A county correction officer is entitled to trial on her claim that the county sheriff created a sexually hostile work environment.  In Zetwick v. County of Yolo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the plaintiff's claim that she suffered a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the sheriff hugged and kissed her.

 

The plaintiff, Victoria Zetwick, alleged that after Edward Prieto's election to county sheriff, he engaged in a pattern of hugging plaintiff on more than one hundred occasions and giving her one kiss during a twelve-year period.  She further alleged that Prieto hugged and kissed several dozen other female employees during that period, but limited his contact with male employees to handshakes.  Prieto's conduct impacted Zetwick's ability to concentrate.  She was stressed, anxious and lost sleep.  She claims that she discussed the improper contact with others internally, but that nothing was done.  Zetwick ultimately filed suit in federal court alleging sexual harassment in violation of Title VII, among other things.  The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that dismissal was proper where the sheriff's conduct amounted to nothing more than "genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with members of the same sex and of the opposite sex." (citation omitted).  The district court granted the defendants' motion, and Zetwick appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit.

 

In concluding that the district court erred in granting the employer's motion for summary judgment, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Prieto's conduct constituted a hostile work environment under Title VII.  As a general matter, under Ninth Circuit precedent, an employer is liable for hostile work environment harassment where the employee shows (1) that s/he was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a harassing nature, (2) that this conduct was unwelcome, and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.

 

In this case, the court reasoned that Zetwick presented sufficient evidence to raise genuine questions regarding whether she was subjected to unwelcome conduct that was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter her employment conditions.  Such evidence included testimony that she was hugged more than 100 times during the relevant period, and that the Prieto limited his hugging to female employees.  The court held that "giving the record proper consideration, a reasonable juror could conclude that the differences in hugging of men and women were not, as the defendants argue, just "genuine but innocuous differences in the ways men and women routinely interact with members of the same sex and of the opposite sex."  Zetwick v. County of Yolo.