Articles Posted in Sexual Harassment

Several members of the women’s track team at Mt. San Antonio college have filed suit against numerous people in the college’s athletics department, saying they were subjected to severe sexual harassment by the assistant coach for a year or longer.

Rancho Cucamonga Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands that the suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, with the women alleging to have been grabbed, touched and held without their consent. Then, they say, the assistant coach retaliated against them when they refused his advances.

We often think of sexual harassment in terms of the employer-employee relationship. However, the dynamic between teacher (or coach) and student is quite similar in that there is a power imbalance, and one party has significant sway over decisions that could impact the victim’s future.

The women say they all started school as freshman back in the fall of 2010. They say the harassment by the assistant coach began soon afterward, and in some cases, spanned as long as a year-and-a-half.

It happened on campus. It happened off-campus. Much of it was in person, but the women also claimed to have text messages from the assistant coach to back their version of events.

When they turned him down, he allegedly gave them performance ratings that were low and unfair. He even went so far as to prevent some of them from participating in certain team events.

The lawsuit additionally contends that the athletic department staff should have known that this was a possibility when they hired the assistant coach, as he reportedly has a history of such actions against students in his previous positions. For this reason, the students name the athletic director and other coaches in the suit.

The coach, commenting to a local reporter on the case, fired back that the women are simply out for “money and revenge.” He says they are angry because he cut one of their close friends from the relay team. He said he cut her for not participating and performing poorly when she did.

He stated that once this occurred, others on the team began making accusations.

He was fired, but only, he says, because he had held a meeting with the team members amid those accusations, and during that meeting, he was reportedly using abusive and foul language. A recording of that meeting was given to administrators at the school, who subsequently fired him.

He contends he didn’t handle it well, but maintains his innocence.

Although there were allegations of outright sexual battery, law enforcement authorities declined to prosecute due to what they said was a lack of evidence. Audio recordings and text messages that the women said they had were never turned over to law enforcement, and it’s not clear why at this point.

But the burden of proof for liability in a civil case is lesser than that required for criminal prosecution. In a criminal case, prosecutors have to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, a plaintiff, or person who files the lawsuit, still carries the burden of proof. However, the standard is whether, based on a preponderance of the evidence, the allegations are probable. So a case that might not quite rise to the level of criminal may still be successful in a civil proceeding.
Continue Reading

The Supreme Court of the United States has announced the cases it will review, and one of those is a sexual harassment case out of Indiana.

Chino Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands this could have serious implications for victims and perpetrators of sexual harassment in California.

The core issue here is whether the supervisor liability rule, as established in Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth and Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, applies to harassment (either sexual or racial) by an individual who has authority to directly oversee the victim’s daily work or is only limited to those harassers who have the power specifically to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline the alleged victim.

In understanding why this is key, we have to first understand the supervisor liability rule. Both the above-listed cases were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. The court determined that employers may be held responsible for “vicarious liability” for the unlawful harassment carried out by its supervisors. Essentially, this means that the employer has to take a reasonable amount of care to prevent and if necessary, promptly address and correct, any behavior deemed sexual harassment. It also puts some of the responsibility on the shoulders of the worker who is harassed, indicating that they must take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities that are made available by the employer.

So that brings us to Vance v. Ball State University. Although this particular case centers on racial harassment against a department’s only African American employee, the decision rendered will apply to sexual harassment victims as these rights are outlined under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also known as Title VII.

Vance was working at the dining hall of the university, and in 2005, began filing complaints with university officials regarding the offensive conduct of her co-workers. These complaints were reportedly the result of the repeated use of racial epithets, indirect threats of physical harm and even references to the Ku Klux Klan.

The following year, the plaintiff filed two complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. One was regarding the racial discrimination and the other for retaliation. She was granted the right to sue and then followed through in in a federal civil case.

However, the district court dismissed the case. Vance appealed. However, upon that appeal, she pursued only the issue of a hostile work environment, as well as the issue of retaliation. She had claimed that although she was promoted to a higher position within the dining hall, she was assigned to menial tasks, denied overtime hours and endured continued harassment.

However, the appellate court affirmed the earlier dismissal, ruling in favor of Ball State.

Vance again appealed. But the issue here has bigger implications. If the harasser is the victim’s co-worker – and not supervisor – can the employer be held liable?

The case is set to be heard Nov. 26, 2012, and our Chino harassment lawyers will be closely following the outcome.
Continue Reading

An explosive sexual harassment and abuse case has been filed by 19 current and former soldiers and airmen, alleging that the U.S. top military officials did nothing to stop or punish the abuse they suffered.

Riverside Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands that the soldiers have a laundry list of claims, and it is one of four such cases currently pending against the military.

The court documents describe a work environment in which sexual harassment and abuse was not only tolerated, but appeared to be sanctioned. The case involves 14 women and five men.

In two cases, male soldiers allege that a higher ranking officer took them to his home, sexually assaulted them and infected them with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. A number of the female plaintiffs allege that they were made to live near, work with and even undergo group therapy sessions with the very individuals they had previously accused of sexual assault.

U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Francisco, has spoken publicly about the allegations, saying that those who report either sexual harassment or abuse within short order are labeled as having some mental illness or personality disorder and discharged from their military service. This is done so involuntarily and systematically, she said.

Speier is sponsoring a bill that would establish an outside agency to review sexual harassment and assault complaints within the military.

An annual report conducted by the U.S. Department of Defense of 2011 statistics found that there were nearly 3,400 sexual assault victims that year. But those were only the cases that were reported. In fact, the department estimates, there are likely as many as 15,000 assaults that are never reported.

Little more than 5 percent of those offenders serve any jail time.

One of the complainants, now 27, joined the military when she was just 17. At the time, she says, she endured repeated sexual harassment from her recruiter. Then in 2003, he attempted to sexually assault her. She reported him after that incident, and he went on trial in a civilian criminal court, where he was convicted and sentenced to prison. However, she says the sexual harassment continued, particularly when she was serving on deployment in Iraq. Three times, she said, she attempted suicide.

Anther female Air Force recruit reported she joined in 2001, and was based in Florida. She began suffering sexual harassment in 2004, when a senior officer began purposely brushing up against her, grabbing her, slapping her private areas and repeatedly making lewd and vulgar statements to her. When she reported the actions, the supervisor sat them down together and told the senior officer to “keep his hands to himself.” This, she says, only made the situation worse, as she was then retaliated against. When she again reported the escalating abuse, she was told she would “receive paperwork” if she tried to report the incident up a higher chain of command. Further, she was told that the abuse was her fault because she was spending time with male officers, and that the way she walked and acted invited such abuse. The perpetrator was never punished.

The list of harassment and abuse goes on, soldier after soldier.

Our sexual harassment lawyers have a deep respect for the bravery that it took for these men and women to come forward. It is our hope that not only will they personally receive justice, but that the culture that allowed such heinous acts to go unpunished will be reformed.
Continue Reading

Many times when we are talking about sexual harassment, we’re referring to it within the context of the workplace.

But Rancho Cucamonga Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi is well aware that this type of harassment is not necessarily relegated to the office, as a recent Department of Justice case proves.

A California landlord has been ordered to pay more than $2 million, following a sexual harassment lawsuit that alleged he harassed female tenants and prospective tenants.

Among the complaints lodged against the landlord:

–He made unwelcome sexual advances and sexually-charged comments;
–He exposed his genitals to female tenants;
–He touched female tenants and prospective female tenants without their consent;
–He routinely denied housing to women on the basis of sex;
–He punished women who refused his sexual advances.

This was a landlord who has been in the business approximately 30 years, so although 25 victims have been identified, there are likely more who haven’t come forward.

Though certain criminal charges could likely have been applied, the case was prosecuted civilly under the U.S. Fair Housing Act. Under 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619, the Fair Housing Act, it’s considered a violation to discriminate on the basis of sex. Sexual discrimination can be the result of sexual harassment, which is defined as either:

–A quid pro quo situation, in which a housing provider conditions access to or retention of housing or related services to a person’s submission to a sexual act or conduct;

–A hostile environment of sexual harassment, in which a housing provider engages in sexual behavior of such a severity that it can be considered offensive, hostile, intimidating or undesirable.

Such a claim can be filed, regardless of whether an individual actually lost their home or some other tangible item as a result of the harassment.

In this case, this settlement is actually the largest ever under the Fair Housing Act. The landlord will be required to spend a little over $2 million to the 25 complainants, as well as another $55,000 civil penalty to the U.S. government for violation of federal law. He will also have to pay attorneys’ fees for two of the plaintiffs, who filed their cases privately, outside of the Justice Department suit.

Additionally, if he intends to remain in the rental business, he will have to hire an independent manager in order to manage his rental properties. He will also be extremely limited in the type and extent of contact he may have with his current and future tenants.

As the assistant attorney general was quoted as saying, women – and all tenants – have the unquestionable right to fell safe in their own homes. They should never feel that they must endure sexual harassment just because they and their families need shelter.

There is no doubt that the reason these egregious abuses went on as long as they did was because the women who were victimized felt they had nowhere to turn. They needed affordable housing. Maybe they felt they wouldn’t be believed. Maybe they could not afford to move.

Such conduct is not acceptable in the workplace, and it certainly isn’t acceptable at home.
Continue Reading

A state appellate court has upheld an earlier judgment from a trial court in favor of an employee who alleged gender harassment from her communications company boss. However, justices did reduce the award.

Orange County Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands that a jury in San Francisco had determined that the supervisor at Qwest Communications mistreated the plaintiff and had harassed other women as well. For her ordeal, the jury awarded her $4.3 million in damages.

It’s important to note that there is a distinction between gender harassment and sexual harassment. The former is a type of discrimination in which the staffer is targeted on the basis of his or her sex or when those of the opposite sex are treated more favorably. Sexual harassment, meanwhile, is the presence of unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or other conduct of a sexual nature that is either made a condition of employment or is used to make an employment-related decision or creates a hostile work environment.

In this case, Qwest appealed the trial court’s decision.

While the appellate court upheld the earlier verdict, saying it was clear that the gender harassment was so intense that it was understandable why the woman quit her job, the justices ruled that the jury’s award was excessive. Ultimately, they reduced it by almost half.

Gender harassment lawyers are disappointed at the justices’ decision to slash the damages, particularly given the egregiousness of the proven allegations.

It started back in 2006, when the employee in question was hired. In the San Francisco branch of the company, she oversaw sales of communications equipment, and her team not only met but exceeded its quota during those two years.

Several months after she came aboard, she was assigned to a new supervisor. What she did not know was that he had been hired after he had apparently sexually propositioned another younger female employee at his previous job.

At staff meetings, he would chastise her for being “too emotional.” He referred to her as a “silly girl,” and he also once asked whether she planned on going out that night to look for a sexual encounter.

Additionally, he berated her for taking credit for the success of others and told her she wasn’t likely to stay employed there.

The year after she started, she suffered a knee injury. The result was that driving became painful. The supervisor learned of this, and began mandating that she act as a go-between for the offices, which required her being behind the wheel for up to five hours each day.

There was also a string of evidence indicating that he called and e-mailed her nearly a dozen times a day. He would demand to know where she was or what she was doing. He raised her sales quota to an unreachable level – something he did not do for the other employees.

By the end of that year, the employee was fed up. She filed a complaint with the company’s human resources department. However, a representative told her it was a “minor” matter, and that they would inform the supervisor. This did not improve the situation. In fact, once the supervisor learned of the complaint, he was livid – and left her a voicemail telling her so.

The employee subsequently went on medical leave and then resigned.

As it was later revealed during the trial, this employee wasn’t the only one who had been the target of this supervisor’s ire. In fact, three other female employees testified under oath that he had insulted them and had treated male workers far more favorably than female workers – and it was obvious.

The jury sided with the employee, giving her nearly $500,000 for economic losses, about $2.8 million for pain and suffering and another $1 million for punitive damages.

The justices, however, determined that the non-economic harm that the worker suffered didn’t justify the nearly $3 million in damages. In their reasoning, they stated that lesser amounts had been upheld for those who had actually suffered mental breakdowns.

It seems an unfair standard. Mental breakdowns can vary depending on multiple factors, including a person’s own chemical make-up and mental health.

It is not yet clear whether the employee will appeal.
Continue Reading

The Orange County Clerk-Recorder is under investigation amid allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, following the implementation of a strict new county protocol enacted after the arrest of another county official accused of sexually assaulting multiple employees.

Orange County Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that because it took almost a year for officials in law enforcement to be alerted to the first case, a thorough investigation into the department’s affairs may be in order.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as requests for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances or other physical or verbal conduct of a sexual nature that:

–Is made a condition of one’s employment;

–Affects management decisions regarding employment, raises or discipline;

–Has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee’s work performance or establishing a hostile or offensive work environment.

It’s worth noting that even if an employee consents, particularly in order to save his or her job or to avoid other negative consequences, it can still be considered sexual harassment. It can range from unwanted phone calls and attention to outright sexual assault.

This issue appears to be one of growing concern within Orange County government.

In the first case, a subordinate of the accused manager was charged with investigating the allegations. Then the case was handed to a private law firm. That firm prepared a report, which the county then did nothing about.

Now, the person under investigation is a high-level county official accused of not only cronyism and favortism, but sexual misconduct as well. The county was alerted to the allegations through an anonymous letter that was signed by “concerned employees.”

In five pages, the letter asserts that several women, who are named in the report, were given raises in pay and promotions that were not justified. These women were commonly referred to as his “girls” or “angels,” and it is alleged that he engaged in sexual relationships with them, which were then rewarded with preferential treatment.

This again brings us back to the issue of consent. If the women in this case felt that they were expected to engage in these acts or conduct with their superior in order to receive better pay or work assignments, it absolutely falls under the category of sexual harassment – even if they willfully agreed to it.

Overseeing the internal investigation is the compliance oversight committee, which was created in the wake of the earlier allegations. Those on the committee include the county lawyer, the human resources director and the internal auditor.

According to the new protocol, complaints involving higher-ranking county officials will be handled by an outside lawyer or law firm that specializes in legal workplace issues.

However, as these firms are hired by the county, you can expect the county’s best interests and bottom line will be protected – as opposed to the alleged victims. This is why it is critical for anyone who has suffered sexual harassment to connect with their own counsel, to ensure their personal interests are protected.

Attorneys for the official have said that it appears the attacks are politically motivated and categorically denied them. Additionally, the women involved have reportedly signed documents indicating the same. However, if an employee believes his or her employment may be in jeopardy for asserting otherwise, it would be no surprise that they would try to protect their boss.
Continue Reading

A high school student in Northern California alleged sexual harassment by a guidance counselor during her junior year, and now details are emerging about the district’s efforts to settle the case.

Orange County Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that the school district reportedly paid nearly $175,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the girl and her family. About $60,000 went to the girl and her family, while the rest went toward legal fees.

The new records were provided more than a year after they were first requested – in violation of California’s public records laws.

The case stemmed from the alleged interactions between the girl and her guidance counselor. According to her, the counselor made lewd and inappropriate remarks to her, attempted to hug and touch her and even pulled her out of class on several occasions to make unwanted sexual advances.

The school district, she claims, did nothing to address the issue when she first reported it.

Both the counselor and the district denied any wrongdoing, but the girl didn’t decide to sue until the school refused to fire the guidance counselor, potentially putting other young girls at risk for similar harassment.

The counselor still works at the school. The school district calls the counselor’s behavior “inappropriate and unprofessional,” but said it did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. It seems to be a conflicting stance.

Watchdog groups had been battling the school district for the last year trying to get records pertaining to the case. Some were critical of the amount spent to settle, given the financial woes of the public school district.

However, that settlement was actually quite modest, particularly when considering the type of harassment this student suffered and given the affect that can have on a teenager.

So often, when we think of sexual harassment, we think of workplace issues. However, students can be particularly vulnerable to this type of abuse because they are young, impressionable and often trust the authority of school employees.

A report last year from the American Association of University Women revealed that about half of all female high school and middle school students had been sexually harassed at least once in the previous school year. Often, the harassment was from their peers, but there were a number of cases in which it reportedly involved an adult school employee. Sexual harassment was defined as any type of unwanted sexual behavior that took place either in person or electronically.

Not only is this inappropriate, it could be criminal depending on the age of the victim and the position of the employee.

About half of the students surveyed said they ignored the harassment and never reported it. Only about 25 percent reported having the nerve to tell someone to stop, and an even smaller number reported it to a parent or other trusted adult.

Parents in particular need to keep an open communication with their children, and their female teenagers in particular, to ascertain whether this is an issue for them. Sexual harassment can include:

–Making sexual comments about a person’s body or clothing;

–Telling sexual stories or jokes;

–Paying unwanted attention to someone;

–Referring to a student as “honey” or “babe” or “sweetie”;

–Giving personal gifts that may make a student uneasy;

–Touching the students hair, body, clothing or face.
Continue Reading

A gay sexual harassment case involving a retired Los Angeles schools superintendent fell through after details of the preliminary deal became public and the victim in the case was identified.

Orange County Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that cases involving same-sex harassment in the workplace are on the rise.

In 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that about 16 percent of all sexual harassment cases were brought by men – which is an increase of about 12 percent from 10 years earlier. While there are no definitive statistics from the EEOC on how many of those involve same-sex harassment, a spokesperson for the federal agency was quoted as saying that, anecdotally, the number involving same-sex harassment has shot up.

It’s only been in the last 15 years that same-sex harassment was considered sexual harassment at all, thanks to the Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. In that case, justices held that same-sex claims did, in fact, constitute as harassment.

Generally, it’s more common that these cases will be settled out of court than make it all the way to trial. That’s the route this case was on, until it was derailed by a release of information by the district.

Here’s what happened, according to the Los Angeles Times:

A mid-level administrator at the school has filed a $10 million lawsuit against the district, alleging that it failed to protect him from the sexual advances of former Superintendent Ramon Cortines, even after he revealed the alleged harassment to his superiors.

Cortines, now 80, reportedly denies any harassment, but does say he engaged in “spontaneous, consensual adult behavior” with his former employee, now 56.

The employee had been working for the district since 2000, and he and his husband were acquaintances with the superintendent, who at the time was serving as interim superintendent.

The employee said he never interviewed for the job, but that shortly after he landed it, the superintendent began pressuring him to engage in sexual acts with him. He said the superintendent’s demeanor toward him was always overly-friendly and attentive.

Back in 2010, the employee said he accepted an invitation to visit the superintendent’s ranch because he felt that his superior could either cut his position or protect him from being laid off. He could not afford to risk his job, he said, so he went. While there and over the course of two days, the employee said his boss tried repeatedly to engage him in unwanted sexual acts. The employee said he felt trapped.

After that, the employee said he told two supervisors what had happened. He was advised to drop the matter, as it would likely ruin the superintendent’s career.

The superintendent retired last year, and the employee filed his harassment claim in March. A deal on the table would have given him a $200,000 lump sum and a lifetime of health benefits if he would leave his position.

However, the deal fell through. It’s not clear whether the case will now go to trial.

The employee, who still works there, has now also sued the former superintendent personally.
Continue Reading

Riverside sexual harassment cases are not precluded from moving forward simply because of consent when one of those involved is a supervisor of the other.

Riverside Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi has known of situations in which the subordinate was afraid to press forward with the case, believing that although they hadn’t wanted to engage in sexual contact with their boss, consent made the point moot.

That’s simply not true.

Medina v. United Christian Evangelical Association of Florida proved this.

Now, we’ve just recently had the former CEO of Best Buy resign amid allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate. There are no indications at this point that what took place was sexual harassment, but given the power that this individual held within such a large company, it would not be surprising if such an allegation were to emerge somewhere down the line.

Medina v. United Christian is just one example of how consent doesn’t necessarily prevent actions from being deemed sexual harassment. In this case, there was a church that hired a young man to be the personal assistant of the pastor. His official responsibilities included helping the pastor with personal care and driving him from one place to another.

The employee later claimed that the pastor coerced him into engaging in a sexual relationship. The young man said he did not want to do this, but did so voluntarily after the pastor threatened his job and forced him to redo work he had already finished.

The employee eventually sued for sexual harassment. Both the church and the pastor indicated it couldn’t be sexual harassment because the employee had consented to the sexual relations.

However, the court ultimately sided with the employee, citing a previous Supreme Court decision that indicated consent was not necessarily a factor in certain cases of sexual harassment.

That said, if there was consent, it can still be a more difficult case to prove than if the conduct or activity was expressly unwanted and rebuffed or refused. What a Riverside sexual harassment attorney would have to prove would be that the conduct was unwelcome, and that they were either threatened or had a fear that they would lose their job or suffer some other consequence as a result of not consenting.

It’s for this reason that a lot of businesses ban personal relationships among employees and supervisors.

It’s unclear whether Best Buy had that type of policy in place when it discovered that the married CEO had been carrying on a relationship with a younger female employee.

The company is reportedly investigating a number of “complaints” with regard to “inappropriate behavior” with a female employee. Now, it’s not clear whether those complaints came from the employee or from other co-workers.

The CEO later resigned in the midst of that investigation.
Continue Reading

In what appears to be a disturbing pattern at El Camino College, the university has agreed to a settlement in their second Torrance sexual harassment case.

Torrance sexual harassment attorney Houman Fakhimi is well-versed in The Contra Costa Times reports that a 53-year-old administrative assistant at the college alleged that she endured sexual harassment for six years from the previous vice president, who also served as dean.

The harassment encompassed a range of behaviors, according to court records. Her boss, she said, stared at her chest, touched, kissed and groped her without her permission and even made demands for sex. The former vice president reportedly threatened to give her poor job evaluations or even fire her if she didn’t have sex with him.

In the end, rather than take the case to court, the university settled with the administrative assistant for a sum of $750,000. Perhaps the decision had something to do with another case that had been filed little more than a year before this one.

In the previous case, another former administrative assistant was awarded a sum of $2.5 million for her sexual harassment suit – against the same official, who is now in his mid-70s. Her allegations included not only harassment, such offering her hundreds of dollars to have sex with him, but an actual sexual assault in which the elder administrator reportedly raped her in a locked office.

The administrator didn’t deny he had a sexual relationship with the 34-year-old secretary, but says it was consensual.

Even one claim of sexual harassment is enough to tarnish any employer. Two would signal a serious problem. However, the allegations of sexual harassment at El Camino don’t stop there.

In fact, the most recent settlement marks the fourth case of alleged sexual harassment lobbed at school administrators in a single year. The two other cases went to trial, with the college coming up on the winning side. Still, it seems indicative of a greater culture at the university that this type of behavior – some of which is outright criminal – was allowed to thrive. Multiple allegations of sexual harassment tend to bolster one another, and can lead to an employer who is eager to reach an outside settlement, rather than have the case drag on in court.

In both cases, the women say they were afraid to complain for fear they might lose their jobs. In fact, the aggressor in this case told at least one of the women that he was close with the union president, who would believe him over her if she ever mentioned a word of the harassment to anyone.

In the most-recently settled case, an internal university investigation cleared the dean of wrongdoing. But this just goes to show why you need an experienced Torrance sexual harassment attorney at every step of the way in these cases. Just because the employer dismisses wrongdoing doesn’t mean nothing happened – and it doesn’t mean you aren’t entitled to compensation.

In both cases, the college paid about a third of the money, while insurance covered the rest, according to the newspaper.
Continue Reading