Opinion ID: 2628052
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Board's Findings Are Supported by Substantial Evidence.

Text: Jurgens argues that the board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. He specifically argues that the totality of the circumstances do not clearly establish that Jurgens's conduct was unwelcome and offensive to Streeter or that Jurgens's conduct affected Streeter's work performance. [20] Under the North Pole Municipal Code, sexual harassment is defined both by the actual conduct and that conduct's effect: [U]nwelcome sexual advances; requests for sexual favors; sexual demands; or other verbal, physical or visual conduct of a sexual nature will constitute sexual harassment when: . . . . The conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an affected person's work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.[ [21] ] The board found that Jurgens engaged in conduct clearly amounting to sexual harassment and found that such conduct affected the complainant's work performance and created an intimidating, hostile and offensive work environment. The evidence presented to the board supports a finding that Jurgens's conduct was unwelcome and offensive to Streeter. [22] For example, Jurgens admitted that, while at work, he held a plastic pacifier shaped like a penis near Streeter's face and took a photograph. Streeter testified about how this incident made her feel: Initially, shocked. Kind of put in my place and belittled as being a female with other men in the room. I didn't want to react so that, you know, they couldn't make fun of that. However, you know, it made you feel like, you know, you were like this big. Streeter testified that Jurgens refused to give her the disk with the photograph on it and discussed putting the photograph on the department website or emailing it to her husband. She testified that she felt cornered and that she didn't find it . . . very funny. Streeter testified that when Jurgens was off-duty and intoxicated, he called Streeter at work and made remarks about her body. She testified that Jurgens compared her breasts with those of another dispatcher. Another officer at the department overheard Jurgens make this comment to Streeter, and Jurgens did not deny making this remark. Jurgens testified that he could not remember the incident but admitted he might have made such a statement while intoxicated. Streeter also testified that during the same telephone conversation, Jurgens asked her to come over to his house and told her in graphic terms that he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. [23] Streeter explained that she tried to get off the phone with Jurgens: I was trying to be passive without upsetting him, because when he does come back to work I have to work with him, but I was telling him that, Mark, you know, you've got to go to sleep, you've got to get up in the morning, you know, I've got to go, I've got to get off the phone. You know, Mark, you've been drinking, you really just need to sleep this off. Streeter testified that this telephone conversation and other incidents made her feel [v]ery uncomfortable at work, not wanting to come into work not wanting to make [Jurgens] mad, [and] not actually safe. Streeter and other dispatchers submitted written statements recounting how Jurgens had on numerous occasions tried to throw small objects down their shirts. Streeter also stated in her written statement, and Jurgens admitted, that Jurgens had wiped his hand on the nozzle of a pepper spray bottle and then wiped his finger on either side of her neck. And Streeter testified that on one occasion, Jurgens raised his hand at her and told her to shut the f____ up. Terry Nelson, another police department dispatcher, testified that while she was working, Jurgens called her and told her that he was lying in bed thinking about her. Nelson testified that she was shocked by that statement. When specifically asked if he denied making this statement, Jurgens responded that he did not dispute making the statement. This evidence is substantial and it supports a finding that Streeter and other dispatchers found Jurgens's conduct unwelcome and offensive and that their perspective was reasonable. Although Jurgens argues that we should consider evidence that suggests Streeter flirted with Jurgens and engaged in sexualized behavior at the office, our task on appellate review does not include weighing evidence, determining witness credibility, or evaluating competing inferences from testimony because those functions are reserved to the [b]oard. [24] As we explained in Lindhag v. State, Department of Natural Resources, even when conflicting evidence exists, we uphold the [b]oard's decision if substantial evidence supports it. [25] Given Streeter's testimony that she felt belittled, uncomfortable, and unsafe, and given the evidence of Jurgens's sexual advances and other conduct of a sexual nature, the board did not err when it found that Jurgens's conduct was unwelcome and that it amounted to hostile work environment sexual harassment. We also reject Jurgens's more general argument that the board applied the municipal code as a general civility code. Jurgens suggests that his conduct was just [s]imple teasing, off-hand comments, and isolated incidents. But Jurgens admitted that two of the individual incidents occurred: he admitted that he shoved the penis pacifier in Streeter's face and photographed it and that he wiped his finger on the pepper spray bottle and then on Streeter's neck. And Jurgens did not deny that he told dispatcher Nelson that he was in bed thinking about her or that he compared Streeter's breasts to another dispatcher's. The uncontroverted evidence alone therefore supports a finding that Jurgens's conduct went beyond simple teasing; it was serious, pervasive, and unwelcome. The evidence also supports the board's finding that Jurgens's conduct affected the complainant's work performance. Streeter testified that Jurgens's conduct made her feel [v]ery uncomfortable at work, not wanting to come into work, not wanting to make [Jurgens] mad, [and] not actually safe. Streeter testified that her safety net had been taken away, that she could not count on Jurgens as a team member, and that Jurgens intimidated her. Streeter testified that she was scared to come forward with allegations against Jurgens because she was afraid he would retaliate against her and make her job more difficult. Others in the department also testified that they feared retaliation from Jurgens. Given Streeter's testimony that she felt unsafe and uncomfortable at work and that she did not want to go to work, the board did not clearly err when it found that Jurgens's conduct affected Streeter's work performance.