Gonzalez v. Cnty. of Yolo

ROBIN GONZALEZ, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF YOLO; EDWARD G. PRIETO, an individual;and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-01368-KJM-AC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

July 17, 2015

ORDER

Robin Gonzalez works for the Yolo County Sheriff's Department and alleges the Sheriff, Edward Prieto, sexually harassed her over several years. She brought this action against the County under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and against both the County and the Sheriff under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), California Civil Code § 12900 et seq. The County and Sheriff have jointly moved for summary judgment in two separate motions: first, seeking judicial estoppel of plaintiff's claims, Defs.' Renewed Mot. Summ J., ECF No. 37; Mem. P.&A. Renewed Mot. Summ. J. (Estoppel Mem.), ECF No. 37-1; and second, seeking summary judgment generally, Defs.' Mot. Summ J., ECF No. 36; Mem. P.&A. Mot. Summ. J. (Merits Mem.), ECF No. 36-2. The court held a hearing on January 30, 2015. Manolo Olaso appeared for Ms. Gonzalez, and John Whitesides and Cori RaeSarno appeared for the County and Sheriff Prieto. After considering the parties' briefing and arguments at the hearing, closely reviewing the record of the case and carefully considering the law's application to the facts, the court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment on Gonzalez's substantive claims and DENIES the motion for judicial estoppel as moot.

The court addresses first the County's substantive motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Most of the facts underlying Gonzalez's claim here are not disputed. Although the defendants deny most of Gonzalez's allegations of harassment, they do not dispute them for purposes of this motion. Merits Mem. 1-3 & n.1.

Gonzalez alleges Prieto began harassing her in 2002, the day she interviewed for a job at the Sheriff's Department. UMF1 no. 1. She remembers Prieto passing her in the hallway, calling her a "tall drink of water," and looking her up and down. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 3, ECF No. 38-2. During her first assignment in courts and transportation, she saw Prieto about once a month for two years; during this time he hugged her to greet her. Merits Mem. at 1; Gonzalez Dep. at 26:22-24, 27:19-28:13. She began training for patrol in 2004, and Prieto continued to hug her and also kissed her on the cheek. Merits Mem. at 1; Gonzalez Dep. at 42:22-43:15. It was then she first believed Prieto's behavior was sexual harassment, but she did not file a claim. UMF1 no. 21; Merits Mem. at 1. Gonzalez agrees she never told Prieto his hugging made her uncomfortable. UMF1 no. 41.

Gonzalez began working as a detective in 2006 and saw Prieto more often; she claims his harassment became more severe. UMF1 no. 22. Gonzalez recalls Prieto suggested he could be her "sugar daddy," Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 14, ECF No. 38-2; Gonzalez Dep. 81:18-24, complimented her weight loss, Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 15; Gonzalez Dep. 83:7-13, told her he was a "weak man" while looking her up and down, Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 14; Gonzalez Dep. 80: 25-81:15, pinched her sides, Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 15; Gonzalez Dep. 83:14-84:7, and told her she needed to wear more makeup, Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 8; Gonzalez Dep. 84:11-85:7. Her coworkers teased her about him, for example by saying Prieto was coming to "molest" her and rub his "biff" on her. Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 9-10. She usually laughed in response to their teasing and returned sexualbanter with coworkers, UMF1 nos. 58-59, but their teasing bothered her, Gonzalez Dep. 71:24-72:24. Another supervisor offered to report Prieto's behavior, but Gonzalez says she declined in fear of Prieto's reputation for retaliation, Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 11, and in fear of making "waves." Gonzalez Dep. 76:15-77:5.

In June 2010 Gonzalez's detective assignment was ending. Gonzalez Dep. 208:5-8. She was happy to be returning to patrol. Id. at 208:9-20. Before she left, she alleges Prieto said, "Maybe for a blow job you can stay in investigation longer." UMF1 nos. 23, 38-40; Merits Mem. at 2; Gonzalez Dep. at 85:12-86:25. No one else heard or witnessed this comment, and Prieto denies he made it. UMF1 no. 40. The parties also disagree whether the comment was intended or understood as a joke. Gonzalez did not consider staying in detectives a "benefit," but she "knew he was serious." Gonzalez Dep. at 209:6-13. She maintains she did not believe it to be a joke despite telling others Prieto made the comment in a joking way. UMF1 nos. 38-39; Gonzalez Dep. Ex. 4, 91:24-93:3; Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 16-19. Gonzalez's supervisor reported Gonzalez told him Prieto had been joking, but Gonzalez denies saying so. UMF1 no. 38.

On June 17, 2010, Gonzalez complained about and reported Prieto's hugging, kissing, and sexual proposition. UMF1 nos. 33-34. This was the extent of her report. She did not describe any teasing by coworkers or other harassment and did not describe the hugs and kisses as sexual, id. nos. 44-45, 55; however, she thought about hiring an attorney and pursuing a civil claim, id. no. 23. Immediately after Gonzalez made her complaint she spoke with the director of human resources, Mindi Nunes. Id. no. 35. Nunes contacted Prieto and other possible witnesses and prepared a written report. Id. nos. 36-37. She asked Prieto not to make physical contact with Gonzalez and to keep any communications professional, and Prieto agreed. Id. no. 42. Nunes also told Gonzalez the County could not do anything more because Prieto was an elected official, and the County could not discipline him.¹ Id. no. 24. Gonzalez transferred to anew assignment, and Prieto did not hug or kiss her again. Id. no. 43. Neither did her coworkers tease her about Prieto again. UMF1 no. 57.

After Gonzalez submitted her complaint in June 2010, she saw Prieto between twenty and thirty times. UMF1 no. 20. In November 2010, Prieto touched her shoulder while she was in a training class; Gonzalez remembers he "grabbed" and "massaged" her shoulder. UMF1 no. 15; Gonzalez Dep. 114:18-115:23. Prieto remembers he touched the shoulders or backs of the chairs of both men and women deputies while he walked toward the front of the room and did not single out Gonzalez. Prieto Decl. ¶ 10, ECF no. 36-6. Gonzalez reported the event to Nunes, who in turn contacted the Sheriff, and he never touched her again. UMF1 nos. 17-19, 50-51.²Nevertheless, Gonzalez remembers that in 2011 and 2012, Prieto made more comments about her weight loss, told her she looked good, looked her up and down, and stared at her chest and hips as he had before. Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 21-22. Sheriff Prieto commented about her weight two times in 2012. Id. ¶ 22; Gonzalez Dep. at 117:10-118:23. Gonzalez agrees both that other employees also appropriately complimented her for losing weight and that her physical fitness was relevant to her duties as a sheriff's deputy, but she contends Prieto's manner and intonation rendered his words sexually harassing. UMF1 no. 9. She also describes how in October 2012 she spoke with other women coworkers, and learned Prieto had made sexist or sexually suggestive comments to them or touched them inappropriately. Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 23. The timeframe of this conduct is unclear. See Gonzalez Dep. 143:10-148:10. Gonzalez made no further report to HR because she believed it futile. UMF1 no. 26. She thought no one could do anything to stop him. Id. no. 25.

Gonzalez felt ostracized and alone after her reports. Id. no. 67. Rooms quieted when she entered, and although coworkers were friendly and supportive in public and provided backup in the line of duty, in private she sensed their unease. Id. Prieto contends he has not personally taken any retaliatory action, but he called her claims meritless ("bullshit") in a management meeting in 2012. Id. no. 65; Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 24-25. Gonzalez also claims she was excluded from honor guard events in January and February 2013. Honor guard events are volunteer assignments for which deputies generally receive no extra pay or incentive. UMF1 no. 60. Honor guard members, including Gonzalez, sometimes miss events. Id. no. 61. In January 2013, she attended an honor guard event after her supervisor said she would receive overtime pay for her attendance, but was later allowed to use only "comp time" instead.³ Gonzalez Dep. 149:11-151:23. She heard from her supervisor that he "kind of got "in trouble" for letting her go. Id. at 150:15-23. In February 2013, Gonzalez was not invited to another honorguard assignment, an assignment Prieto's daughter did attend. Merits Mem. at 19; UMF1 no. 60; Gonzalez Dep. 140:16-142:9; Gonzalez Decl. ¶ 26. Gonzalez agrees neither the Sheriff nor his daughter requested her absence, UMF no. 63, but contends the circumstances of her exclusion imply the Sheriff's retaliation, Gonzalez Decl. ¶¶ 26-27. Gonzalez has attended other honor guard events since January and February 2013, and has attended other events with Prieto's daughter, who she agrees has acted professionally. UMF1 no. 64.

Gonzalez filed a complaint with the EEOC and DFEH on January 14, 2013.⁴ UMF1 no. 2. She filed her judicial complaint in this action on July 9, 2013. Compl., ECF No. 1. She agrees Prieto's conduct in 2013 and 2014 has been appropriate. UMF1 no. 19. Her judicial complaint alleges three claims: (1) sexual harassment under Title VII; (2) sexual harassment under the FEHA; and (3) failure to prevent sexual harassment under the FEHA. She seeks compensatory, general, special, and punitive damages, her costs, and her attorneys' fees.

The defendants argue Gonzalez's claims must fail because (1) neither her Title VII nor FEHA claim was timely; (2) the County cannot be held liable for the Sheriff's conduct because he is an elected official and not an employee; (3) the County undertook reasonable efforts to prevent and address sexual harassment, and Gonzalez unreasonably ignored its procedures meant to protect her; (4) the County had no notice of any...