Opinion ID: 900344
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Record Applied to the Standard

Text: [¶ 25.] Division on the first remand concluded that even under the probable cause standard as defined by the circuit court, no probable cause existed to support Erdahl's claim. Whether Division correctly applied the facts to the law is a mixed question of law and fact, and as such is fully reviewable. [M]ixed questions of law and fact are questions in which the historical facts are admitted or established, the rule of law is undisputed, and the issue is whether the facts satisfy the statutory standard, or to put it another way, whether the rule of law as applied to the established facts is or is not violated. Permann, 411 N.W.2d at 118 (quoting Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 289 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1790 n. 19, 72 L.Ed.2d 66, 80 n. 19 (1982)). [¶ 26.] If the question requires the court to consider legal concepts in the mix of fact and law and to exercise judgment about the values that animate legal principles, then the concerns of judicial administration will favor the appellate court, and the question should be classified as one of law and reviewed de novo. Id. at 119 (quoting United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1202 (9thCir.1984)). See also Huck, supra . [¶ 27.] Division cited the following established facts in its investigative findings to support its conclusions that Groff's conduct was welcomed and did not constitute quid pro quo. 1. Erdahl sent Groff roses on 1/25/94. 2. Erdahl's former boyfriend testified that Erdahl dated Groff. 3. Erdahl sent Groff a birthday card. 4. Erdahl and Groff engaged in a romantic sexual relationship. 5. Eighteen different witnesses were aware that Groff and Erdahl were dating, and had some type of personal relationship. 6. Erdahl's own witness testified that Erdahl said she was not having sex with him often enough. 7. Erdahl invited Groff to her parent's home. 8. Erdahl visited Groff at his house all while she allegedly was offended or did not welcome his attention. 9. Most employees (or former employees) interviewed or questioned indicated that Erdahl had plenty of work to do after their relationship terminated. 10. Erdahl's job description, duties and pay did not change after the relationship ended. [¶ 28.] The circuit court on the second appeal pointed out established or uncontroverted facts on the record which supported Erdahl's claim: 1. Testimony of N.A., a friend of Erdahl's: When N.A. suggested to Groff that Erdahl be hired, Groff said, How could I not, with legs like that? and afterward continued to comment on Erdahl's legs. 2. On one occasion, Erdahl tried to break off the relationship; it lasted five days and it was pure hell at work. 3. Groff ignored Erdahl and moved her desk after Erdahl terminated the sexual relationship. Groff told her Why should I share the intensity of my work when I get nothing in return? 4. Testimony of S.P., a former legal secretary: Groff hired women because of their looks. Good looking women in the office received preferential treatment. Groff used power to control people. 5. Testimony of J.R., Erdahl's former boyfriend: In January or February, 1994, Erdahl complained that Groff was controlling her life. If Erdahl did not go out with Groff or do what he wanted, he would be tough on her at work, and would treat her badly by not giving her work to do and by not speaking to her. 6. Testimony of L.M., former legal secretary: Groff excluded Erdahl from other attorneys. In late January, Erdahl spoke of trying to get away from Groff. After this, Groff did not give her any work and told other attorneys not to give her work either. 7. Testimony of G.B., Deputy State's Attorney: Groff was unhappy about the breakup with Erdahl. He suspected that the moving of Erdahl's desk may have been connected to the breakup. Near this time, the type of work she was doing changed. She also discontinued working for Groff. 8. Testimony of J.H., legal secretary: Contemporaneously with the events in question, Erdahl only got the good jobs when she slept with Groff. Erdahl related that Groff was going to Dallas [on the same airplane as Erdahl] and she did not appear happy about this. After Groff and Erdahl broke up, Erdahl was pulled off the high profile cases. 9. Testimony of S.R., Deputy State's Attorney: In April of 1994, Erdahl commented she did not want to see Groff any more, and that she wanted a professional relationship. Erdahl was very nervous and tense about her job. She seemed to be apprehensive about how not seeing Groff any longer would affect her job and their working relationship. After the breakup, Erdahl's desk was moved, and she was taken off the high profile cases. 10. Testimony of S.T., former legal secretary: After the relationship between Groff and Erdahl ended, Groff's behavior towards her changed. He avoided Erdahl and would not speak to her. She was taken off his cases. [¶ 29.] Groff argues the facts as found by the Division investigator should not be set aside unless found to be clearly erroneous. See, e.g., Lien v. Miracle Span Corp., 456 N.W.2d 563 (S.D.1990); Bonnett v. Custer Lumber Corp., 528 N.W.2d 393 (S.D. 1995). Whether the activities complained of were unwelcome is ordinarily a question of fact. Moylan v. Maries County, 792 F.2d 746 (8thCir.1986); Meritor Savings Bank, 477 U.S. 57, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49. [¶ 30.] We agree with Groff's general proposition that findings of fact should not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. However, we are not reviewing whether the record supports the findings of historical fact which were made; Division incorporated the testimony of all witnesses in its determination of no probable cause as findings of fact. We are instead determining whether the uncontroverted facts or the facts as established satisfy the legal standard of proof, which is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewable de novo.