wife of deceased Herbalife founder Mark Hughes, sued one of her trustees, Christopher Pair for sexual harassment After Suzan’s trustees had voted to give her money for only one of the two months she requested for rental of an $80,000/month beach house in Malibu, Pair allegedly called Suzan and told her that if she was “nice” to him, he would get her the additional month’s rent, and told her to call him when she was ready to give him what he wanted. Later that same night at a museum, Pair made an extremely vulgar sexual advance toward Suzan.
The California Supreme Court found that the alleged conduct did not constitute quid pro quo sexual harassment by Pair because his comments “at most amount to unfulfilled threats.” It appears that this problem is curable for plaintiffs. The Court notes that the plaintiff in this case failed to allege that she was harmed because of her rejection of Pair’s sexual advances. From the facts, it seems that if the plaintiff had alleged that as a result of her rejection of Pair’s advances, Pair in fact kept her from getting the $80,000 for the second month’s rent, then the California Supreme Court may have reached a different conclusion, and overturned the summary judgment based on quid pro quo sexual harassment.
The California Supreme Court also ruled that this conduct was not pervasive because the conduct only consisted of comments Pair made during one telephone call and one other brief statement occurring that same day. The Court ruled that the conduct was not severe because while the court acknowledges that Pair’s advances were “vulgar and highly offensive,” the Court did not see the statement Pair made at the museum as a “threat to commit a sexual assault.”
-
The Broderick Law Firm for Victims of Sexual Harassment and Employment Discrimination
Sexual Harassment and Discrimination
Sexual harassment can include unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, verbal conduct, or physical conduct which affect or interfere with an individual’s work performance or create an offensive work environment for that individual.
Sexual discrimination can include failure to hire or adverse employment action due to gender or sexual orientation. The Broderick Law Firm believes strongly in the fair treatment of all individuals regardless of sex and is committed to representing individuals who have been victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Mr. Broderick has the experience and knowledge necessary to help you recover the damages you are due. He will vigorously pursue your claim of sexual harassment or sexual discrimination to get you a positive result.
“Quid Pro Quo” Sexual Harassment
“Quid Pro Quo” sexual harassment is when a supervisor makes sexual conduct of an employee a condition for employment benefits or advancement or a condition for avoiding adverse employment action or for advancement.
Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment
Hostile work environment sexual harassment occurs when an employee is subject to unwelcome sexual advances or offensive gender-related language or behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive from the perspective of a reasonable person with the same fundamental characteristics as the offended employee.
This type of harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the offended employee’s employment and create an abusive environment. A single instance of sexual harassment in the “hostile work environment” context may be sufficient, but repeated instances increase the severity of the events, so that a reasonable person would be more likely to find the conduct sexually harassing due to its repetition.
In regard to unwanted sexual advances, a complaining employee must generally show that he or she gave notice that the advances are unwelcome.
Although favoritism by a supervisor towards an employee with whom the supervisor is having a consensual sexual affair does not ordinarily constitute harassment of other employees, a pattern of sexual favoritism may constitute a hostile work environment in the event that the message by management is that sexual affairs are a way to get ahead in the workplace.
Retaliation
It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against a sexual harassment or discrimination victim for making a claim of sexual harassment, for participating in a sexual harassment investigation, or for opposing discriminatory practices.