## Facts

- Dujuana Socks-Brunot sued her employer, Hirschvogel Incorporated, alleging a sexually hostile work environment created by the company comptroller, Charles Bentz.
- She alleged repeated explicit sexual comments and propositions by Bentz, including remarks about her body, sexually explicit questions, requests that she sit on his lap, and pressure to admit she wanted sex.
- Another employee allegedly experienced similar conduct; both employees complained to the company president.
- The company implemented a sexual-harassment program but designated Bentz as the contact person for complaints.
- Hirschvogel contended the plaintiff participated in sexual banter and that some offensive remarks followed her own crude and explicit comments.
- Hirschvogel sought to introduce evidence about the plaintiff’s past sexual relationships and alleged off-duty sexual conduct, including a prior consensual relationship with a supervisor at another workplace, to argue the conduct was not unwelcome and to contest damages.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting evidence of the plaintiff’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition without complying with Federal Rule of Evidence 412, and the manner in which it was used at trial, was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
2. How Federal Rule of Evidence 412 applies in a civil hostile-environment sexual-harassment case when the defendant offers sexual-history evidence to argue the alleged conduct was “not unwelcome,” and how Rule 412 interacts with Rule 403.

## Decision

- The court granted the plaintiff’s Rule 59 motion and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that evidence within Rule 412’s scope was improperly admitted and handled in a way that deprived the plaintiff of a fair trial.
- The prior defense verdict was set aside and the matter was reset for trial.

## Legal Principles

- In civil cases involving alleged sexual misconduct, evidence of a person’s sexual behavior or sexual predisposition is presumptively inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 412.
- Rule 412 applies even when such evidence is offered for a purportedly non-propensity purpose, including to dispute “unwelcomeness” in a sexual-harassment case.
- Evidence governed by Rule 412 cannot be treated as ordinary relevance/prejudice evidence under Rule 403; Rule 412 imposes a heightened admissibility standard and requires careful balancing of probative value against harm and unfair prejudice.
- Rule 412 requires specified procedures, including a motion and an in camera hearing, before such evidence may be admitted; failure to follow these procedures weighs against admissibility and may support post-trial relief.
- A new trial may be warranted under Rule 59 when erroneous admission and use of Rule 412-type evidence likely affected the verdict by diverting the jury from the harassment question to judgments about the plaintiff’s character.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because sexual-history evidence covered by Rule 412 was admitted without proper screening and in a manner that risked shifting the jury’s focus from workplace harassment to moral judgments about the plaintiff, undermining the fairness of the defense verdict.


Socks-Brunot v. Hirschvogel Inc., 184 F.R.D. 113 (S.D. Ohio 1999)