Court Analyzes Scope Of California's Rule Excluding Evidence Of A Plaintiff's Prior Sexual Conduct In Sexual Harassment Cases

Melanie Rieger claimed to have been a victim of job discrimination in the form of a sexually harassing "hostile" work environment. She filed an action alleging this and other theories against the attorney who employed her, Clayeo Arnold, his office manager Susan Artenstein, and his law firm.

The jury did not believe Rieger had experienced sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment. However, it believed that the law firm and Artenstein had not taken sufficient steps to protect her from sexual harassment, and awarded $15,000 in damages solely against the law firm. It absolved defendant Arnold of any failure to protect her. The trial court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict as to the jury's finding that the law firm and Artenstein did not take sufficient steps to protect Rieger from harassment.

Rieger appealed, contending that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of her prior sexual conduct. This required the California Court of Appeal to interpret the statute that excludes such evidence in a civil action for sexual harassment, sexual assault, or sexual battery, except for "the plaintiff's sexual conduct with the alleged perpetrator." The appellate court concluded the proper understanding of this exception includes both a named defendant and any other person for whom a plaintiff would hold a named defendant liable. The court then held that the bulk of the evidence of Rieger's prior sexual conduct was admissible, and that the inadmissible evidence would not have affected the outcome.

Rieger v. Arnold

Read the case

(You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed on your computer to properly view this case)