When a married supervisor conducts long-standing, concurrent affairs with three female subordinates at work and grants them professional favors over more deserving employees, does it constitute unlawful sexual harassment?

In Miller v. Department of Corrections, the California Supreme Court has held that it does, despite a long-standing reluctance by courts to recognize claims of so-called sexual favoritism.

THE PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS ABOUT WORKING CONDITIONS AT THE VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

The case was brought by two former employees at the Valley State Prison for Women (VSPW) – Edna Miller, a correctional officer, and Frances Mackey, a records manager who passed away while the litigation was pending. Miller and Mackey alleged that they were subjected to discrimination and harassment as a result of the chief deputy prison warden's multiple workplace affairs and related conduct.

Although the case involved numerous allegations, the crux of the complaint is its allegation that the deputy warden, Lewis Kuykendall, openly carried on three affairs with female employees at the prison (Bibb, Patrick, and Brown), all subordinate to him, and granted those women undeserved privileges and promotions because of his relationship with them. At the same time, the suit alleges, female employees who complained about these relationships were punished, and retaliated against, for their objections.

Although the facts of the case are too numerous and complicated to recount in detail, a few notable examples will provide a sense of the ways in which, according to the plaintiffs’ allegations, these sexual relationships pervaded the workplace and disadvantaged those not involved in them.

When Kuykendall was transferred from another facility to VSPW, the plaintiffs allege that he gradually had all three of his paramours transferred so they would once again be working under him. Once there, the paramours all allegedly benefited in tangible ways from their relationship with Kuykendall.

One paramour, for example, was allegedly granted a promotion over the objection of the committee appointed to make the decision because Kuykendall ordered them to “make it happen.” A second paramour was allegedly permitted to report directly to Kuykendall in lieu of her immediate supervisor. A third was allegedly given a series of promotions over more qualified applicants, and, according to plaintiffs, remarked that Kuykendall had no choice but to give them to her lest she “take him down” by revealing “every scar on his body.”