Socks-brunot v. Hirschvogel Incorporated

Socks-brunot (plaintiff) sued Hirschvogel Incorporated (Hirschvogel) (defendant), alleging that Charles Benz, Hirschvogel’s comptroller, created a hostile work environment based on sexual harassment, which forced her to resign. Benz made comments about Socks-brunot’s breast size and asked about her condom preference. Benz asked Socks-brunot to sit on his lap and told Socks-brunot to admit that she wanted to have sex with Benz. Benz also sexually harassed Cindy Lehman, another employee. Sock-brunot and Lehman complained to Hirschvogel’s president, who announced a new program that named Benz the contact person for complaints of sexual harassment. Hirschvogel alleged that it took proper steps to prevent sexual harassment by implementing a new program and that Socks-brunot initiated sexual conversations with coworkers, including Benz. Benz and others testified that many of the crude and explicit comments that Socks-brunot claimed harassed her followed equally crude and explicit comments by Socks-brunot. Socks-brunot filed a motion in limine based on Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 412 and sought a pretrial hearing. Socks-brunot sought to limit any testimony concerning her consensual sexual relationships before marriage, including a relationship with a former supervisor at a different employer. Hirschvogel argued that FRE 412 did not apply because the evidence was not offered to prove sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior but to show that the conduct complained of was not unwelcome and on damages. The court held that FRE 412 did not govern the admissibility of the evidence and allowed the evidence. Socks-brunot appealed.