A Philadelphia Story

The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed a Family Court decision granting a protection order to one law firm attorney and denying the counter order sought by her abuser

The Court previously assigned pseudonyms to the parties under Supreme Court Rule 7(d).

Facts

Ms. Gibson’s petition alleged that Ms. Gibson and Mr. Larson had a consensual sexual relationship while working together at a Wilmington law firm (the “Firm”). According to the petition, over the course of a few months in the fall of 2022, Mr. Larson wanted to “escalate” the relationship and Ms. Gibson wanted to back away from the relationship. Mr. Larson became increasingly angry and retaliated against Ms. Gibson at work or threatened to do so.

Ms. Gibson alleged that Ms. Gibson, Mr. Larson, and other friends from work made plans to go out for dinner and drinks in Philadelphia on the evening of Friday December 16, 2022. Mr. Larson asked Ms. Gibson a number of times if she would go home with him at the end of the night. He lived in Conshohocken, Pennsylvania. She told him no and that she planned to take an Uber home with one of the friends (the “Friend”), who also worked at the Firm and lived in the same building as Ms. Gibson in Wilmington. In Philadelphia, the group went to dinner, then a bar, then a club. At the club, Ms. Gibson tried to avoid Mr. Larson several times, but he continued to follow her. Eventually, she left the club “to escape him.” In response to several text messages from Mr. Larson asking where she was, Ms.  Gibson called and told him that she was going to call an Uber to take her home. Mr. Larson then approached Ms. Gibson outside and tried to convince her to let him take her home. Some of their friends gathered around; Ms. Gibson told them and Mr. Larson that she wanted to take an Uber home alone and began walking away.

Her petition details his behavior at that point that had caused her fear and a panic attack.

They agreed to meet on the following day

When Mr. Larson refused to meet at a bookstore, as Ms. Gibson suggested, she went to his home. He continued his threats toward Ms. Gibson’s job and Friend. Mr. Larson “eventually grew calmer and told [Ms. Gibson] that if [she] proved to him that [she] would compromise and care about his needs more than [hers], that he would not follow through with all of his aforementioned threats.” He said he was very upset and “needed sex to calm down.” She said “no,” that she was not comfortable with that, and did not want to have sex with him. He became upset again, saying that she was making him feel rejected. He “began badgering [her] to give in, reiterating that it was the only way to show him that [she] care[d] about him and then maybe he would not tell my job that we were in a relationship, or cause me to have to report the police activity to the bar.” Ms. Gibson began to have a panic attack and moved to sit on the bathroom floor with the shower running, which was an activity that had previously soothed her when she had a panic attack. The petition alleged that Mr. Larson followed her into the bathroom and then, after she told him  “no” and tried to pull away, he forced her to perform oral sex. After insisting that she lay with him for a few minutes, Mr. Larson followed Ms. Gibson downstairs, telling her that he expected her to text their friends that night or there would be “consequences.” The petition alleged that Ms. Gibson cut off contact with Mr. Larson after the bathroom incident, reported him to the Firm on December 18, 2022, and reported him to police on December 22, 2022. She filed the PFA petition on January 3, 2023.

Findings below

The commissioner also found that Mr. Larson coerced Ms. Gibson into performing oral sex at his home on Saturday December 17, 2022, the day after the incident in Philadelphia, by threatening to (i) file criminal charges against Friend, (ii) report Friend to bar authorities, and (iii) expose their relationship to coworkers, peers, and Ms. Gibson’s mentor at work. The commissioner further found that Mr. Larson pressured Ms. Gibson to text the group and execute an affidavit changing her story and then, after the oral sex, gave her a deadline to accede to his demands. The commissioner compared Mr. Larson’s conduct to sexual extortion under the Delaware criminal code, and concluded that Mr. Larson’s conduct on December 17, 2022, constituted acts of abuse under subsections (b), (d), and (h) of Section 1041(1).

They were in a “substantive dating relationship”

The commissioner found that the parties engaged in a sexual relationship between June 2022 and December 2022. They spent a considerable amount of time together while studying for the July 2022 bar examination. Mr. Larson gave Ms. Gibson a key to his home and her own passcode to his alarm system, gave her permission to be there when he was not home, and stocked food that she enjoyed. They exchanged gifts. They engaged in flirtatious dialogue and sexual banter, including through text messages and social media applications, and they talked almost every day. Ms. Gibson stayed at Mr. Larson’s home to take care of his dog when he was out of town; she also cared for Mr. Larson, at his request, after a medical procedure that required general anesthesia. They sought to define their relationship and discussed whether they should be exclusive or end their relationship. They broke up and then resumed their relationship multiple times. Moreover, Mr. Larson alleged in his PFA petition that the parties were in a substantive dating relationship. Based on those facts, the commissioner concluded that the parties were in a “substantive dating relationship” as provided in the statute.

Affirmed

Mr. Larson contends that the Family Court erred by upholding the commissioner’s finding that Mr. Larson abused Ms. Gibson by coercing her into performing oral sex on December 17, 2022. He argues that Ms. Gibson’s petition alleged that Mr. Larson physically forced her to perform oral sex, and Mr. Larson therefore did not have fair notice of the coercion allegation. We disagree. The petition explicitly alleged “coercion” and contained detailed factual allegations that would put a respondent on notice that Ms. Gibson alleged two theories by which a finding of abuse could be made as to the oral sex on December 17, 2022: either Mr.  Larson physically forced her to perform oral sex or he coerced her into performing oral sex by making threats against her job and prospective bar admission.

(Mike Frisch)