A self-proclaimed “dirty old man” did not create hostile work environment. Not even in California.

An employee claiming that she endured sexual harassment must present evidence of “severe or pervasive” conduct based on her sex that was bad enough to interfere with her working conditions or create an intimidating workplace.

When a plaintiff initially presents these claims in court an initial filing, she does not have to detail every sordid fact and incident. Indeed, a short, plain statement of the facts — enough to place the defendant on notice of the claims against it will suffice.

At the same time, those initial claims of sexual harassment must be plausible — even in California, the most employee-friendly state in the country.

I’ll give you an example.

I read a decision involving a woman known as “Jane Doe,” who claimed that the president of one of the business units sexually harassed her. Her supporting allegations included:

• The president asked the plaintiff to work for him so they could “travel together.”
• The president invited the plaintiff to dinner, which she alleged he “treated as a date,” was “overly friendly,” “tried to get close to her,” and “woo” her.
• At some point, the president “made comments about how his daughters dressed, their age, and stated that when he is out with his daughters he gets dressed up, and people think ‘he is a dirty old man’ because it appears he is out on a date with them.”

If we accept all of this as true, is it plausible that the president’s behavior was egregious enough to alter the conditions of the underlying professional relationship or create an intimidating workplace?

No, concluded the court.

While cognizant of the liberal pleading standards, the Court nonetheless finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege conduct by [the president] or anyone else that support severity or pervasiveness. Plaintiff has given little, if any substance, to these allegations. For example, Plaintiff does not explain the details surrounding [the president’s] alleged request to Plaintiff to work for him without a business reason. Additionally, the Court is given no facts to understand what Plaintiff meant when she alleges that he attempted to “woo” her or was “overly friendly” toward her. The terms “woo” and “overly friendly” in this context are vague and give no substance to what actually happened at that dinner. Finally, while Plaintiff gives some detail regarding [his] “dirty old man” …, the allegation lacks any connection between[the president] and Plaintiff beyond the fact that the two were sitting together when [he] told Plaintiff this anecdote.

The plaintiff labeled the president’s behavior as sexual harassment. However, conclusions of law, without enough facts to make those claims plausible, result in one thing: dismissal of the sexual harassment lawsuit.

Even in California.