Proksel

Proksel v. Gattis

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 62·41 Cal. App. 4th 1626·49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322·96 Daily Journal DAR 905·67 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,982
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 26, 1996D020619California1,395 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

Among other contentions, in this case plaintiff and appellant Karen A. Proksel asks us to recognize a species of employment discrimination based solely on an employer’s or supervisor’s preferential treatment of a fellow employee with whom the employer or supervisor is romantically involved. We decline to do so.

As we explain in greater detail, although office romances may create a host of problems for employers and in particular cases may be relevant evidence in considering a larger claim of sexual harassment, by itself preferential treatment of paramours is not actionable by other employees.

Factual Background

Proksel began working for defendant and respondent Richard E. Gattis on May 23, 1989. Gattis is an attorney and Proksel worked as his personal secretary and office manager. Proksel worked from four to six hours a day for Gattis and devoted the remainder of her working hours to a freelance paralegal business.

At the time Proksel started working for Gattis, Gattis employed Sherry Burton as a full-time word processor. Burton had been employed by Gattis since 1985 and was his only full time clerical employee.

According to Proksel, in October 1990 she began…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.