Facts

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged that, in January 2017, Jane Doe started working for International Direct Mail Consultants, Inc., of which Lee William McNutt was a shareholder. McNutt was also a partner for Silicon Valley Growth Syndicate Fund I, L.P., of which Russell Lewis and William Bunker were also partners. At the time Doe began working for IDMC, she was a student at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Her one-year employment contract with IDMC required her to travel. Between July and November 2017, she accompanied McNutt on business trips to Ft. Lauderdale, Reno, San Diego, Austin, and New Orleans. Doe alleged that McNutt harassed her in July 2017 on the trip to Ft. Lauderdale and that she discovered in August 2017 that McNutt had taken pictures of her in public places without her permission. Despite those events, Doe joined McNutt on the three remaining business trips.
Doe later discovered that McNutt had sent a photo of her in a public spa, wearing a bathing suit, to another man and discussed whether the other man should bring Doe to California. Doe also claimed that, more than once, McNutt subjected her to unwanted sexual touching and comments. Doe claimed she refused to stay with McNutt on a trip to Florida in January 2018, and two months later she stopped going to work. Her first lawyer sent McNutt a letter alleging violations of state laws and suggested that Doe be put on paid leave while the parties tried to resolve her claims. Doe's one-year employment contract ended in June 2018 and was not renewed.
Doe subsequently filed an administrative complaint with the DFEH, alleging that, while on business in California for three days in August 2017, McNutt sexually harassed her. Following an investigation, the DFEH determined that defendants violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and California Civil Code Section 51.9. Then the DFEH sued all six defendants, on behalf of itself and Doe, alleging sexual harassment and failure to prevent harassment. Doe filed a complaint-in-intervention against McNutt, claiming invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff and Jane Doe contended that Jane Doe discovered inappropriate photographs of her and other women. They further contended that defendants did not have permission from the women in the photos to take those pictures. Plaintiff and Doe further contended that defendants subjected Doe to harassment by pushing cash between her legs, rubbing her buttocks without permission, and taking her to a nude beach. Plaintiffs also contended that defendants terminated Doe in retaliation for her complaints of harassment.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations of Plaintiff and Doe, contending that Doe was not subjected to a hostile work environment. Rather, despite the alleged harassment, she continued to work for six months, plotting legal action against Defendants.

Injuries

Jane Doe claimed emotional distress from the harassment she endured.

Result

Defendants agreed that defendant McNutt would pay $1.8 million directly to plaintiff to settle all claims prior to trial. The parties also stipulated to injunctive relief against defendants in addition to the settlement agreement. Doe also stipulated to injunctive relief.