Court Opinion

ID: 9778470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:06:08.769142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:09.452940
License: Public Domain

PRICE, J.,
delivered a concurring opinion.
I join the opinion of the majority and write separately in response to the conflicting views of what culpable mental state is required regarding the “unwelcomeness” of the conduct. Ante at 685 n. 7; post at 692 (Womack, J., concurring).
I disagree with the majority’s assertion that the incident which incited this legislation appears unlikely, to fall within the definition of sexual harassment that requires the actor to intend the unwelcomeness of the conduct. As the majority explains, that case involved a judge telling a woman he would take care of her ticket in exchange for oral sex. When asked by the woman if she could do anything else, such as maintenance work around the courthouse, the judge responded “No, I have something else in mind for you.” This colloquy could easily be interpreted as a sexual predator continuing his unwelcome advances, not only knowing they were unwelcome, but intending them to be unwelcome as a further display of his power and authority over the woman. Thus, I believe the case which incited this legislation, as well as the instant case, could be considered sexual harassment under either the majority’s interpretation or Judge Wom-ack’s concurring opinion.
With these comments, I join the opinion of the Court.