Hughes v. Pair Case Summary

Court: Supreme Court of California
Filing Date: July 2, 2009
Case Citation: 46 Cal. 4th 1035; 209 P.3d 963; 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636; 2009 Cal. LEXIS 6019
Parties:
- Plaintiff: Suzan Hughes (mother of a trust beneficiary)
- Defendant: Christopher Pair (trustee)

Subsequent History: Reported at Hughes v. Pair, 2009 Cal. LEXIS 6822
Prior History:
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County, case No. BC338385, Judge Andria K. Richey.
- Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Five, case No. B194307.
- Earlier case judgment: Hughes v. Pair, 154 Cal. App. 4th 1469, 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 619.

Plaintiff alleged sexual harassment under California Civil Code, § 51.9, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements by the defendant during two conversations.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Plaintiff sought further review from the Supreme Court of California.

The Court held that the conduct in question did not meet the definitions of "pervasive or severe" as recognized in similar employment contexts.
Only isolated comments made during one telephone conversation and a subsequent statement during a social event.
Although vulgar, one remark made at the museum did not constitute a reasonable threat of sexual assault.
Insufficient allegations regarding quid pro quo harassment; threats by the defendant were not fulfilled by actions that resulted in harm to the plaintiff's finances.

The legislative context of § 51.9 emphasizes the need for conduct to be "pervasive or severe" based on the precedent set in employment sexual harassment laws (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act).
A conduct is termed severe if it significantly alters the conditions of a professional relationship to the detriment of the victim.
A conduct is termed pervasive when it consists of more than a few isolated incidents.

The court reviews summary judgment de novo, meaning it examines the record from the trial court's perspective without weighing the evidence but rather assessing whether the claim is sufficiently bona fide to merit a trial.
Courts should liberally interpret evidence in favor of the party resisting summary judgment.

On June 27, 2005, defendant allegedly stated:
- Acted inappropriately during a telephone call, referring to plaintiff as "sweetie" and suggesting sexual favors concerning financial decisions regarding the trust funds.
- Threatened to assert his influence as a trustee unless she complied with his sexual overtures.

Sexual Harassment:
- The court found the defendant's actions were not sufficient to be classified as pervasive or severe. They concluded:
  - Conduct did not alter the conditions of the professional relationship.
  - The remarks were isolated not pervasive and less impactful than established precedent.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:
- To succeed, plaintiff must show:
  - Extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant;
  - Plaintiff's suffering from severe emotional distress;
  - Causation linking defendant's conduct to the distress.
- Court determined plaintiff's claims amounted to minor discomfort and did not establish extreme emotional distress by legal standards.

For Plaintiff: Hillel Chodos and Deborah Chodos
For Defendant: Knee, Ross & Silverman and Melanie C. Ross
Amicus Curiae: June Babiracki Barlow, Neil Kalin, Grant Michiaki Habata for California Association of Realtors on behalf of Defendant.