## Facts

- Patricia Saucier, an adult with significant intellectual disability, worked at a McDonald’s restaurant; her aunt, Mary Mallory, served as limited guardian for litigation.
- Saucier’s impairments included extremely low intellectual functioning, early-adolescent reasoning ability, and professional findings that she was vulnerable to exploitation and had minimal ability to understand consequences of sexual relationships.
- Alex Keeton, Saucier’s supervisor, allegedly began a sexual relationship with her while aware of her disability.
- Evidence indicated Keeton adjusted Saucier’s work schedule to facilitate sexual encounters, expressed romantic promises, then ended the relationship and reduced or stopped scheduling her for work.
- Saucier later disclosed the relationship to family; litigation followed.

## Issues

1. Whether Saucier’s tort claims (including battery) were barred as a matter of law at summary judgment because she had capacity to consent to sexual contact with her supervisor.
2. Whether the employer established, as a matter of law, an affirmative defense to the discrimination/harassment claims based on reasonable prevention and correction measures and Saucier’s failure to use complaint procedures.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- It reversed summary judgment on the tort claims, holding genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding Saucier’s capacity to give legally effective consent.
- It reversed summary judgment for the McDonald’s entities on the discrimination claims, holding factual disputes prevented the employer from proving its affirmative defense as a matter of law.
- It left in place portions of the district court’s rulings not necessary to reinstate the principal tort and discrimination claims.

## Legal Principles

- Capacity to consent to sexual contact is a fact-intensive question; when the record contains conflicting evidence and expert opinions, it generally cannot be resolved on summary judgment.
- Evidence that a cognitively impaired adult has basic sexual knowledge, uses birth control, or has prior sexual experience does not, by itself, establish legal capacity to consent in a workplace supervisor–subordinate relationship.
- An employer seeking summary judgment on an affirmative defense to harassment/discrimination must show undisputed facts establishing reasonable preventive and corrective measures and that the employee unreasonably failed to use them; disputes about notice, communication of policies (including to a disabled employee), supervision, and remedial response defeat judgment as a matter of law.
- Summary judgment is improper where reasonable factfinders could draw competing inferences on material questions such as consent capacity and reasonableness of employer conduct.

## Conclusion

The Montana Supreme Court held that contested facts about a cognitively impaired employee’s ability to consent to a supervisor’s sexual conduct, and about the employer’s prevention and response measures, required reversal of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings on key tort and discrimination claims.


Saucier ex rel. Mallory v. McDonald’s Rests. of Mont., Inc., 179 P.3d 481 (Mont. 2008)