Articles Posted in Sexual Harassment

A chain electronics company, which is headquartered in San Jose and operates 17 stores in California, will have to pay $2.3 million in a settlement following claims of sexual harassment and retaliation in Washington State.

Riverside Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands that the the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had charged the company with tolerating harassment of a young female saleswoman, and then terminating her supervisor when he attempted to take a stand for her.

The settlement reportedly is one of the largest in the EEOC’s history, on a per-claimant basis.

Here’s what occurred, according to the complaint:

A manager at the company had repeatedly harassed a young woman who was a subordinate. He would send her frequent and sexually-charged text messages. He would invite her to his home for drinks, despite her repeated refusals – and the fact that she was underage at the time.

When another manager stepped in on behalf of the young saleswoman and reported the harassment to the company’s legal department, the company turned around and fired him. He then filed a sexual harassment suit against the company, and the young saleswoman later joined that suit.

As an aside, both sides were gearing up to battle it out in court when a federal judge slapped the electronics firm with a $100,000 fine for reportedly destroying computer hard drives that may have contained information relevant to the claim. Additionally, it reportedly withheld information regarding a prior allegation of sexual harassment by the same manager back in 2001. Apparently, notes regarding that case had literally been plucked from the file.

At the time, EEOC attorneys referred to these actions as “hide-the-ball tactics,” and said they wouldn’t be tolerated. The company also reportedly filed numerous “frivolous” motions.

The judge wrote that these actions constituted deliberately deceptive practices that served to undermine the integrity of the court proceedings.

This $2.3 million settlement will be in addition to the previous sanction.

Sexual harassment is against both state and federal law, and as such, can be tried in courts at either level. The federal law is Title VII of the amended 1964 Civil Rights Act, which applies to most public and private employers, employment agencies and labor organizations with more than 15 workers.

State law barring sexual harassment is contained in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. It covers much of the same, except it also applies to state license boards and state and local governments and all work places that have 1 or more employee.

These laws also prohibit retaliation for reporting sexual harassment or participating in a sexual harassment investigation.

Employers have a responsibility to their workers to take a reasonable amount of care in order to prevent such incidents, as well as to address them when they arise. This law is rather broad as written, and there are no specific actions that satisfy this requirement.

Some employers have tried to argue that simply having a sexual harassment policy is enough to shield them from responsibility. However, the courts have found that if a company has a policy and yet does not enforce it, that is not considered reasonable care.
Continue Reading

With the holiday season upon us, workplaces throughout the country engage in the annual tradition of a seasonal party, often capped with plenty of alcohol. In this environment, inhibitions are lowered and the opportunity for sexual harassment spikes.

San Bernadino Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi wants you to understand that a claim is no less legitimate just because it stems from events that occur at a work holiday party.

Such was the case in Shiner v. State University of New York in Buffalo, New York.

According to court records, the complainant was a clerk at a dental university in New York, which held an annual Christmas party. She indicated that in prior years, she had suffered sexual harassment by an associate dean and the director of clinical operations – both of whom had supervisory power over her, though she did not report directly to either.

So when she received an invitation via e-mail to the 2010 holiday party at a local bar, she did not want to attend. She later decided to go anyway, and was seated next to both men who had caused her problems in years past. This time, she alleged, it was worse.

Among the most egregious acts allegedly committed by the assistant dean were:
–Fondling of her breasts;
–Placing his mouth on her ear and inserting his tongue;
–Chasing her around the table;
–Grabbing both the plaintiff and another female employee by the necks and bending them over a table in front of other staffers;
–Pushing the faces of the plaintiff and another female worker together and ordering them to kiss, and saying he wanted to engage in sexual activity with both of them simultaneously;
–Pulling the plaintiff onto his lap and asking her to meet him somewhere after the party;
–Forcibly squeezing and pinching the plaintiff’s ribs.

The plaintiff said she did not consent to any of this. The director of clinical operations reportedly encouraged the associate dean’s behavior, and at one point pulled the plaintiff onto his own lap and told the associate dean that he now had possession of her.

The following day, the woman said she told her boss she was extremely upset, humiliated and physically violated. He did nothing, so she filed a complaint with the employee relations office. As a result, the dean was suspended without pay and informed that his current contract would not be extended. No action was taken against the director of operations.

She has since filed a civil suit against both men and the college, alleging sexual harassment under state and federal anti-discrimination laws, as well as claims of battery and assault.

Attorneys for the university filed a motion to dismiss, which the U.S. District judge for the Western District of New York denied, allowing her claim to proceed.

The fact that it is a holiday or there is alcohol being served is no excuse or justification for employees to be forced to suffer sexual harassment. If you are a victim, contact an experienced San Bernadino sexual harassment attorneys as soon as possible to discuss your options.
Continue Reading

A culture of widespread sexual harassment, racial discrimination and retaliation has been uncovered at the southern California National Guard by a team of local news investigators, who over the course of the last six months spoke to dozens of current and former members.

Irvine Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that dozens said they were punished for speaking out against their treatment. It’s not surprising when one allegations is made that many more crop up afterward. That’s because sexual harassment is often about the overall environment of the workplace. Where it is ignored or encouraged, it will thrive.

The report, a joint investigation by NBC Bay Area and NBC Southern California, has prompted a federal investigation on the military reserve force of 23,000.

One of the stories was that of a master sergeant, a 12-year veteran of the force. Five years ago, she said her unit was on a training mission at an Air Force base near Las Vegas. After dinner, a fellow trainee offered to walk her to her hotel room so she would be safe. However, he then forced his way inside the room and sexually assaulted her.

When the attack was immediately reported to her supervisors, she said absolutely nothing was done. In fact, no paperwork existed suggesting any kind of formal investigation. The master sergeant was then deployed to Afghanistan and when she returned, she said the sexual harassment and inappropriate touching continued – even through this past summer.

She said she has reported just about every incident to the appropriate authorities. Yet nothing was done until a lieutenant colonel from outside her unit sent a series of memos to the Guard’s sexual assault response coordinator, demanding to know why no action had been taken. As a result of this report, the lt. col. said, he was retaliated against by his superiors.

Interviews with other Guard members revealed a long list of sexual harassment claims – the majority of which have gone unaddressed by the Guard, despite being reported. When asked to describe the working environment at the California National Guard, members used words like “hostile,” “toxic,” “retaliatory” and “corrupt.”

A chief warrant officer, one of two independent investigators sent to look into claims of widespread sexual harassment in the California branch of the Guard, told reporters that sexual harassment and hostile work environment is “commonplace” here. He said the N-word is frequently used by those of all ranks, and there has been a consistent failure to investigate complaints.

Such incidents are not uncommon for military members, who often find themselves the target of blatant retaliation after making such claims. Although there is a chain of command for such efforts, it’s vitally important for soldiers and reservists to seek the assistance of a sexual harassment attorney before filing a complaint, to ensure that rights are protected and that the process goes according to proper procedure – and is not simply swept under the rug.

Whether you are in the military or not, workplace sexual harassment is a major problem, and it affects both men and women. It’s defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other physical or verbal conduct of a sexual nature that ties rejection or submission to an effect on the target’s employment. It can also be the existence of an offensive, intimidating or hostile work environment.

To learn more about whether your situation qualifies and what you can do about it, contact us today.
Continue Reading

Women suing their employer for sexual harassment will have to submit their Facebook passwords to the court, a federal judge has ruled.

Fullerton Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands that the nearly two dozen women who filed, in conjunction with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, have been ordered to hand over their passwords so that an appointed forensic expert can comb through their files to see what they may have posted about the case.

These are women who are alleged to have suffered repeated offensive and unwanted sexual comments, physical touching and innuendos at the hands of their regional manager in Colorado. They had told him repeatedly to stop. When these women complained, they were either subsequently disciplined or fired.

For them to now be violated in this way is abhorrent and is an affront to their privacy.

The Georgia-based company, The Original HoneyBaked Ham Co., alleges that the women traded musings about the legal action and commented on their financial expectation of the outcome of the case. They also reportedly discussed it in cell phone text messages, which the company’s attorneys are fighting to have released.

As a number of privacy advocates have noted, this is a terrible ruling for the simple fact that it will result in the dissemination of all sorts of personal information by those who have already been victimized.

Among the reasons why the judge granted the defendant’s request included that:

–She posted a photo of herself wearing a shirt emblazoned with the term she had stated in her lawsuit that she was called by the manager and which she deemed offensive;

–She writes about her positive outlook on her post-termination life, despite evidence to the contrary in her lawsuit;

–She reportedly had self-described her sexual aggressiveness in a number of postings;

–She reportedly commented on her wall about interactions she engaged in with defendant, as well as “sexually amorous communications” with others who had filed suit;

–She reportedly posted information about her post-termination income opportunities and employment.

The judge ruled that each of these elements may hold some relevance for the defendants in the case.

However, a strong argument should be made on why these are not relevant, as the line of reasoning gets into an awful lot of “blaming the victim.” For example, just because a former employee expresses sexual interest in others does not mean that the comments made by her supervisor were welcome or acceptable or that she should have to endure such remarks as a condition of being employed.

In addition to their Facebook passwords, the judge has ruled that the claimants will all have to turn over records of their cell phone text messages.

The information won’t be immediately sent to the attorneys for the defendant, however. It will be reviewed by the independent forensic analyst, who will then report back to the judge.

The district court judge himself noted that the whole realm of social media is thorny, and something with which the courts are only beginning to come to terms with. However, he noted that, essentially, if the women did not want them to become part of the lawsuit, they should not have posted them.

Now, surely, these women did not intend for this information to be heard by the court. In sending private text messages and in communicating information to “friends” on their Facebook wall, they did not intend to make such comments the topic of discussion in court.

It’s unclear how these messages will affect this case. What our Fullerton sexual harassment lawyers would hope others would take from this is that those who are involved in civil litigation should cease online communications about the topic until the case has concluded. If damaging communication does exist somewhere in cyberspace, you must disclose it to your attorney immediately.
Continue Reading

A hotel and resort near Yosemite National Park in California has been ordered to pay nearly $200,000, and may even face additional sanctions, following confirmation of alleged sexual harassment and retaliation.

Irvine Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands the case involved a female employee who complained after a male supervisor made sexual comments to her and talked about a sexually-charged image.

There was never an insinuation that he touched her or that he requested any sexual favors from her as a condition of employment. It’s important to point out that sexual harassment doesn’t have to include those things. The action or comments don’t even need to be directed at the individual who files the complaint. In order to qualify as sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, one need only feel that the environment has become hostile.

This is a hotel that has been rated as a top fishing and camping facility in the region.

However, when the employee reported the harassment, the male supervisor retorted by issuing a written discipline and “treating her differently.” We don’t know exactly how the situation unfolded, but we do know there are a number of ways employers and/or supervisors retaliate against those who report harassment.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines retaliation as when a a person makes a claim of discrimination, and the company responds by:

–Firing;
–Demoting;
–Harassing;
–Refuse to promote;
–Laying off;
–Denial of fringe benefits;
–Issuing an unfair job assignments;
–Slashing pay;
–Enacting any other negative condition or term of employment.

Of course, the challenge for your attorney becomes connecting the act of reporting the discrimination to the subsequent negative employment action. So for example, if you report sexual harassment and are subsequently fired, despite previous exemplary performance reviews, a strong case could be made that the termination was related to the harassment complaint.

In this case, we don’t have a lot of details, primarily because the case never actually made it to court. The company decided to settle out of court in order to avoid litigation. This may often happen when a company wants to avoid the negative publicity that may result from a trial.

Here, the settlement allows for a $100,000 monetary relief award for the woman who filed the initial complaint, and another $95,000 that is designated for numerous other females who also claim to have suffered sexual harassment and retaliation while working at the lodge.

In addition to this payment, the lodge ownership will host equal employment opportunity training for all of its current employees, and it will make this training standard for all new incoming employees. The training will be offered in both English and Spanish, and there will be added training for human resource staff on how to handle complaints alleging discrimination, harassment or retaliation.

The hope, of course, is that no other employee at the resort will have to go through what this woman did.
Continue Reading

Republican business woman Patricia Kotze-Ramos lost her bid for re-election to a state assembly seat, but it remains to be seen whether she will be successful in fighting off allegations of sexual harassment made by a former employee.

Anaheim Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi typically does not name either victims or accused parties in pending cases, but in this situation, the claims were made public by multiple news agencies and the accused is an elected official. Her term ends in January, when her position will be taken over by the newly-elected Democrat Cristina Garcia.

According to the Los Cerritos Community Newspaper, Kotze-Ramos slammed the timing of the lawsuit, which was filed just days before the Nov. 6 election, something she blasted as being reckless and inappropriate. The allegations made therein are quite serious, and if true, were likely something media felt voters deserved to know.

The suit was filed Oct. 30 on behalf of a former female employee of the assemblywoman. Specifically, Kotze-Ramos and her husband are accused of sexual harassment, discrimination, breach of contract and wrongful termination.

The former employee had been hired to act as a marketing and public relations director for two of the couple’s businesses. Additionally, she sometimes acted as a nanny to the couples’ children. In other instances, she claims, she was asked to perform numerous duties at the couple’s adult sex toy store business and at parties, for which she was not paid.

The former employee alleges that, in addition to discriminatory actions and statements made with regard to a medical disability and her gender, she was subjected to repeated and unrelenting sexual harassment from both employers.

She says that the male half would constantly remark on her underwear – whether she was wearing any, what type and whether he could see panty lines. He would tease her if he believed her to be wearing “granny panties.”

She was required to wear make-up to work, and was subjected to unnecessary sexual information about the two that the employee said made her extremely uncomfortable, including a revelation, she says, that the two were swingers, and regularly engaged in sexual relationships with other people.

She says the husband would regularly brush his private parts against her and would comment about her chest and undergarments. One one occasion, she alleged Kotze-Ramos began playing with her hair, told her how much her husband liked her and said that it was time she began repaying their kindness with sexual favors.

Additionally, the former employee said she was paid less than her male counterparts. She alleged when she mentioned this point to her bosses, they told her that the men in the office had families to support, and that if she wanted to make more money, she should “get a sugar daddy.”

She said she was ultimately fired after eight years, in all that time receiving positive work reviews, after she reportedly complained about having to misrepresent herself as an attorney in a sexual harassment seminar.

These allegations, if true, would prove extremely egregious violations of numerous laws, includingCalifornia’s Fair Employment and Housing laws against sexual harassment.

The 24-page complaint indicates the alleged victim is seeking millions of dollars in damages. The case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Continue Reading

A woman in Martinez, California, near Sacramento, is alleging that she suffered sexual harassment and abuse at the hands of two different teachers at her middle school – and that the district had long known these teachers to be problems.

San Bernadino Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that some of the allegations made would generally fall within the criminal realm, but with one of the teachers now deceased and the statute of limitations expired, civil action may also be appropriate.

In California, the victim of sexual harassment has one year from the time of the last incident of sexual harassment to report the claim to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. From there, he or she will receive a right to sue letter, which advises the victim he or she has another year from the date of that letter in which to file a complaint with the state superior court. Of course, a lawyer handle all of this for you.

However, for cases of child sexual abuse, which is what is alleged in this case, the statute of limitations is extended to within 8 years of the age of majority, meaning before your 26th birthday. There are loopholes to this, which your attorney can explain to you.

In this case, the woman says that she was sexually harassed and later molested by a male science teacher at the school when she was just 11 years-old. That teacher committed suicide six years later, after allegations of sexual misconduct were lodged against him in a separate case.

Then, the plaintiff says, she was sexually assaulted by her female sexual education teacher. That woman, now 44, is serving an 8-year sentence in state prison for four felonies relating to sexual abuse of an underage child.

The woman in this case says she decided to file suit after the Contra Costa Times reportedly found a series of internal memos and letters that were distributed between 1994 and 1996 that appear to show the school district and its employees had direct knowledge of the sexual harassment and abuse happening at the school, but failed to take any action or report it to authorities, as required by law.

In one of those memos, which was dated June of 1994, a female student made allegations against the science teacher, saying she wanted to ensure this never happened to another student again. But the school didn’t fire him, and it apparently happened to at least eight more students after that – the one who recently filed the suit and seven others who came forward back in 1996.

School administrators later said they did nothing because school had recessed for the year by the time they got the report. When they did confront him, they accepted his denial and then told him he could be fired if the student decided to press charges. And that was it.

With regard to the physical education teacher, it’s alleged that the teacher began spending more and more time with the victim, began calling her on the phone in the evenings and conversations eventually turned sexually explicit. This behavior progressed into physical action during the school year. This resulted in a relationship that lasted throughout the victim’s high school years, until she was a senior.

Sexual harassment in school settings is very real. While criminal action can and should be pursued as an avenue of justice in these cases, it’s also important to look at obtaining relief through the civil justice system.
Continue Reading

The California Supreme Court has decided to take on the issue of whether an individual can sue a franchisor for sexual harassment and subsequent retaliation by a franchisee employee and supervisor.

Fontana Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands that the issue in Patterson v. Domino’s has resulted in conflicted ruling by lower courts. The Ventura Superior Court, which had ruled the individual could only sue the franchisee, while the Division Six Court of Appeal had ruled the individual could sue the franchisor.

This is an important issue because it will determine whether larger chains can be held civilly accountable when the actions of franchisee employees or supervisors violate sexual harassment laws.

The plaintiff was 16-years-old when she alleges that she was sexually harassed and sexually assaulted by a manager at the store. When she complained about the assault, she says the owner fired her.

The teenager subsequently sued the franchise owner, as well as the larger Domino’s organization. She claimed violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act for the company’s failure to prevent the assault, battery, infliction of emotional distress, discrimination, retaliation for exercise of rights and constructive wrongful termination.

The owner had argued in the lower court case that he was instructed by an area leader of the Domino’s corporation to fire the manager, as well as the employee. He said the second firing was for failure to properly handle bags. The owner said he feared being put out of business if he did not comply, as the chain was overbearing and management for the corporation conducted constant inspections of operations at the franchise.

However, the Domino’s corporation successfully argued for a summary judgement in the superior court, saying it was not actually the individual’s employer and was not responsible or involved in the hiring, supervision or training of workers.

The lower court’s ruling placed sole responsibility of the actions in the lap of the franchise owner, who had since gone bankrupt.

However, the appellate judge ruled that the franchise agreement was such that it granted Domino’s corporate office substantial control over both the operations of the franchise and its employees. This was illustrated by control over everything from dress codes to grooming standards to advertising to store hours to tax accounting to store decor.

Other courts in other states have ruled that a franchise agreement is key to whether a franchisor has control over a franchise and the actions of its employees. California has previously ruled that the provision of that agreement may be relative. The justices ruled that given the totality of the evidence, the plaintiff should have the right to bring the case before a jury, who will then be able to decide whether they believe claims by corporate Domino’s that they had little control over operations or actions at that particular store.

It was noted that unlike cases in which sexual harassment is reportedly committed by the victim’s co-worker, employers can be held liable for a single act of sexual harassment by a supervisor if the alleged act was egregious. The alleged sexual assault of an underage employee by an older supervisor, the justices ruled, may qualify.
Continue Reading

A federal sexual harassment lawsuit has been lodged against an electric company in California, amid allegations that women faced discrimination and a sexually hostile work environment.

San Bernadino Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands that the allegations span the course of the last two years from at least two branches of the electric firm, which is based in Bakersfield.

According to court documents, the suit, filed in U.S. District Court, alleges that female workers were unrelentingly subjected to harassment by a manager. He would reportedly remark about sexual fantasies he had involving certain female workers. He would encourage them to kiss and sexually touch one another. In some instances, he even asked the workers to engage in sexual acts with him.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has said that he often made explicit and obscene gestures toward them.

Workers say they filed complaints with the company’s management, but nothing was done about it. The offending supervisor wasn’t so much as counseled by management. At least one female worker said she was forced to quit in order to protect herself.

The case is EEOC v. Braun Electric Company. The EEOC said it tried to settle with the company before filing litigation, but the company was not cooperative.

The conduct described by these female workers is illegal under Title VII of the civil Rights Act, but sadly, it is not especially uncommon.

Too often, employers either don’t know their obligations under the law or they don’t care to act upon it. Many times, they may not even recognize what sexual harassment is, and it may even be some time before the victim understands as well.

Sexual harassment can occur under a wide range of circumstances. Most often, people think of sexual harassment as a quid-pro-quo demand. This is essentially the proposition of, “You have sex with me or else I will fire you, demote you, cut your pay, etc.”

But sexual harassment is actually much broader than that. It’s not necessary for a victim to have been economically harmed in order for a case to be brought forward.

It also doesn’t have to be a male harasser and a female victim, as is often the stereotype. It could be the exact reverse, or even same-sex harassment.

Further, the victim doesn’t even have to be the person toward whom the harassment is directly aimed. It could simply be someone who is affected by the offensive conduct.

And what’s more, it doesn’t even have to be inflicted by a supervisor on a subordinate. A harasser can be a person’s co-worker or even a non-employee.

Many work places, when faced with allegations that they did nothing to stop sexual harassment, will hide behind the fact that the alleged victim didn’t go through the channels that are in place to report the issues. Unfortunately, some employers don’t make this information readily available to workers.

In order to bolster your case and make the harassment stop, you may consider meeting with an experienced San Bernadino sexual harassment lawyer before you report the situation to your boss. This way, you can get legal advice on how to proceed in a way that could bolster your chances of a strong case if your employer does not act to correct the situation or worse, retaliates against you after you do report it.
Continue Reading

A recent spate of sexual harassment claims brought by farmworkers in California and throughout the Western United States highlights a shameful phenomenon that we are just beginning to learn more about.

Newport Beach Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi knows that sexual harassment perpetrated upon this vulnerable population has been going on for years. Sexual harassment in the workplace is largely under-reported as it is. The silence is even more deafening for workers who fear their immigration status may be exposed and they may face deportation. These workers may not understand the protections they are afforded under state and federal laws.

Additionally, farmwork is different than in office atmosphere in that it tends to be a more isolated environment.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed three separate lawsuits in a single week, alleging sexual harassment at farms in Washington State and Oregon. Although these weren’t specifically in California, the issues here aren’t unique to any one state. We have numerous agricultural sites here in California with migrant and seasonal workers, who may feel they have no where else to turn.

The first case, out Washington State, involved a male supervisor who reportedly sexually harassed numerous male employees. According to the complaint, the general manager peppered his male workers with inappropriate sexual and threatening comments. He reportedly touched them sexually and demanded they watch him while he urinated in front of them. When the workers allegedly complained, management declined to do anything about it. One of the male workers felt he had to quit the job in order to protect his physical safety.

In the second case, out of Oregon, the supervisor at a large onion farm reportedly made sexual comments and requests for sexual favors to a female farmworker. He took it a step further by encouraging her husband to engage in domestic violence, at one point saying in public to the husband that the husband should murder his wife. What’s more astonishing was that the husband did in fact attempt to kill his wife, the supervisor then scolded the wife for having him arrested. In turn, he fired her.

And finally, another case out of Washington involved a supervisor at an egg supplier who reportedly demanded that a female worker have sex with him in order to keep her job. The woman reportedly worked alone in the barn with the supervisor, who was the only manager at the facility.

These cases join three others that were filed in the last six months on behalf of farmworkers, including one in Northern California on behalf of grape vineyard workers (who won an award of $150,000) and another in Southern California on behalf of a table grape farmworker (who won $350,000). In the last case, the farm was required to use part of the settlement money to implement sexual harassment training for both its staff and supervisors, and provide easily accessible information on sexual harassment and retaliation in multiple languages to workers.

Sexual harassment can be extremely overwhelming. Let us explain your rights and what your options are moving forward.
Continue Reading