Friday brought us a Superior Court decision holding that a prior history of sexual harassment can justify entry of a court order to “stay away” under the Protection of Victims of Sexual Violence or Intimidation Act (PFI) even when the events are separated by four years.
This law is different than the more frequently invoked Protection from Abuse statute. It became effective in 2015 and is directed at conduct intended to threaten by intimidation. 42 Pa.C.S. 62A01. It’s an odd statute in the sense that it long on procedure and weak in substance. The “guts” of the law is found in the section of hearings where the plaintiff is required to (a) “assert” that he/she is a victim of “sexual violence or intimidation” and (b) “prove” that he/she is a risk of harm from the conduct of the defendant. Section 62A06. The remedy is a stay away order of up to 36 months.
In 2020 LaDonna Denton was an employee of John Delauter. The appellate opinion describes some fairly bizarre sexual conduct going on at the defendant’s office but Ms. Denton indicated that she was grabbed. Delauter also commented on her body and described a desire to have sex with the plaintiff and her daughter. Denton said she refused all of these advances and elected to quit the job. She explored bringing civil or criminal actions but decided not to.
For reasons not clear, there were continued contacts of some kind between plaintiff and defendant and Mr. Delauter filed criminal theft charges against Denton in 2024. On July 11 of last year, the two found themselves at the local York County district court to address those charges at Denton’s arraignment. As she drove there Denton noticed Delauter following her car. When she parked, he parked close by. She moved to park elsewhere and he followed. Not once, but twice. This prompted Denton to file for PFI protection. She secured a temporary order.
The case was heard over two days in November and December 2024. We should note the statute mirrors the PFA law in that parties can insist on a ten day hearing. Both parties testified and, curiously, Mr. Delauter had his wife testify. The court entered an order which Delauter appealed.
The gravamen of the appeal was that there was no evidence of sexual violence since Denton quit her employment in 2020. Delauter said there were only two contacts of any nature during the four years. One does have to wonder how those contacts could
have prompted DeLauter to seek criminal theft charges against his long departed former employee. His contention was this PFI action was brought to punish him for bringing criminal charges.
The trial court made a finding that Mr. Delauter had engaged in indecent assault and indecent exposure during the time Denton worked for him. The harassment in following her to court and during her efforts to park away from her accuser fell within the protected conduct of the PFI and merited the order entered. The Superior Court found no error in that ruling.
We note this case because reliance on the PFI statute is infrequent as are appellate cases analyzing this oddly configured statute. Ironically, two days before this decision, York County (where this case was heard) witnessed an incident where a 22 year old charged with stalking a former girlfriend ambushed five police officers, killing three of them. On the same date as this horrible crime, the Superior Court affirmed a PFA order where there was stalking of a person when she broke off the relationship after a single date. Scango v. Wiernusz 1625 MDA 2024
Denton v. Delauter, 78 MDA 2025