Arno

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur entirely in the court’s opinion with the limited exception of Part II.C. The majority cites no California law to explain what required element of an employment contract Arno has failed to plead. I would let the issue of whether Arno had an employment contract be decided by a jury. See Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654, 682 , 254 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 765 P.2d 373 (1988).

Opinion by Judge KOZINSKI; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge O’SCANNLAIN.

Carolyn Amo alleges she was raped by her boss while employed as a gentile organisat-eure (G.O.) or hostess, at the Club Med *1467 resort in Guadeloupe, France. 1 Based on this incident, she raises a variety of tort and contract claims, as well as a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We consider which of these claims she may maintain and — as a preliminary matter — what law applies.

I. Facts

After vacationing at a Club Med resort, Arno decided to apply for a G.O. position. She sent the paperwork to Club Med’s New York office and eventually was offered a job at a Club Med resort in the Bahamas. Once there, she signed a six-month employment contract. A few months after she returned to her home in California, the New York office proposed another assignment at the Club Med resort in Bermuda. Arno agreed, flew to Bermuda and there signed her six-month employment contract. Shortly after she returned to the U.S., Arno accepted what turned out to be her last G.O. job at the resort on Guadeloupe. The day after Arno arrived in Guadeloupe, however, she learned that her mother may…