Jones v. Clinton

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The plaintiff in this lawsuit, Paula Corbin Jones, seeks civil damages from William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, and Danny Ferguson, a former Arkansas State Police Officer, for alleged actions beginning with an incident in a hotel suite in Little Rock, Arkansas. This case was previously before the Supreme Court of the United States to resolve the issue of Presidential immunity but was remanded to this Court following the Supreme Court’s determination that there is no constitutional impediment to allowing plaintiffs case to proceed while the President is in office. See Clinton v. Jones, — U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997). Following remand, the President filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Ferguson joined in the President’s motion. By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 22, 1997, this Court granted in part and denied in part the President’s motion. See Jones v. Clinton, 974 F.Supp. 712 (E.D.Ark.1997). The Court dismissed plaintiffs defamation claim against the President, dismissed her due process claim for deprivation of a property interest in her State employment, and dismissed her due process claims for deprivation of a liberty interest based on false imprisonment and injury to reputation, but concluded that the remaining claims in plaintiffs complaint stated viable causes of action. See id. Plaintiff subsequently obtained new counsel and filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint, which the Court granted, albeit with several qualifications. See Order of November 24, 1997. 1 The matter is now before the Court on motion of both the President and Ferguson for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has responded in opposition to these motions, and the President and Ferguson have each filed a reply to plaintiffs response to their motions. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds that the President’s and Ferguson’s motions for summary judgment should both be and hereby are granted. 2

I.

This lawsuit is based on an incident that is said to have taken place on the afternoon of *663 May 8,1991, in a suite at the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas. President Clinton was Governor of the State of Arkansas at the time, and plaintiff was a State employee with the Arkansas Industrial Development Commission (“AIDC”), having begun her State employment on March 11, 1991. Ferguson was an Arkansas State Police officer assigned to the Governor’s security detail.

According to the record, then-Governor Clinton was at the Excelsior Hotel on the day in question delivering a speech at an official conference being sponsored by the AIDC. Am. Compl. ¶ 7. 3 Plaintiff states that she and another AIDC employee, Pamela Blackard, were working at a registration desk for the AIDC when a man approached the desk and informed her and Blackard that he was Trooper Danny Ferguson, the Governor’s bodyguard. Pl.’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶¶ 1-2. She states that Ferguson made small talk with her and Blackard and that they asked him if he had a gun as he was in street clothes and they “wanted to know.” PL’s Depo. at 101. Ferguson acknowledged that he did and, after being asked to show the gun to them, left the registration desk to return to the Governor. Id.; PL’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 2. The conversation between plaintiff, Blackard, and Ferguson lasted approximately five minutes and consisted of light, friendly banter; there was nothing intimidating, threatening, or coercive about it. PL’s Depo. at 226-27.

Upon leaving the registration desk, Ferguson apparently had a conversation with the Governor about the possibility of meeting with plaintiff, during which Ferguson states the Governor remarked that plaintiff had “that come-hither look,” ie. “a sort of [sexually] suggestive appearance from the look or dress.” Ferguson Depo. at 50; PL’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 3; President’s Depo. at 109. 4 He states that “some time later” the Governor asked him to “get him a room, that he was expecting a call from the White House and ... had several phone calls that he needed to make,” and asked him to go to the car and get his briefcase containing the phone messages. Ferguson Depo. at 50, 67. Ferguson states that upon obtaining the room, the Governor told him that if plaintiff wanted to meet him, she could “come up.” Id. at 50.

Plaintiff states that Ferguson later reappeared at the registration desk, delivered a piece of paper to her with a four-digit number written on it, and said that the Governor would like to meet with her in this suite number. PL’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 6. She states that she, Blackard, and Ferguson talked about what the Governor could want and that Ferguson stated, among other things, “We do this all the time.” Id. Thinking that it was an honor to be asked to meet the Governor and that it might lead to an enhanced employment opportunity, plaintiff states that she agreed to the meeting and that Ferguson escorted her to the floor of the hotel upon which the Governor’s suite was located. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11-13.

Plaintiff states that upon arriving at the suite and announcing herself, the Governor shook her hand, invited her in, and closed the door., PL’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶¶ 7-8. She states that a few minutes of small talk ensued, which included the Governor asking her about her job .and him mentioning that Dave Harrington, plaintiffs ultimate superior within the AIDC and a Clinton appointee, was his “good friend.” Id. ¶ 8; Am. Compl. *664 ¶ 17. Plaintiff states that the Governor then “unexpectedly reached over to [her], took her hand, and pulled her toward him, so that their bodies were close to each other.” Pl.’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 9. She states she removed her hand from his and retreated several feet, but that the Governor approached her again and, while saying, “I love the way your hair flows down your back” and “I love your curves,” put his hand on her leg, started sliding it toward her pelvic area, and bent down to attempt to Mss her on the neck, all without her consent. Id. ¶¶ 9-10; Pl.’s Depo. at 237-38. 5 Plaintiff states that she exclaimed, “What are you doing?,” told the Governor that she was “not that kind of girl,” and “escaped” from the Governor’s reach “by walMng away from him.” Pl.’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 11; PL’s Depo. at 237. She states she was extremely upset and confused and, not knowing what to do, attempted to distract the Governor by chatting about his wife. PL’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 11. Plaintiff states that she sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door, but that the Governor approached the sofa where she had talken a seat and, as he sat down, “lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (wMch was erect) and told [her] to ‘Mss it.’ ” Id. 6 She states that she was “horrified” by this and that she “jumped up from the couch” and told the Governor that she had to go, saying something to the effect that she had to get back to the registration desk. Id. ¶ 12. • Plaintiff states that the Governor, “while fondling his penis,” said, ‘Well, I don’t want to make you do anything you don’t want to do,” and then pulled up his pants and said, “If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I’ll take care of it.” Id. She states that as she left the room (the door of wMch was not locked), the Governor “detained” her momentarily, “looked sternly” at her, and said, “You are smart. Let’s keep this between ourselves.” Id.; PL’s Depo. at 94, 96-97. 7

Plaintiff states that the Governor’s advances to her were unwelcome, that she never said or did anything to suggest to the Governor that she was willing to have sex with him, and that during the time they were together in the hotel suite, she resisted his advances although she was “stunned by them and intimidated by who he was.” PL’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 14. She states that when tbe Governor referred to Dave Harrington, she “understood that he was telling her that he had control over Mr. Harrington and over her job, and that he was willing to use that power.” Id. ¶ 13. She states that from that point on, she was “very fearful” that her refusal to submit to the Governor’s advances could damage her career and even jeopardize her employment. Id.

Plaintiff states that when she left the hotel suite, she was in shock and upset but tried to maintain her composure. Id. ¶ 15. She states she saw Ferguson waiting outside the suite but that he did not escort her back to the registration desk and notMng was said between them. Id. Ferguson states that five or ten minutes after plaintiff exited the suite he joined the Governor for their return to the Governor’s Mansion and that the Governor, who was working on some papers that he had spread out on the desk, said, “She came up here, and nothing happened.” Id. ¶ 16; Ferguson Depo. at 63.

Plaintiff states she returned to the registration desk and told Blackard some of what had happened. Blackard Depo. at 68. Blackard states that plaintiff was shaking and embarrassed. Id. Following the Conference, plaintiff states she went to the workplace of a Mend, Debra Ballentine, and told her of the incident as well. PL’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 18. Ballentine states that *665 plaintiff was upset and crying. Ballentine Depo. at 48. Later that same day, plaintiff states she told her sister, Charlotte Corbin Brown, what had happened and, within the next two days, also told her other sister, Lydia Corbin Cathey, of the incident. Id. ¶ 20. Brown’s observations of plaintiffs demeanor apparently are not included in the record.' Cathey, however, states that plaintiff was “bawling” and “squalling,” and that she appeared scared, embarrassed, and ashamed. Cathey Depo. at 52.

Ballentine states that she encouraged plaintiff to report the incident to her boss or to the police, but that plaintiff declined, pointing out that her boss was friends with the Governor and that the police were the ones who took her to the hotel suite. Ballen-tine Depo. at 50. Ballentine further states that plaintiff stated she did not want her fiancé to know of the incident and that she “just want[ed] this thing to go away.” Id. Plaintiff states that what the Governor and Ferguson had said and done made her “afraid” to file charges. Pl.’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 19.

Plaintiff continued to work at AIDC following the alleged incident in the hotel suite. Id. ¶ 22. One of her duties was to deliver documents to and from the Office of the Governor, as well as other offices around the Arkansas State Capitol. Id. She states that in June 1991, while performing these duties for the AIDC, she encountered Ferguson who told her that Mrs. Clinton was out of town often and that the Governor wanted her phone number and wanted to see her. Id. Plaintiff states she refused to provide her phone number to Ferguson. Id. She states that Ferguson also asked her how her fiancé, Steve, was doing, even though she had never told Ferguson or the Governor his name, and that this “frightened” her. Id. ¶ 23. Plaintiff states that she again encountered Ferguson following her return to work from maternity leave and that he said he had “told Bill how good looking you are since you’ve had the baby.” Id. ¶ 25. She also states that she was “accosted” by the Governor in the Rotunda of the Arkansas State Capitol when he “draped his arm over her, pulled her close to him and held her tightly to his body,” and said to his bodyguard, “Don’t we make a beautiful couple: Beauty and the Beast?” Id. ¶ 24. Plaintiff additionally states that on an unspecified date, she was waiting in the Governor’s outer office on a delivery run when the Governor entered the office, patted her on the shoulder, and in a “friendly fashion” said, “How are you doing, Paula?” Pl.’s Depo. at 244-45.

Plaintiff states that she continued to work at AIDC “even though she was in constant fear that [the Governor] would retaliate against her because she had refused to have sex with him.” Id. ¶ 27. She states this fear prevented her from enjoying her job. Id. Plaintiff states that she was treated “very rudely” by certain superiors in AIDC, including her direct supervisor, Clydine Pennington, and that this “rude treatment” had not happened prior to her encounter with the Governor. Id. She states that after her maternity leave, she was transferred to a position which had much less responsibility and that much of the time she had nothing to do. Id. ¶ 28; Pl.’s Depo. at 53. Plaintiff states that she was not learning anything, that her work could not be fairly evaluated, and that as a result, she could not be fairly considered for advancement and other opportunities. Pl.’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶ 28. She states that Pennington told her the reason for the transfer was that her prior position had been eliminated, but that she later learned this was untrue, as her former position was being occupied by another employee. Id. Plaintiff states that she repeatedly expressed to Pennington an interest in transferring to particular positions at a higher “grade” which involved more challenging duties, more potential for advancement, and more compensation, but that Pennington always discouraged her from doing so and told her she should not bother to apply for those positions. Id. ¶29. She goes on to state that her superiors.exhibited hostility toward her by moving her work location, refusing to give her meaningful work, watching her constantly, and failing to give her flowers on Secretary’s Day in 1992, even though all the other women in the office received flowers. Id. ¶ 30.

*666 Plaintiff voluntarily terminated her employment with AIDC on February 20, 1993, in order to move to California with her husband, who had been transferred. Am. Compl. ¶ 40; PL’s Depo. at 48. She states that in January 1994, while visiting family and Mends in Arkansas, she was informed of an article in The American Spectator magazine that she claims referred to her alleged encounter with the Governor at the Excelsior Hotel and incorrectly suggested that she had engaged in sexual relations with the Governor. PL’s Statement of Mat. Facts, ¶33. Plaintiff states that she also encountered Ferguson in a restaurant during this same time and that he indicated he was the source for the article and that he knew she had refused the Governor’s alleged advances because, he said, “Clinton told me you wouldn’t do anything anyway, Paula.” Id. ¶ 35.

On February 11, 1994, at an event attended by the media, plaintiff states that she publicly asked President Clinton to acknowledge the incident mentioned in the article in The American Spectator, to state that she had rejected his advances, and to apologize to her, but that the President responded to her request for an apology by having his press spokespersons deliver a statement on his behalf that the incident never happened and that he never met plaintiff. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 47-48. Thereafter, on May 6, 1994, plaintiff filed this lawsuit.

Plaintiffs amended complaint contains several claims, three of which remain at issue. See Jones, 974 F.Supp. 712; Order of November 24, 1997. The first is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which plaintiff alleges that Governor Clinton, acting under color of state law, deprived her of her constitutional right to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution by sexually harassing her. The second is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) in which plaintiff alleges that Governor Clinton and Ferguson conspired to deprive her of her rights to equal protection of the laws and of equal privileges and immunities under the laws. The third is a state law claim in which plaintiff asserts a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrage against Governor Clinton, based primarily on the alleged incident at the hotel but also encompassing subsequent alleged acts.

II.

The President moves for summary judgment on the following grounds: (1) plaintiff eannot show either quid pro quo or hostile work environment sexual harassment under § 1983 because (a) the record plainly demonstrates that plaintiff did not suffer any tangible job detriment for purposes of establishing a quid pro quo claim, let alone one caused by her purported rejection of Mr. Clinton’s alleged sexual advances, and (b) the alleged actions as described by plaintiff, even resolving all inferences and factual disputes in her favor, do not constitute severe or pervasive abusive conduct for purposes of establishing a hostile work environment claim; (2) if plaintiffs § 1983 claim fails, so too does her § 1985 conspiracy claim because (a) plaintiff has failed to show that any such conspiracy actually resulted in a deprivation of her constitutional rights, and (b) the undisputed facts do not show any agreement between Governor Clinton and Trooper Ferguson to deprive plaintiff of her constitutional rights; and (3) plaintiffs claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrage fails because (a) by plaintiffs own testimony, the conduct at issue does not constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress or outrage under Arkansas law, and (b) plaintiff did not as a result of the alleged conduct suffer emotional distress so severe that no reasonable person could endure it. Ferguson, in turn, moves for summary judgment on grounds that (1) even if everything plaintiff has alleged were true, she does not have evidence to show either quid pro quo or hostile work environment sexual harassment, and (2) there was no conspiracy between the President and Ferguson to violate plaintiffs constitutional rights by sexually harassing her. The President and Ferguson both argue that there are no genuine issues of material fact with respect to any of these issues and that they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

*667 A.

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). As a prerequisite to summary judgment, a moving party must demonstrate “an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553-54, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party has properly supported its motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must “do more than simply show there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1355-56, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). The nonmoving party may not rest on mere allegations or denials of his pleading, but must “come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’.” Id. at 587,. 106 S.Ct. at 1356 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) and adding emphasis). See also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., 475 U.S. at 587,106 S.Ct. at 1356 (citations omitted). However, “[wjhere the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmov-ing party, there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).

B.

As a preliminary matter, the Court rejects plaintiffs contention that this case involves equal protection claims based not only on sexual harassment, but also on sexual assault and offensive conduct in violation of laws other than Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Pl.’s Opp’n to Def. Clinton’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 23. In its August 22 Memorandum Opinion and Order, this Court recognized that a sexual assault can be a constitutional violation under § 1983, but concluded that plaintiffs allegations, even if true, were insufficient to state such a claim. See Jones, 974 F.Supp. at 724-25 (citing Haberthur v. City of Raymore, Mo., 119 F.3d 720 (8th Cir.1997); Reeve v. Oliver, 41 F.3d 381 (8th Cir.1994) (per curiam)). Notwithstanding the unequivocal ruling of this Court, plaintiff, citing Fed.R.Evid. 413(d)(2), (3), and (5), 8 now contends that she has an actionable claim of criminal sexual assault based on the Governor’s alleged actions in the Excelsior Hotel and cites as authority for this proposition an Arkansas criminal statute proscribing sexual abuse in the first degree, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-108. 9 PL’s Opp’n to Def. Clinton’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 23-24.

The Court finds plaintiffs attempt to restate her sexual assault claim in the guise of an equal protection claim to be no more meritorious now than when it was raised in the context of a due process claim. Although the Governor’s alleged conduct, if true, may certainly be characterized as boorish and offensive, even a most charitable reading of the record in this case fails to reveal a basis for a claim of criminal sexual assault as there is no alleged conduct that could be characterized as “forcible compulsion” or “sexual contact” for purposes of establishing a claim under the provision cited by plaintiff. See Ark. Code'Ann. § 5-14-101(2), (8) (defining “forcible compulsion” as “physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical injury to or kidnapping of any person,” and defining “sexual contact” as “any act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, or buttocks, or anus of a person or the breast of a female”). 10 There being no ae- *668 tionable claim of criminal sexual assault under the facts of this case, the Court will proceed to a determination of the issues relevant to plaintiffs claim of sexual harassment.

1.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment confers a right to be free from gender discrimination that is not substantially related to important governmental objectives. Beardsley v. Webb, 30 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir.1994) (citing Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 234-35, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2271, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979)). Applying this precept, courts have found that intentional sexual harassment of employees by persons acting under color of state law violates the Fourteenth. Amendment and is actionable under § 1983. Id. (citing Pontarelli v. Stone, 930 F.2d 104, 113-14 (1st Cir.1991); Bohen v. City of East Chicago, 799 F.2d 1180, 1185 (7th Cir.1986)). See also Southard v. Texas Bd. of Criminal Justice, 114 F.3d 539, 550 (5th Cir.1997); Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1174 (10th Cir.1997); Kern v. City of Rochester, 93 F.3d 38, 43 (2nd Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 117 S.Ct. 1335, 137 L.Ed.2d 494 (1997). A plaintiff wishing to sustain an equal protection claim of sexual harassment under the Fourteenth Amendment must show both “sexual harassment” and an “intent” to harass based upon that plaintiffs membership in a particular class of citizens— i.e., male or female. Trautvetter v. Quick, 916 F.2d 1140, 1149-50 (7th Cir.1990). An individual plaintiff may pursue a sexual harassment claim under the Fourteenth Amendment based solely upon acts of harassment directed towards her, but such a claim must show an intent to harass because of her status as a female and not because of characteristics of her gender which are personal to her. Id. at 1151. See also Bohen, 799 F.2d at 1187; Stafford v. State of Missouri, 835 F.Supp. 1136, 1141 (W.D.Mo.1993).

Although the President contends that plaintiff cannot establish that he acted under color of state law with the intent to discriminate against her on the basis of her gender, he states that he reserves those issues for trial, if necessary, and seeks summary judgment solely on the grounds of plaintiffs failure to prove that she was subjected to conduct that corresponds to sexual harassment under Title VII. Before discussing that issue, however, the Court must address plaintiffs argument that the essential elements of a sexual harassment claim under § 1983 do not correspond to those under Title VII- (although she acknowledges there is some overlap) and that her burden of proof is something less than that required under Title VII. The Court rejects this argument.

Throughout the pendency of this lawsuit, this Court and the parties have been operating under the assumption, based on the clear weight of authority, that a § 1983 sexual harassment claim should be analyzed under the standards developed in similar Title VII litigation. See, e.g., Trautvetter, 916 F.2d at 1149 (noting that a claim of sexual harassment under § 1983 must generally satisfy the contours of a sexual harassment claim under Title VII); Southard, 114 F.3d 539 (applying Title VII standards to a § 1983 claim); Cross v. State of Alabama, 49 F.3d 1490, 1508 (11th Cir.1995) (noting that when § 1983 is used as a parallel remedy for violations of Title VII, the elements of the two causes of action are the same); Beardsley, 30 F.3d at 529 (noting that courts may apply the standards developed in Title VII litigation to similar litigation under § 1983); Boutros v. Canton Reg’l Transit Auth., 997 F.2d 198, 202 (6th Cir.1993) (noting that § 1983 and Title VII are largely parallel remedies in employment discrimination suits and applying the same elements of prima facie proof for racially hostile work environment to both Title VII and § 1983 claim). Indeed, in her memorandum in opposition to the President’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (filed July 29,1997), plaintiff stated that “[a] sexual harassment claim brought pursuant to § 1983 is similar to a Title VII sexual harassment claim” and cited King v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sy., 898 F.2d *669 583, 537 (7th Cir.1990), for the proposition that a § 1983 sexual harassment claim generally follows the contours of a Title VII claim. See PI. Opp’n to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 8. In this regard, plaintiff recognized that courts have separated sexual harassment claims into two categories — quid pro quo cases and hostile work environment cases— and represented to this Court that her allegations, as analyzed under Title VII, were sufficient to state claims under both categories. Specifically, plaintiff stated with respect to her quid pro quo claim that sexual harassment occurs when, among other things, “rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions,” citing as support for this claim Title VII eases and guidelines promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), see PI. Opp’n to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 26, and stated with respect to her hostile environment claim, again citing Title VII cases and EEOC guidelines, that “[ujnder section 1983, as under Title VII, it is unlawful to create a sexually hostile or abusive work environment,” see id. at 18. Several of this Court’s discovery rulings in favor of plaintiff were premised on this Court’s understanding and plaintiffs representations (in her complaint and elsewhere) that she was asserting workplace harassment as understood in reference to Title VII standards, ie., that she suffered tangible job detriments for her refusal to submit to Governor Clinton’s alleged advances. Based on plaintiffs prior representations and the clear weight of authority, the Court will look to Title VII in addressing plaintiffs quid pro quo and hostile work environment sexual harassment claims. 11

a.

To make a prima facie ease of quid pro quo sexual harassment, this plaintiff must show, among other things, that her refusal to submit to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors resulted in a tangible job detriment. Cram v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 49 F.3d 466, 473 (8th Cir.1995) (citing Kauffman v. Allied Signal, Inc., 970 F.2d 178, 186 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1041, 113 S.Ct. 831, 121 L.Ed.2d 701 (1992)). See also Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331, 339 (5th Cir.1998) (noting that to withstand summary judgment on quid pro quo claims, plaintiffs were required to produce evidence showing that the harassment complained of affected tangible aspects óf their compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment). “[A] supervisor’s mere threat or promise of job-related harm or benefits in exchange for sexual favors does not constitute quid pro quo harassment____” Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1396 (D.C.Cir.1995).

i.

Apparently recognizing the infirm ground upon which her assertions of tangible job detriments rest (which will be discussed infra), plaintiff first argues that a showing of a tangible job detriment is not an essential element of an action for quid pro quo sexual harassment under Title VII. 12 The Court rejects this argument as it conflicts with the Eighth Circuit’s requirement that a refusal to submit to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors resulted in a tangi *670 ble job detriment, see Cram, 49 F.3d at 473, and conflicts with the majority of the other circuits on this point as well, including the recent decisions cited previously from the Fifth Circuit in Sanders, 134 F.3d 331, and the District of Columbia Circuit in Gary, 59 F.3d 1391. See also Chamberlin v. 101 Realty, Inc., 915 F.2d 777, 783 (1st Cir.1990) (concluding that it is the essence of quid pro quo harassment when an employee is subjected to unwelcome sexual advances by a supervisor and her reaction to these advances affects tangible aspects of her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment); Spencer v. General Elec. Co., 894 F.2d 651, 659 (4th Cir.1990) (quid pro quo claim requires that the employee’s reaction to the harassment affected tangible aspects of the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment); Carrero v. New York City Housing Auth., 890 F.2d 569, 579 (2nd Cir.1989) (noting that the gravamen of a quid pro quo claim is that a tangible job benefit or privilege is conditioned on an employee’s submission to sexual blackmail and that adverse consequences follow fi-om the employee’s refusal); Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 833 F.2d 1406, 1414 (10th Cir.1987) (quid pro quo sexual harassment exists when adverse job consequences result from employee’s refusal to submit to sexual advances); Sparks v. Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc., 830 F.2d 1554, 1564 (11th Cir.1987) (quid pro quo claim requires that the employee’s reaction to the harassment affected tangible aspects of the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment); Highlander v. K.F.C. Nat'l Management Co., 805 F.2d 644, 649 (6th Cir.1986) (no cause of action for quid pro quo sexual harassment where “the record [is] totally devoid of any evidence tending to demonstrate that plaintiff was denied a job benefit or suffered a job detriment as a result of her failure to engage in the activity suggested by [defendant]”).

Even without benefit of the settled authority requiring a showing of a tangible job detriment in quid pro quo cases, the three cases upon which plaintiff relies in support of her argument, Nichols v. Frank, 42 F.3d 503 (9th Cir.1994), Karibian v. Columbia Univ., 14 F.3d 773 (2nd Cir.1994), and Jansen v. Packaging Corp. of America, 123 F.3d 490 (7th Cir.1997) (en banc) (plurality), cert. granted sub nom. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 876, 139 L.Ed.2d 865 (1998), do not obviate the need for a showing of a tangible job detriment under the facts of this case. First, Nichols and Karibian were “submission” cases in which the victims of sexual harassment süb-mitted to the unwelcome sexual advances. Plaintiff, by contrast, alleges that she resisted Governor Clinton’s alleged advances and thereby suffered reprisals in her workplace. The court in Karibian recognized the distinction between so-called “submission” and “refusal” cases, noting that “[i]n the nature of things, evidence of economic harm will not be available to support the claim of the employee who submits to the supervisor’s demands.” 14 F.3d at 778. Both Nichols and Karibian were addressing the narrow situations before them in which the victim submitted to the demands for sexual favors and do not stand for the proposition that a showing of a tangible job detriment is unnecessary in a quid pro quo sexual harassment case where, as here, it is claimed that the alleged advances were resisted.

While it is true that the Seventh Circuit in Jansen concluded that a “clear and unambiguous” quid pro quo threat that “clearly conditions concrete job benefits or detriments on compliance with sexual demands” can constitute an actionable claim “even if the threat remains unfulfilled,” 123 F.3d at 499, plaintiff acknowledges that no one, including Governor Clinton, ever told her that if she refused to submit to his alleged advances it would have a negative effect on her job, that she had to submit to his alleged advances in order to receive job benefits, or that the Governor would use his relationship with AIDC Director Dave Harrington to penalize her in her job. Pl.’s Depo. at 74-75. She merely states that “reading] between the lines,” she “knew what [the Governor] meant” when he alle