Victoria Zetwick v. County of Yolo
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 3260
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Victoria Zetwick, a Yolo County correctional officer/sergeant, alleges Sheriff Edward Prieto subjected her to numerous unwelcome hugs (she estimates 100+ from 1999–2012) and at least one unwelcome kiss, creating a sexually hostile work environment under Title VII and California FEHA.
- Zetwick says Prieto hugged women far more than men, sometimes chest-to-breast, and that the conduct caused emotional distress (anxiety, sleep loss) and interfered with work.
- Prieto and the County dispute frequency, context (many incidents at public events), character of contact ("friendly"/brief), and whether men were hugged similarly.
- Zetwick reported some incidents to coworkers and supervisors but did not initially complain directly to Prieto; administrative claim filed in 2012; suit filed October 2012.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the hugs/kiss not sufficiently severe or pervasive; Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Prieto's hugs/kiss produced an objectively and subjectively hostile work environment | Zetwick: frequent, gender‑targeted hugging (100+ over 12 years), a kiss on/near lips, chest contact, and resulting emotional harm show severe or pervasive harassment | Defendants: conduct was innocuous, socially acceptable, brief, often public, and not more frequent toward men; not severe or pervasive | Reversed: viewing evidence in Zetwick’s favor, a reasonable juror could find conduct "severe or pervasive"; summary judgment improper |
| Whether district court applied correct legal standard for "severe or pervasive" | Zetwick: courts must assess cumulative effect; supervisor status makes conduct more impactful | Defendants: (implicit) standard applied properly; conduct not meeting threshold | Ninth Circuit: district court misstated/applied standards (used "neither severe nor pervasive" and relied on a narrow view of hugging cases); error may have influenced outcome |
| Proper role of summary judgment when testimony conflicts | Zetwick: credibility conflicts (e.g., coworker declarations) create triable issues | Defendants: rely on declarations and record to resolve credibility in their favor | Held: credibility determinations and disputed factual issues (frequency, concentration, coworkers’ reactions) preclude summary judgment |
| Relevance of supervisor status and harassment of others | Zetwick: supervisor’s conduct and evidence of similar treatment of other women are probative of hostile environment | Defendants: isolated, social behavior; some coworkers not offended | Held: supervisor’s rank and evidence of harassment toward other women are relevant and support jury consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S. Ct. 1861 (2014) (courts may not resolve genuine factual disputes or weigh credibility at summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute for trial exists if reasonable juror could return a verdict for nonmoving party)
- Reza v. Pearce, 806 F.3d 497 (9th Cir. 2015) (summary judgment defeated if reasonable juror could find for respondent)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) (no rational trier of fact could find for nonmoving party supports summary judgment)
- Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993) (rejects mathematically precise test for hostile-work-environment; consider totality of circumstances)
- Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) (supervisory acts can more readily alter workplace environment)
- Burlington Indus. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) (supervisor authority can give harassing conduct particular threatening character)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (summary judgment appropriate where record could not lead a rational jury to find for nonmoving party)
- The GEO Grp., Inc. v. (opinion referenced), 816 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2016) (framework for hostile work environment elements and relevant factors)
- Alvarado v. Federal Express Corp., [citation="384 F. App'x 585"] (9th Cir. 2010) (noting chest-to-breast hugging can raise jury question on hostile environment)
- Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475 (9th Cir. 1995) (harassment of others is probative of general attitude toward female employees)