Hughes v. Pair
46 Cal. 4th 1035, 209 P.3d 963, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Sexual harassment claims in professional business relationships under California Civil Code § 51.9 are governed by the same 'pervasive or severe' standard used in hostile work environment cases under Title VII and the FEHA, meaning the conduct must be so egregious as to alter the conditions of the professional relationship.
Facts:
- Mark Hughes died in 2000, leaving a $350 million trust for his minor son, Alex. Defendant Christopher Pair, a former executive at Herbalife, was one of three trustees.
- Plaintiff Suzan Hughes, Alex's mother and guardian, had a history of legal disputes with the trustees over the allocation of trust funds.
- In June 2005, the trustees, including Pair, partially denied Hughes's request for funds to rent a beach house for two months, approving only one month.
- On June 27, 2005, Pair telephoned Hughes, to whom he had not spoken in at least three years.
- During the call, Pair made sexual remarks, called Hughes 'sweetie' and 'honey,' and suggested he would vote to approve the additional rental money if she would be 'nice' to him and 'give me what I want.'
- Later that evening at a museum event, Pair approached Hughes and said, 'I'll get you on your knees eventually. I'm going to fuck you one way or another.'
Procedural Posture:
- Suzan Hughes sued Christopher Pair in a California trial court, alleging sexual harassment under Civil Code § 51.9 and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Pair filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Pair's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
- Hughes, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the California Court of Appeal.
- A divided Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Pair, the appellee.
- The California Supreme Court granted Hughes's petition for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 'pervasive or severe' standard for sexual harassment claims under California's Civil Code section 51.9 incorporate the same legal meaning and limitations as the identical standard used in workplace harassment cases under Title VII and the FEHA?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
Yes. The 'pervasive or severe' standard in Civil Code section 51.9 is intended to conform to the well-established meaning of that phrase in employment law. The Legislature's 1999 amendment, which replaced the word 'persistent' with 'pervasive,' demonstrates a clear intent to align the statute with the standards of Title VII and FEHA. Applying that standard, Pair's conduct was not pervasive because the alleged harassment consisted of isolated incidents on a single day. The conduct was not severe because it did not involve a physical assault or a credible threat thereof; the court construed Pair's final remark as a threat of financial retaliation rather than physical violence. Furthermore, the quid pro quo harassment claim fails because it involved only unfulfilled threats, with no allegation that Pair took any tangible adverse action after Hughes rejected his advances.
Analysis:
This decision harmonizes the legal standard for sexual harassment across different contexts in California, applying the stringent 'pervasive or severe' test from employment law to professional relationships under Civil Code § 51.9. It establishes that isolated incidents of verbal harassment, even if vulgar and tied to a financial threat, are generally insufficient to state a claim without being continuous or involving a credible threat of physical violence. This raises the bar for plaintiffs suing under § 51.9 and provides a predictable, uniform standard for courts to apply, potentially limiting liability for one-off instances of inappropriate conduct in professional settings.
Unlock the full brief for Hughes v. Pair