Sexual harassment claimed after men develop a relationship. Defense verdict. Los Angeles County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  In March 2019, while having dinner in a restaurant, defendant A. Roe met plaintiff, who was working as a singer at the restaurant.  Plaintiff was 30-year-old male, and defendant Doe was an older male. After meeting at the restaurant, plaintiff and Roe exchanged messages on Facebook, through which plaintiff asked for help finding a job. Roe put plaintiff in contact with a personal friend, who hired plaintiff to work in landscaping. Over the course of the next four-and-a-half months, plaintiff and Roe developed a close personal relationship. They socialized together, went out for meals, met up for drinks, spent time with each other’s families, and exchanged thousands of text messages. Defendant Roe bought plaintiff gifts, helped him with personal expenses, and gave him a monthly cash allowance. Roe also provided plaintiff information to help him enroll in continuing education courses through Montebello Unified School District, where Roe was then employed in an upper-management position.

  Plaintiff completed three courses at Montebello Community Adult School, between July 1 and August 9, 2019. On August 20, 2019, plaintiff went to defendant Roe’s home, at approximately 9:00 p.m. They planned to take shots of tequila at the house and then go out to dinner. After they drank tequila, however, plaintiff alleged that Roe pulled plaintiff’s pants down and momentarily touched plaintiff’s genitals without plaintiff’s consent. Plaintiff called for a ride and left. The following night, again at approximately 9:00 p.m., plaintiff returned to Roe’s house to collect his monthly cash allowance. When plaintiff arrived at Roe’s front entrance, plaintiff alleged that Roe greeted him by grabbing plaintiff’s genitals over his pants. Roe testified that he never touched plaintiff’s genitals and that it was plaintiff who exposed himself to Roe.

   

   

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  Plaintiff claimed emotional distress damages from the alleged sexual harassment. He testified that he had sought therapy following the alleged incidents.

  Plaintiff alleged claims for sexual battery, gender violence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and Ralph Act discrimination against Roe.

  Plaintiff also alleged that Montebello Unified School District was liable for the alleged sexual harassment pursuant to Education Code, section 220, which prohibits discrimination and harassment in an educational institution.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendant MUSD contended any relationship between plaintiff and defendant Roe was unrelated to the operations of MUSD and was purely personal in nature and had no relationship to Roe's management duties or plaintiff’s role as a student in adult education classes. In fact, the evidence showed neither plaintiff nor Roe ever notified Montebello Unified School District of their friendship or of the alleged sexual harassment until the litigation was initiated.

  Defendant MUSD contended that no inappropriate conduct occurred on, or on behalf of, the district and that plaintiff's allegations otherwise were baseless.