Same Gender Sexual Harassment.

Plaintiff, a heterosexual man, worked for a city, and filed an employment action, contending he was sexually harassed by two of his male supervisors and then retaliated against when he complained about the sexual harassment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the two supervisors and later granted the city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim proceeded to trial, and plaintiff testified about some extremely gross conduct and language on the part of one of the supervisors, and it was argued there was a course of conduct that supervisor was pursuing a romantic relationship with him. On plaintiff’s retaliation claim, a jury returned a special verdict finding the city engaged in conduct that materially and adversely affected the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s employment but the city’s conduct did not cause plaintiff’s harm. The court entered judgment in favor of all defendants. With regard to the two supervisors, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment on one and affirmed the other, stating: “Under both Title VII and FEHA, sexual harassment can occur between members of the same gender as long as the plaintiff can establish the harassment amounted to discrimination because of sex.” With regard to plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the appellate court reversed for reasons which included error in the exclusion of evidence. (Lewis v. City of Benicia (Cal. App. First Dist., Div. 1; March 26, 2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1519, [169 Cal.Rptr.3d 794].)