Total Articles: 29
Verdict for Employee in California Sexual Harassment Case Affirmed Despite Inconsistent Testimony
Minor inconsistencies in witness testimony need not render a plaintiff-employee’s account of sexual harassment so “inherently improbable” as to require reversal of the jury’s verdict, the California Court of Appeal has held. The Court thus affirmed judgment in favor of the employee in a sexual harassment case.
Bachelorette Gag Gift, Bad Santa Insufficient Evidence of Employer Sexual Harassment
What happens when Santa gets out of control at the company Christmas party? What if bride-to-be brings a rather naughty bachelorette gag gift to work? Can an employee who witnesses this win a sexual harassment lawsuit? Not all crude conduct in the work place rises to the level of “sexual harassment.” Crude conduct that is occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial might violate company policy, but not the law. Where does it cross the line?
California Plaintiff Must Show Severe or Pervasive Harassment to Prevail, Appeals Court Rules
The California Court of Appeal has held that judgment for an employer is proper under California law where the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that she was subjected to severe or pervasive workplace harassment based on her gender. Brennan v. Townsend & O'Leary Enterprises, Inc., No. G042398 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 18, 2010). Accordingly, the Court affirmed judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the employer.
Crossing the Line: When Does Crude Conduct Become Harassment?
Not all crude conduct in the work place rises to the level of “sexual harassment.” Crude conduct that is occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial might violate company policy, but not the law. Where does it cross the line? In a recent unpublished California case titled Ramaiya v. Pacific Coast Care Center, the appellate court wrestled with the issue.
Court of Appeal: "Me Too" Evidence of Harassment Admissible to Prove "Intent"
So, a plaintiff in a sexual harassment case attempts to introduce evidence that the harasser harassed other employees, but not in the plaintiff's presence, and that the conduct was not directed to the plaintiff.
Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Record Requirements
My company is required to conduct supervisor sexual harassment prevention training according to California’s training law, AB 1825. What are the record keeping requirements associated with the training?
Court of Appeal Rejects Same-sex Harassment Claim
Sounds like sexual harassment? Wrong. The court of appeal decided that the supervisor's verbal abuse was not truly based on Kelley's sex. Therefore, although rude, the conduct was not actionable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Court of Appeal: Sexual Harassment Claim Untimely
You have to file an administrative charge with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing within a year of the last act about which you claim is harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. So, when Irene Trovato testified at her deposition that the last time Michael Allyn harassed or retaliated against her was January 31, 2007, the charge she filed on May 8, 2008, was untimely.
CAN SEXUAL HARASSMENT BE PART OF THE JOB?
Sexual harassment litigation most often involves claims by employees that co-workers or supervisors have created a "hostile work environment". But the anti-harassment laws do not stop there. Unlawful workplace harassment also may come at the hands of non-employees, such as customers, vendors, and others who interact with employees.
Lawyers Insensitive Statements Not Harassment, Says State Commission. But Hes Ordered To Attend Harassment Training Anyway
There is a line between illegal harassment and just plain asinine conduct. But the line is ill-defined, and employers and employees often find themselves in litigation arguing over where the line should be drawn. In a recent California state agency enforcement action titled Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Lyddan Law Group, a lawyer stayed on the legal side of the line (barely), but was still ordered to attend harassment training.
Retaining Employees Accused of Harassment.
With the passage of Assembly Bill 1825, the law that requires many California employers to provide sexual harassment training to supervisors, todays employers are better informed about how to prevent, recognize, and respond to inappropriate workplace conduct than ever before. But even when an employer follows best practices designed to eliminate workplace harassment, the process will not be perfect. Employees and others in the workplace will continue to engage in conduct contrary to an employers specific direction and policies.
Effective Anti-Harassment Training.
Benjamin Franklins declaration that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure rings true today as it did in the 1700s. In the workplace context, for example, anti-harassment and discrimination training (i.e., EEO training) is the ounce of prevention that helps prevent unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims. Even employers who do not believe in Franklins idiom may be required to heed it.
California Appellate Court Follows Cal Supreme Court, Rejecting Sexual Harassment Case.
Not all sexual conduct in the workplace is sexual harassment. It is a question of degree. An employer who sexually harasses an employee can be liable for damages under both federal law (title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)) and California law (the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)) when the sexually harassing conduct is so pervasive or severe that it alters the conditions of employment. What kind of conduct is sufficiently severe? What makes conduct pervasive enough to qualify as sexual harassment? In a case titled Haberman v. Cenage, Inc. , A California appellate court recently answered these questions, and in doing so applied the rules stated in the 2009 California Supreme Court titled Hughes v. Pair.
Cal Supreme Court Rejects Sexual Harassment Claim; Conduct Not Severe or Pervasive.
Not all sexual conduct in the workplace is sexual harassment. It is a question of degree. An employer who sexually harasses an employee can be liable for damages under both federal law (title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)) and California law (the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)) when the sexually harassing conduct is so pervasive or severe that it alters the conditions of employment.
Sexual Orientation Discrimination: Co-Worker Misconduct: Once a Harasser, Always A Harasser.
When an employee alleges sexual harassment, an employer has an obligation to investigate and promptly stop the harassment. But even where the employer stops the sexual harassment, the employer may face a lawsuit if the accused continues to engage in workplace shenanigans. Potentially any sort of subsequent misconduct by the accused directed at the victim, even if it is not sexually loaded, may be viewed as another form of harassment. The recent California appellate case Dominguez v. WaMu provides an illustration.
Court Reverses $1.4 Million Spanking Verdict Due To Flawed Jury Instructions.
A state appellate court in California recently reversed a $1.4 million jury verdict in favor of an employee who claimed that she and others were spanked during company sales meetings. According to the California Court of Appeal, since the jury was not instructed that to prevail the employee had to show that the harassment occurred because she was female, the verdict could not stand. Orlando v. Alarm One, Inc., No. F050759, F051470, California Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (January 14, 2008).
Three Instances of Harassing Behavior Did Not Create A Hostile Work Environment.
In In Mokler v. County of Orange, the California Court of Appeal found that the conduct alleged by Pamela Mokler, a employee of the County of Orange, did not rise to the level of actionable sexual harassment.
Correctional Officer Fails to State A Prima Facie Case of Harassment or Disparate Treatment.
In Jones v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, the California Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and against plaintiff Kim Jones on her claims for gender discrimination hostile work environment; sexual harassment; race discrimination; unlawful retaliation; assault and battery; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and negligent supervision and retention of employees.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Approves Sexual Harassment Training Regulations.
It took more than a year, but regulations finally have been approved to give employers guidance regarding their obligations to provide sexual harassment training pursuant to California Government Code Section 12950.1 (AB 1825).
Effective Employee Training Programs: Money In The Bank.
Weve been sued. Those few words can strike panic in employers, particularly in California, where multi-million dollar verdicts in favor of employees are not uncommon. What can employers do to reduce their potential exposure for workplace related claims? Adopting and fairly administering lawful policies and procedures is a good start, of course. However, employers also must take the next step to train employees about what is expected of them and the options available for resolving workplace issues within the organization.
Finally, Some Clarity California Department of Fair Employment and Housing Approves Sexual Harassment Training Regulations.
It took nearly a full year, but the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing has finally approved regulations to provide employers with guidance regarding California Government Code Section 12950.1 (AB 1825).
CA Supreme Court Holds Vulgar Language Insufficient To Support Hostile Work Environment (pdf).
The California Supreme Court held that sexually coarse and vulgar language used
regularly in the writers' room of a popular television situation comedy did not create a hostile work
environment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Prods., ___ Cal.4th ___ (April 20, 2006).
Workplace Romance Presents Liability Risk For California Employers (pdf).
The California Supreme Court recently
issued an eagerly-anticipated
decision pertaining to sexual harassment
claims brought under Californias
Fair Employment and Housing Act
(FEHA). The justices held that widespread
sexual favoritism in the workplace
may create a hostile worker environment
that demeans other employees.
Workplace Romances Can Form Basis of Harassment Claims Under CA Law (pdf).
On Tuesday, July 18, 2005, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in Miller v. Department
of Corrections, an eagerly-anticipated decision pertaining to sexual harassment claims brought under Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). According to Scott J. Witlin, a shareholder in the Los Angeles office of Ogletree Deakins, [t]his decision weakens somewhat the long line of cases that held that favoritism toward a paramour was not discrimination against others.
California Mandates Sexual Harassment Training.
The California legislature has enacted a law requiring employers with 50 or more employees to provide sexual harassment classroom training to all supervisors.
Most Over-Reaching New State Employment Law: Mandatory Sexual Harassment Training (pdf).
Sexual harassment prevention training is now mandatory for California
employers.
Verdict In Favor Of Adult Video Store Employee Claiming Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Orientation Discrimination Affirmed.
In Briseno v. Diamond Video World Inc., 99 D.L.R. A-6 (Cal. Ct. App. 5/22/2002) (unpublished opinion), the California Court of Appeal affirmed the $10,608 jury verdict for sex harassment of a former employee of an adult video store and the $19,123 attorney's fee award.
California Does Not Recognize a Common Law Action for Sexual Harassment.
Discusses Medix Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Superior Ct., No. G029042, 2002 DAR 3377 (3/29/02 B Decision issued 3/27/02), in which the court ruled that California common law does not provide a cause of action for sexual harassment.
"Worthy Question -- California Supreme Court Should Decide Applicability of Federal Defense"
California courts have been wrestling with whether to adopt the federal rule on vicarious liability in sex harassment cases.
