M.F. v. Pacific Pearl Hotel Management LLC
D070150
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- M.F., a hotel housekeeper, alleged she was raped in a hotel room by a drunk nonemployee trespasser while working on her employer Pacific Pearl Hotel Management’s property.
- Hotel engineering staff and housekeeping managers observed the trespasser walking the property for about an hour and saw him aggressively proposition and offer money to at least one housekeeper; management did not eject him or notify police.
- Housekeeping used a radio to broadcast the trespasser’s location; supervisors checked some buildings but did not locate M.F. or the trespasser before the assault.
- The trespasser forced entry, assaulted and raped M.F. for over two hours; other employees briefly interacted with the trespasser during that period but did not discover M.F.; police ultimately rescued her.
- M.F. sued Pacific under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) for sexual harassment by a nonemployee (Gov. Code § 12940(j)(1)) and for failure to prevent harassment (§ 12940(k)); Pacific demurred arguing FEHA claims were inadequate and barred by workers’ compensation exclusivity; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the pleaded facts sufficed to state FEHA claims against the employer and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FEHA imposes liability on an employer for nonemployee sexual harassment where the employer knew or should have known of the harasser’s conduct and failed to act | M.F.: Pacific knew or should have known the trespasser was on premises and had aggressively propositioned housekeepers, and failed to take immediate, appropriate action | Pacific: It had no duty because it lacked prior knowledge that the trespasser posed a risk to employees and its actions were adequate; workers’ compensation exclusivity bars tort claims | Court: FEHA covers nonemployee harassment when employer knows/should know and fails to take corrective action; pleaded facts suffice to state claims under §12940(j)(1) and §12940(k) so exclusivity does not bar the suit |
| Whether the complaint failed as a matter of law because the trespasser’s initial harassment was not directed at the victim | M.F.: Employer’s notice of abusive conduct toward other employees put it on notice to protect likely future victims, including M.F. | Pacific: Liability cannot attach absent specific notice that the trespasser would assault this employee | Court: Employer cannot avoid responsibility because initial abuse targeted other employees; notice of dangerous conduct toward employees can support duty to protect likely future victims |
| Whether the statute’s legislative history limits §12940(j)(1) to narrow fact patterns (e.g., Salazar) | M.F.: Legislative amendment clarified FEHA applies to nonemployee sexual harassment broadly, rejecting Salazar’s limiting interpretation | Pacific: Statute should be read narrowly consistent with legislative intent in response to Salazar | Court: Legislative history shows rejection of Salazar but not a limitation to Salazar’s facts; statute applies when employer knows/should know and fails to act |
| Whether the employer’s response (investigation/steps taken) can be decided on demurrer | M.F.: Adequacy of remedial measures is a factual question inappropriate for demurrer | Pacific: Its response was reasonable as a matter of law | Court: Adequacy is a factual inquiry; demurrer was improper to resolve that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919 (standard for accepting pleaded facts on demurrer)
- Arriaga v. County of Alameda, 9 Cal.4th 1055 (workers’ compensation exclusivity principles)
- Arendell v. Auto Parts Club, Inc., 29 Cal.App.4th 1261 (premises-security negligence can still be within workers’ comp absent FEHA claim)
- Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 38 Cal.4th 914 (FEHA protects employees from nonemployee sexual harassment)
- Salazar v. Diversified Paratransit, Inc., 103 Cal.App.4th 131 (case the Legislature intended to reject in clarifying FEHA coverage)
- Bradley v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 158 Cal.App.4th 1612 (employer must take immediate and appropriate corrective action; adequacy is a factual question)
- Ferris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 277 F.3d 128 (notice of a person’s abusive conduct toward others can create duty to protect likely future victims)