Bedroom invite does not give rise to quid pro quo sexual harassment case

The Court of Appeals has rejected a sexual harassment claim, holding that the plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged quid pro quo harassment in trying to assert that the company president was trying to initiate a sexual relationship.

The case is Reed v. Fortive Corp., a summary order issued on April 24. To win a quid pro quo harassment claim you have to show that the supervisor conditions job-related benefits on your decision to have sex with him. In this case, the Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Park and Merriam) holds, plaintiff does not plead such a claim and that her allegations are too conclusory and speculative. Here are the allegations, bearing in mind that McCauley is head of the company:

Reed’s claim is based on a single incident in which McCauley allegedly invited her to see a corporate apartment on their way to lunch, asked her repeatedly to join him in the apartment’s bedroom, and then inquired over lunch whether she was married or had a boyfriend.

The bedroom was MCauley's bedroom. What the complaint does not assert, the Court notes, is that McCauley made sexual comments or made physical contact, and plaintiff does not allege that he engaged in any other sexual conduct toward plaintiff or anyone else. Without actually stating this, the Court appears to believe that McCauley's bedroom maneuvers are not, by themselves, enough that he was trying to initiate a sexual relationship with plaintiff.

What he have is an Iqbal holding, named after the Supreme Court from 2009 that made it more difficult for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss. Iqbal emphasized that plaintiffs must assert "plausible" and nonconclusory claims. Court also cite Iqbal for the proposition that speculative claims are not enough. I am sure plaintiff's counsel emphasized that the bedroom references were inherently sexual. The bedroom is not the kitchen. At oral argument counsel noted that in Oncale v. Sundowner (1997), the Supreme Court wanted the courts to examine the offending conduct in the appropriate "social context."