|
|
Madrid v. Schreiber9/14/2005
sperson-broker relationship between them. The facsimile concludes: "[Schreiber] - I adore you as a friend & person, and this is painful to send this letter. Please don't call to discuss - since I'm being a coward. Fax your bill for immediate payment & delivery."
A third document supporting the anti-SLAPP motion is an apparent one-page fax that states: "Happy Day to you two girls! [Followed by a large heart-shaped drawing.] I hope this day treats you perfect, because you really deserve it!!"
The fourth document is a handwritten letter from Madrid to Schreiber thanking her "for the visit on Saturday." It states further: "It was fun meeting [your daughter]. You have done well with her! She is very well mannered & polite. [ ] I wish I could have fixed your dish washer for you, I would have felt more successful." The letter refers to having a "hangover" and getting "buzzed again." It continues: "I remember annoying you as we drove to the Chinese restaurant. [ ] This sort of behavior cannot continue, especially around [your daughter]. [ ] From hence forth I'll never show-up around your daughter with a hangover or buzzed, it's just not cool. [ ] As far as you go - I see your tolerote & understanding, I still have a wild streak in me. [ ] I know I should tone down my behavior, but I'll always have a little wildness in me. [ ] I'll never let your daughter wittness it during her adolescence. [ ] It makes no difference how successful or educated any of your friends are [your daughter] is to innocent & precious to wittness any obnoxiousness. [ ] I'll keep my occasional wild streaks confined to my mountain. y for now & thanks again."
After referring to these documents, Solo states in his declaration: "I felt that an expression of adoration by [Madrid] to [Schreiber] and his request that she `express a desire differently. . . .', clearly demonstrated more than a simple business relationship, at least in the eyes of [Madrid]."
Schreiber did not submit a declaration. Although it appears that discovery in the Harassment Action was conducted, including Schreiber's and Madrid's depositions, no other evidence relevant to the sexual harassment claim was submitted in connection with the anti-SLAPP motion.
" exual harassment includes protection from a broad range of conduct, ranging from expressly or impliedly conditioning employment benefits on submission to or tolerance of unwelcome sexual advances, to the creation of a work environment that is hostile or abusive on the basis of sex." (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 461.) "It typically is viewed as taking one or both of two forms: (1) quid pro quo harassment, where submission to sexual conduct is made a condition of concrete employment benefits, and (2) hostile work environment, defined as conduct having the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's w
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|