CA Supreme Court determines widespread sexual favoritism creates hostile work environment

Two former employees at the Valley State Prison for Women, claimed the warden favored numerous female employees with whom he was having sexual relations, and that the conduct amounted to sexual harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). See – Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005).

An earlier trial court granted summary judgment for the employer deciding that the conduct in question did not amount to sexual harassment, and then the Court of Appeal affirmed.

The California Supreme Court concluded that, “...although an isolated instance of favoritism on the part of a supervisor toward a female employee with whom the supervisor is conducting a consensual sexual affair ordinarily would not constitute sexual harassment, when such sexual favoritism in a workplace is sufficiently widespread it may create an actionable hostile work environment in which the demeaning message is conveyed to female employees that they are viewed by management as ‘sexual playthings’ or that the way required for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging in sexual conduct with their supervisors or the management.”

The Court further concluded: “...contrary to the Court of Appeal’s determination, the evidence presented in the summary judgment proceedings was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment under the appropriate legal standard, and thus that the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. Accordingly, we shall reverse the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal.”

Return to list of alerts