## Facts

- Jane Corne and Geneva DeVane worked in clerical jobs at Bausch & Lomb’s Tucson facility.
- Leon Price, a supervisory employee, oversaw plaintiffs’ work.
- Plaintiffs alleged Price repeatedly made verbal and physical sexual advances toward them.
- Plaintiffs alleged Price’s conduct was directed at them and other female employees and functioned as a condition of employment.
- Plaintiffs alleged women who cooperated with Price received favored employment treatment.
- Plaintiffs alleged the conduct became so severe they were forced to resign.
- Plaintiffs filed EEOC charges on October 12, 1973, received right-to-sue notices on June 6, 1974, and sued under Title VII § 706(f).
- Defendants moved to dismiss; issues included state deferral/exhaustion and timeliness, as well as whether the allegations stated a Title VII sex-discrimination claim.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII required prior resort to Arizona state procedures (and whether plaintiffs failed to satisfy deferral/exhaustion requirements).
2. Whether plaintiffs failed to timely file charges with the Arizona Civil Rights Division.
3. Whether allegations of supervisory sexual advances, sexual favoritism, and resignation state a claim of discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII.

## Decision

- The court granted the motions to dismiss.
- The court dismissed the Title VII complaint at the pleading stage for failure to state a claim.
- The court held the alleged sexual advances and related favoritism were not actionable sex discrimination by the employer under Title VII.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII was construed to reach discriminatory employment practices attributable to the employer, not all workplace misconduct.
- A supervisor’s sexual advances were treated as “personal proclivity, peculiarity or mannerism,” not an employer practice of classifying or treating employees differently because of sex.
- To state a Title VII sex-discrimination claim under the court’s approach, the challenged conduct had to reflect employer-level discrimination against a sex as a class, not isolated sexual conduct aimed at particular employees.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the action, concluding that alleged quid pro quo sexual advances and favoritism by a supervisor reflected personal misconduct rather than employer discrimination “because of sex” within Title VII, and therefore failed to state a claim for relief.


Corne v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 390 F. Supp. 161 (D. Ariz. 1975)