224 Cal. App. 4th 1519
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Brian Lewis, a heterosexual male, worked at the City of Benicia water treatment plant as a volunteer and intern over 2008–2009.
- Lewis alleged Hickman (supervisor during initial period) and Lantrip (supervisor during later period) harassed him based on sex, and City retaliated after his complaints.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Hickman and Lantrip and judgment on the pleadings for City on harassment claims; City prevailed at trial on retaliation.
- On appeal, Lewis challenged these rulings and argued evidentiary and other errors requiring reversal as to retaliation.
- The appellate court reversed the summary judgment as to Hickman and reversed the judgment on the pleadings for City; it affirmed Lantrip summary judgment and remanded/ordered retrial on retaliation after evidentiary errors were found.
- Key issues include whether Hickman’s conduct could be harassment based on sex, whether Lantrip harassed Lewis, and whether exclusion of certain evidence affected the retaliation verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether triable facts preclude summary adjudication of Hickman harassment | Hickman’s conduct was sexual, persistent, and sought a relationship with Lewis. | Hickman’s conduct was innocuous banter or not based on sex and not pervasive. | Triable issues preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether Lantrip harassed Lewis based on sex | Lantrip’s pornographic images, obscene jokes, and touches harmed Lewis due to his sex. | Lantrip’s conduct was not based on sex and not pervasive toward Lewis. | No triable issues; Lantrip summary judgment affirmed. |
| Whether City liability on harassment claims should be addressed after reversing some summary adjudications | City could be liable for harassment by supervisors. | If harassment claims fail, City bears no liability for harassment or failure to prevent. | Judgment on the pleadings for City reversed on harassment and failure to prevent harassment. |
| Whether exclusion of sexual harassment evidence affects retaliation claim | Harassment evidence provides context to protected activity and retaliation causation. | Evidence is irrelevant to retaliation and risks prejudice. | Exclusion of harassment evidence was an abuse of discretion; reversal on retaliation. |
| Whether exclusion of expert psychological testimony affected the retaliation verdict | Psychological testimony was necessary to prove emotional distress and causation. | Exclusion was proper due to discovery issues. | Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; reversal on retaliation and remand for retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (Cal. 2006) (discrimination based on sex for harassment; standard for hostile environment)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. Supreme Court 1998) (same-sex harassment can be actionable; discrimination not require sexual desire)
- Singleton v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 140 Cal.App.4th 1547 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2006) (evidence of same-sex harassment may support discrimination inference)
- Mogilefsky v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1993) (same-sex harassment evidence frameworks)
- Kelley v. The Conco Companies, 196 Cal.App.4th 191 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011) (requires evidence of sexual interest for certain harassment inferences)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (environment must be hostile; totality of circumstances governs)
- Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, 222 Cal.App.4th 1228 (Cal. App. 2014) (updates on same-sex harassment standards)
- Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (Cal. 2005) (hostile environment from widespread favoritism; actionable for both genders)
- Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (protected activity and retaliation framework)
- Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 686 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (retaliation elements guidance)