 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Madrid v. Schreiber9/14/2005
INTRODUCTION
Raul Madrid (Madrid) and 25 Parkside Homes, Ltd. (Parkside) filed a complaint against Rachelle Schreiber (Schreiber) and David Solo (Solo) for malicious prosecution. Schreiber and Solo filed a special motion to strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. The trial court denied the motion, and Schreiber and Solo appealed. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Harassment Action
In October 2002, Schreiber filed a second amended complaint in a lawsuit (the Harassment Action) naming Madrid, Parkside, and other entities as defendants. Schreiber was represented by attorney Solo. The pleading asserted causes of action under the headings: "Sexual Harassment," "Violation of Government Code Section 12940(i) - Failure to Maintain Environment Free From Harassment," and "Breach of Contract."
Schreiber alleged the following facts: Schreiber was "a real estate agent" with Remax Realty; Madrid was an "owner, partner, shareholder, employee or in some manner affiliated with each of the other defendants"; "Madrid and his partners" were building a tract of homes in Fontana; Madrid told Schreiber that he was seeking a sales agent for the homes; following negotiations between Madrid and Schreiber, Schreiber entered into a contract with defendants on January 24, 2002, pursuant to which she left Remax and took a position as the sole sales agent for the Fontana development; the contract called for payment to Schreiber of a certain percentage of the sale prices of the homes sold and a certain percentage of loan commissions; Madrid was Schreiber's supervisor; shortly after Schreiber was hired, Madrid expressed to Schreiber his desire to begin a romantic relationship with Schreiber; among other actions, Madrid asked Schreiber "out for personal reasons as opposed to business reasons," went to her home intoxicated, asked to cook dinner for Schreiber and her child, told Schreiber "he wanted to be a part of her life," and made "inappropriate comments" while intoxicated; when Schreiber refused to enter into a romantic relationship with Madrid, Madrid canceled the contract with Schreiber. Schreiber further alleged that Madrid "created and allowed to exist a hostile work environment and discriminated against and harassed [Schreiber] on the basis of [Schreiber's] sex"; that the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and harassment; and that the defendants cancelled the contract with her "due at least in part to [Schreiber's] refusal to enter into a romantic relationship with" Madrid.
In 2003, Madrid, Parkside, and the other defendants in the Harassment Action moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that because Schreiber was a real estate salesperson and Madrid was a real estate broker, any contract for association or employment had to be in writing pursuant to title 10 of the California Code of Regulations, section 2726. Because there was no evidence of a written employment contract, Schreiber's breach of contract action failed. With respect to the cause of action for sexual harassment, the court concluded that Schreiber "had not produced any facts concerning [Madrid's] conduct which represented any form of illegal harassment under California law." Regarding the second cause of action for violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (i), the court concluded that there was no evidence that Parkside was Schreiber's employer and, as for Madrid, that there was no violation of any "obligation to maintain a harassment-free workplace environment." Judgment was thereafter entered in the defendants' favor and against Schreiber. Schreiber did not appeal from that judgment.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|