California Supreme Court Expands Sexual Harassment Liability to Cover
Victims of Romantic Favoritism in the Workplace
View or download the PDF version of this Alert.
Romantic favoritism by the boss of workplace paramours has long been
a problematic issue for employers and employees alike: The law rarely finds
such consensual relationships illegal, but the propriety of their occurrence
rings hollow for most. The California Supreme Court recently was presented
with facts that defined the outside limits of acceptability of such relationships,
in Miller v. Dept. of Corrections, 2005 Cal. LEXIS 7606 (July 18, 2005).
In pronouncing the workplace in Miller “out of control,” the Supreme Court
reversed summary adjudication in favor of the employer on a claim under
the California Fair Employment & Housing Act (Gov’t Code § 12940 et seq.)
and concluded that “although isolated instances of sexual favoritism in
the workplace do not violate Title VII, widespread sexual favoritism may
create a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII by sending the
demeaning message that managers view female employees as ‘sexual playthings’
or that ‘the way for women to get ahead in the workplace is by engaging
in sexual conduct.’”
|“The poisonous environment
targeted by Miller was a sexually-charged workplace where
merit-based promotion, training and discipline were clearly
inapplicable to romantic favorites. Miller almost
certainly will give new legs to previously unactionable office
In Miller, a male warden at a women’s prison was simultaneously involved
in consensual sexual relations with three of his five female subordinates,
all of whom were actively engaged in pursuit of career opportunities, training
and promotions. The two remaining employees, who eventually became the plaintiffs
in this landmark decision, were not sexually involved with the male supervisor.
Importantly for the case, neither plaintiff was asked for sexual favors
nor threatened if she refused sexual advances. However, the three consenting
employees received special treatment such as unfair promotions over the
plaintiffs, scheduling and training preference, reduced accountability,
and general favoritism. The existence of this harem arrangement was well-known
to all participants, who squabbled in jealous rivalries during work hours
and openly engaged in indiscreet behavior with the supervisor during department
social functions. To add further zest to these facts, a female supervisor
was introduced into this dysfunctional workplace after the heterosexual
relationships had fomented for about three years; she too began a romantic
relationship with one of the three consenting female subordinates.
After a series of complaints no longer could be ignored by Internal Affairs,
an investigation ensued, requiring both plaintiffs to participate and provide
statements. Despite assurances of confidentiality, the plaintiffs’ statements
were revealed to both the male and female supervisors who, along with one
of the consenting subordinates, retaliated against the plaintiffs by interfering
with the performance of their duties, demeaning them in group meetings,
and ostracizing them. Moreover, the subordinate engaged in an altercation
with one of the plaintiffs that resulted in a physical assault and entrapment
in a locked office for two hours.
In finding the workplace so hostile as to constitute a sexually harassing
environment, the California Supreme Court split from the national trend
disfavoring consensual romance as actionable. Relying on EEOC Compliance
in interpreting the scope of liability under the Fair
Employment and Housing Act (California’s anti-discrimination statute), the
Supreme Court opined that under certain circumstances sexual favoritism
could create a hostile work environment by implying that supervisors view
their female subordinates in a sexual – rather than professional – manner,
and that engaging in consensual sexual behavior is the only way for females
to advance their careers.
Previous cases had concluded that romantic favoritism is not actionable
under Title VII because such behavior negatively impacts both men and women
equally and is not directed toward any member of a discrete class. For example,
in Preston v. Wis. Health Fund, 397 F.3d 539 (7th Cir. 2005), the Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld summary judgment for the employer
on the basis that romantically motivated favoritism toward a female subordinate
had no effect on the composition of the workplace, especially since the
disadvantaged competitor was as likely to be another woman as a man. Similarly,
in DeCintio v. Westchester County Med. Ctr., 807 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1986),
the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that proscribed differentiation
between the sexes must be a distinction based on gender, not on one’s sexual
But Miller takes a broader view of the impact of such egalitarian favoritism. The
Supreme Court held that widespread sexual favoritism may be actionable under
FEHA because of the effect it has on all members of the workplace. The Court
further held that a triable issue of material fact existed as to whether
Defendants’ behavior created a hostile work environment sufficiently severe
or pervasive to alter the working environment of both men and women. The
Court also opined that widespread sexual favoritism could amount to quid
pro quo sexual harassment if the favoritism created a reasonable belief
that managers would only promote employees who engaged in sexual liaisons
with their supervisors. Hence, liability was not triggered by the romantic
relationship between the co-workers itself – which equally impacted both
men and women – but rather by the effect the relationship had on the workplace.
The unusually aggravated facts in Miller enabled the Court to declare
when “enough is enough” and, in that sense, Miller is a groundbreaking case.
Its support, however, is based on long-standing EEOC guidelines and lower
appellate court FEHA rulings that recognized both men and women can complain
about a hostile environment, even when they are not the direct victims of
gender-based hostility (Mogilefsky v. Sup.Ct., 20 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414-1415
(1993)) and that a hostile environment can exist even without sexual conduct
(Accardi v. Sup.Ct., 17 Cal.App.4th 341, 348 (1993)).
At least in California, Miller promises to generate employer reactions
ranging from stronger policies against nepotism and intra-corporate fraternization,
to the requirement that employees voluntarily reveal extra-curricular social
relationships to management so that their consensual nature can be documented
(the so-called “love contract”). The poisonous environment targeted by
was a sexually-charged workplace where merit-based promotion, training and
discipline were clearly inapplicable to romantic favorites. Miller almost
certainly will give new legs to previously unactionable office liaisons.
1 EEOC Policy Statement No. N-915-048, Policy Guidance on Employer Liability
under Title VII for Sexual Favoritism.
This Alert was written by
Diana Scott and
Tiffany Mitchell in the Los
Angeles office. Please contact Ms. Scott or Ms. Mitchell at (310) 586-7700,
or your Greenberg Traurig liaison if you have any questions regarding the
subject matter of this Alert.
© 2005 Greenberg Traurig
For more information, please review our Employment Law Practice description,
or feel free to contact one of our attorneys.
This GT ALERT is issued for informational purposes only and is not intended
to be construed or used as general legal advice. Greenberg Traurig attorneys provide
practical, result-oriented strategies and solutions tailored to meet our clients’
individual legal needs.