Facts

In May 1996, plaintiff Denise Brooks began working as an unpaid dental assistant in training at defendant Christopher A. Wolter's dental office. In July 1996, the defendant, a licensed pilot and owner of his own private airplane, invited the plaintiff to fly in his private airplane on a weekend when the defendant's wife was out-of-town. The plaintiff, a single parent raising a five-year-old son on her own, hoping to be offered a paying position at Christopher A. Wolter, DDS, a Professional Corporation, finally acquiesced to the defendant's repeated requests that she go flying with him. According to the plaintiff, following the plane flight, the defendant made unwelcome sexual advances toward the plaintiff, in the private hangar where the defendant stores his plane, and in which the defendant had a furnished area with a sofa, cocktail table, rug, and television. The plaintiff acquiesced to the defendant's unwanted sexual demands, and immediately thereafter the defendant began compensating the plaintiff, and continued to pursue a sexual relationship with the plaintiff.

Over the ensuing years, the plaintiff alleged that she gradually became aware of the defendant's unusual sexual proclivities, which included an intense interest in pornography and voyeurism; including the fact that the defendant had placed a hidden video camera in the bathroom at his dental practice and had in his possession pictures taken therein. The plaintiff contended that although she made repeated attempts to end her relationship with the defendant; however, the defendant interceded to end the plaintiff's relationships with other men by conducting background investigations of the men the plaintiff was seeing, surveilling the plaintiff, and harassing the plaintiff to resume a sexual relationship with him. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant coerced the plaintiff to sell her home and move in with him, after which he harassed the plaintiff to pose for pornographic pictures. The plaintiff further contended that the defendant supplied the plaintiff with Vicodin and methamphetamines, made repeated unsuccessful attempts to coerce the plaintiff to participate in a nude beauty pageant called "Nudes-A-Poppin," and harassed the plaintiff to engage in increasingly sordid pornography and sexual activities, ultimately causing the plaintiff to suffer a physical and emotional collapse. This emotional collapse resulted in the plaintiff's 9-day hospitalization, during which time she was diagnosed with anorexia nervosa (self-starvation), depression, and a potentially life-threatening electrolyte imbalance. During the plaintiff's hospitalization and continuing thereafter, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant continued to harass the plaintiff and supplied her with Vicodin and methamphetamines, notwithstanding the fact that he knew that the plaintiff was under psychiatric care, suffering from anorexia nervosa and depression, and was unable to function normally.

According to the plaintiff, in approximately April or May 2002, the defendant began a sexual relationship with another employee. While at the same time making repeated attempts to harass the plaintiff to return to his home following her release from the hospital, the defendant posted information on the internet relating to his sexual activities with the other employee, including pictures of women posing nude at the "Nudes-A-Poppin" beauty contest. On June 15, 2003, the defendant fired the plaintiff. At the end of June 2003, the other employee moved into the defendant's home.

CONTINUED IN CONTENTIONS**

According to the defendant, the parties began an on-again, off-again romantic relationship that included twice becoming engaged to be married and also saw the plaintiff having romantic relationships with other men. The defendant contended that the plaintiff sold her home and moved into the defendant's home in June 2000, living there until the defendant asked her to leave in January 2002. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff continued to be paid her wages until June 15, 2003, notwithstanding the fact that she had not worked in the office as a dental assistant since a January 2000 automobile accident.

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant and his professional corporation, alleging sexual harassment, gender violence (Civil Code 52.4), domestic violence (Civil Code 1708.6), sexual battery (Civil Code 1708.5), invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, failure to pay minimum wage, and seeking return of certain property.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff contended that the defendant, using superior intelligence and economic power, pressured the plaintiff into maintaining a relationship with him and interfered with her attempts to get away from him. She also contended that the defendant removed her from the payroll because she refused his sexual advances.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant contended that at all times his relationship with the plaintiff was consensual, that the plaintiff received from the defendant approximately $750,000 in gifts and cash, and that the plaintiff only decided that she had been damaged after she stopped receiving money from the defendant.

Settlement Discussions

At mediation, the plaintiff demanded $883,900. The demand was subsequently raised to $1.5 million (C.C.P. Section 998) and then lowered to $1 million at the beginning of trial. The defendant offered $50,000 at mediation and made a post-mediation C.C.P. Section 998 offer of $80,001.

Damages

The plaintiff claimed severe emotional distress, physical injury, and aggravation of a previously existing eating disorder. The plaintiff also claimed that by contract the defendant was required to buy her a home when he asked her to leave his house.

Result

Defense. According to the plaintiff, the jury found, "no" to gender violence and sexual battery, and "yes" to sexual harassment (12-0) and intentional infliction of emotional distress (11-1); however, the verdict was dispositive for the defendants based on special verdict form questions related to the statutes of limitation. The plaintiff has moved for partial summary judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and for a new trial with regard to the plaintiff's causes of action for sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to the defense, prior to trial, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary adjudication on causes of action for domestic violence and replevin. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, the court granted the defendant's motion for nonsuit on the plaintiff's causes of action for breach of contract and failure to pay minimum wage. Before the case was submitted to the jury, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her cause of action for invasion of privacy.

Deliberation

5.5 hours

Poll

12-0 (sexual harassment, gender violence, sexual battery), 11-1 (intentional infliction of emotional distress)

Length

18 days