Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00618/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-00618-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Equal Employment O p p ort unit y

Commission, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

GLC Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a McDonald's

Restaurant, an Arizona corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV05-618 PCT-DGC

ORDER

On November 16, 2005, the Court held a discovery conference call with the parties.

The call concerned two general lines of questioning during the deposition of Plaint iff

Jessica Tubandt. 

The first line of questioning concerned the Plaintiff’s past sexual activities. The

Court concluded that such questions are, at most, only marginally relevant to issues in this

case, and that the potential for harassment and annoyance is high. As a result, the Court

concluded that good cause exists for a protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and held that such questions may not be asked. Other courts

have reached the same conclusion. See Priest v. Rotary, 98 F.R.D. 755, 761 (N.D. Cal. 1983).

The second line of questioning concerned conversations Plaintiff may have had in

the workplace concerning sexual matters. The parties confirmed during the conference call

that this case includes allegations of sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work

Case 3:05-cv-00618-DGC Document 50 Filed 11/17/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

environment based in part on comments made in the workplace. To establish these claims,

Plaintiffs will be required to demonst rate, among other things, that sexual comments in the

workplace were unwelcome and were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the

conditions of employment. See Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 12.2A. Plaintiffs

will also be required to show t hat a reasonable person in the Plaintiffs’ circumstances

would consider the work environment to be abusive or hostile. Id. Given these allegations,

the Court concludes that workplace conversations engaged in by Plaintiffs are relevant for

p urp oses of discovery. The Court accordingly held that Defendant may inquire into sexual

conversations Plaintiffs heard or participated in at the workp lace, even if such

conversations might in some degree reveal Plaintiffs’ past sexual activities. 

DATED this 17th day of November, 2005.

Case 3:05-cv-00618-DGC Document 50 Filed 11/17/05 Page 2 of 2