Total Articles: 13
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.
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.
Lawyer’s Insensitive Statements Not Harassment, Says State Commission. But He’s 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, today’s 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 employer’s specific direction and policies.
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.
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 California’s 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 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.
