Hughes v. Pair - 46 Cal. 4th 1035, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636, 209 P.3d 963 (2009)

Rule:

With respect to liability under Civ. Code, § 51.9, which covers a wide variety of business relationships outside the workplace, the relevant inquiry is whether the alleged sexually harassing conduct was sufficiently pervasive or severe as to alter the conditions of the business relationship. This inquiry must necessarily take into account the nature and context of the particular business relationship.

Facts:

Susan Hughes, the mother of a trust beneficiary, alleged that Christopher Pair’s statements in two conversations were sexual harassment under Civ. Code, § 51.9, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted Pair’s motion for summary judgment.

Issue:

Was Pair’s conduct sexual harassment under Civ. Code, § 51.9?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

Giving the words "pervasive or severe" the same meaning as in the employment context, the court held that Pair’s conduct was not sexual harassment under Civ. Code, § 51.9. The conduct was not "pervasive" under § 51.9 — not so egregious as to alter the conditions of the underlying professional relationship — because it consisted only of comments that defendant made during a single telephone conversation and a brief statement in person later that day during a social event. Nor was Pair’s alleged conduct "severe" within the meaning of § 51.9. Although vulgar and highly offensive, one allegedly violent remark, which was made in the presence of other people attending a private showing at a museum, could not plausibly be construed by a reasonable trier of fact as a threat to commit a sexual assault on Hughes. Hughes’ allegations were also insufficient as to the quid pro quo form of harassment because Pair’s statements amounted at most to unfulfilled threats to use his authority as a trustee to deny Hughes’ requests for funds. The trial court also properly granted summary judgment on Hughes’ claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.