Styles v Clayton Utz ... Two judgments dealing with pleadings in the sex discrimination case against the large law shop ... Taunting photos ... Unfunny parodies ... Sexual tension ... Metro manwhoreishness
The Izzo photos, which are a key component of the sexual harassment case brought by Bridgette Styles against Clayton Utz, have been on display in NSW Supremes.
Clutz's objections to the latest round of Styles' proposed amended pleadings proved successful.
Two photos are in contention - a montage of pix of Luis Izzo with post-it note bubbles or captions and a separate framed photo of him.
Both were placed close to Styles' office at Clutz and she says they made her the subject of sexual jokes.
At the time both Styles and Izzo were employees of Clayton Utz in the workplace relations group.
Styles submission was that the photos were sexualised in themselves and the sexual harassment did not depend on the context in which they were displayed.
However, it was conceded that there were no particulars in the pleadings to sustain that position.
The plaintiff submitted that she took objection to the sexualised nature of photos of Izzo at the time she saw them, and not merely in hindsight.
Styles contends that rumours abounded while she was employed at Clayton Utz as to whether she was sexually involved with Izzo.
She alleges that people asked her directly whether that was the case, after she had engaged in a single "one-night stand" with him.
Izzo & Styles
The montage and the framed photo were discussed in detail in the redacted reasons of Justice Lucy McCallum dealing with the pleadings, dated September 5.
That judgment has only just been published following submissions as to which parts should be removed to avoid prejudicing a February jury trial of Styles' defamation proceedings against Clayton Utz and Izzo.
The montage itself is not in evidence, only a poor quality photo of it. Apparently the item "had not been retained" by Clayton Utz.
In this most recent round on the pleadings Styles wanted to insert new paragraphs into the amended statement of claim:
"25A The montage appeared to the plaintiff to be a joke lampooning Izzo's reputation within the Sydney office as a man who had slept with a number of colleagues.
Particulars
The plaintiff drew this conclusion based on her observations that:
(i) Izzo's reputation, as a Casanova, was based on his conduct in boasting about having slept with colleagues including her:
(ii) the montage was located outside her office:
(iii) the montage contained no apparent reference to Izzo's work as a solicitor;
(iv) the montage contained, instead, a text bubble stating: '[We're] pretty sure there's a lot more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking [Luis]. We hope you plan on figuring out what that is'; and
(v) the montage contained a photograph of Izzo making what the plaintiff understood to be a sexualised hand gesture:
Particulars
The hand gesture is formed by extending the index and little fingers while holding the middle and ring fingers down with the thumb."
Izzo montageMcCallum concluded that those matters are not capable of sustaining the allegation that the montage is in itself conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the plaintiff.
"I do not see anything in [the montage] that is objectively capable of meeting the description contended for by the plaintiff."
In relation to the framed photo of Izzo, the plaintiff sought to add that it ...
"was perceived by the plaintiff to be a joke of a sexual nature, implying she was 'in love' with Izzo, because people generally only keep, in expensive looking photograph frames in their offices, flattering portraits of adults whom they 'love', namely their romantic partners or spouses."
This suffered from the same difficulties as the montage. The judge said:
"In my view the contention that the display of an anodyne photograph is capable of taking on a sexual character (as so to amount in itself to conduct of a sexual nature) on the ground of the perception pleaded is objectively unsustainable."
Styles also sought an order in the following terms:
(g) [the framed photograph] was recognized by the plaintiff to be a substantially enlarged A4 copy of Izzo's 'Clayton Utz intranet photograph', which fact reinforced her perception it was a sexualised joke, given that said intranet photograph was the subject of an email (the 'Manwhore Email') which, to the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time:
(a) had been sent by members of the workplace relations group from Izzo's email address:
(b) to a significant number of other employees:
(c) as a parody of Izzo's sexual desirability, in that the plaintiff was aware it contained words to like effect of those that it does contain, namely:
a. I have an intranet photograph to die for;
b. I am THE Italian Stallion:
c. I have the best hair in all of Sydney;
d. If I see you in the lift, I'll grace you with a head nod... But please don't come up to me at work drinks - I'll just pretend I don't know you;
e. In metro-manwhoreness, Luis 'Greasy' Izzo, Solicitor/ Workplace Relations/Clayton Utz.
The framed pic of IzzoJustice McCallum observed:
"The proposition that a standard head and shoulders shot of a man in a suit, whether or not placed in an extensive looking frame, could have sexual connotations or be understood to be a sexualised joke, is in my view untenable."
Finally, the plaintiff wanted a further amendment, claiming that the law firm detrimentally failed to "properly investigate the montage and framed photograph".
The judge found that, "the logical difficulty with the plaintiff's claim ... is that the gist of the complaint accuses the defendants, as it appears, of failing to investigate something that was never brought to their attention".
That disposed of Styles' most recent notice of motion.
It's all available here.
And the redacted September 5 judgment is here.