California Employment Lawyer Blog

Threats of a sexual harassment lawsuit against a former tech-industry mogul have forced the millionaire to step down from his posts, according to numerous news sites.

Irvine Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understand the case presents some interesting issues regarding what sexual harassment is, who victims might be and how these cases should proceed.

The executive in question had previously worked at PayPal and LinkedIn when they were start-ups, but had most recently served as the COO for electronic payment service Square.

According to news reports, the accuser was the former boyfriend of the COO. The pair reportedly met outside of work through a mutual friend and dated for several months. The executive said he encouraged his boyfriend, while they were dating, to apply for a job at Square, where he was later hired. The executive insists that he was never directly in a position of authority over the accuser and that the relationship was at all times consensual.

However, the accuser – who has not yet formally filed a suit – reportedly threatened to do so if the executive did not give him a million-dollar payout.

If this account is true, we want to make it clear that this is not the proper way to go about presenting a successful sexual harassment claim. In fact, it may be considered blackmail, and the accuser could face criminal charges.

No doubt, sexual harassment is an incredibly difficult and emotionally-charged thing to cope with. When you have a legitimate complaint, it can be tempting to lash out on your own with threats against the aggressor and demand immediate recompense. But this is unwise. The first thing to do in any case is to meet with an experienced sexual harassment attorney who can advise you of the proper legal steps you need to take to both end the harassment and, if applicable, obtain compensation for what you have endured.

In this case, Square executives said once it learned the allegations, it launched an immediate investigation, and found no evidence of wrongdoing. However, this is not unusual, as a company is unlikely to find itself liable in an internal probe. It did though accept the COO’s letter of resignation for having exercised “poor judgment.”

Another issue this case brings up is whether someone involved in a consensual relationship with someone who is their boss may file a sexual harassment claim. The answer truly depends on the nature of the relationship, how it began and whether job-related rewards and/or adverse actions were directly tied to sexual activity. Sexual harassment is a form of discrimination, and it’s specifically defined as unwelcome physical, verbal or visual conduct of a sexual nature that creates a hostile working environment.

Many companies have internal policies that prohibit supervisors from being involved in relationships with subordinates for this very reason. It tends to be unwise for a number of different reasons. But if the relationship started as a result of employment promises or threats made to the subordinate worker, indeed, it may be considered sexual harassment.

And finally, another issue this case raises is that of male victims. It’s true that the vast majority of sexual harassment cases have traditionally involved female plaintiffs. Part of the reason for this is that men may be ashamed to admit they have been victimized – regardless of whether the alleged aggressor is a male or female.

That’s beginning to change. Of the nearly 12,700 sexual harassment complaints handled by the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission in 2009, more than 15 percent were made by male victims. A decade earlier, it was less than 10 percent. So men are certainly beginning to feel more empowered in this regard.

If you have questions about whether what you’re experiencing is sexual harassment, immediately contact an experienced employment lawyer.
Continue Reading

It took 14 long years, but the biggest Burger King franchise owner has finally agreed to a $2.5 million settlement in a sexual harassment case involving 89 employees, only one of whom still works there.

Fontana Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi knows this case was initially much larger, and this payout represents the last of the remaining parties involved.

But the bigger reason this case is significant is that it sends a strong message, particularly to women in the service industries: white collar workers aren’t the only ones who deserve to be treated free from discrimination and harassment. Unfortunately, there tends to be a strong cultural undercurrent in some of these companies that lower-paying jobs mean fewer rights. This could not be further from the truth.

Still, it can sometimes be an uphill battle, and litigants shouldn’t expect immediate results.

What the women in this case found was strength in numbers. And even though it ultimately took more than a dozen years, which is far longer than most of these cases take to reach resolution, persistence paid off – they won.

The franchise firm, which owns nearly 600 stores in 13 states, had been accused of allowing and perpetuating systematic violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case started back in 1998 in suburban New York. There, a single female worker alleged sexual harassment and filed suit.

This prompted the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to launch an investigation, which in turn produced evidence that the company had a practice or pattern of violating the civil rights of its female workers. Women alleged and provided proof that they had been subjected not only to bias in terms of promotions, but also to sexual harassment in the form of unwanted touching and groping, exposure of genitalia, obscene comments and even strip searches and sexual assaults.

With the permission from a federal district court judge in New York, the EEOC filed a sexual harassment and discrimination suit on behalf of 90,000 former and current female employees. The court allowed the agency to contact each of the 90,000 women. The EEOC is on record as saying this action was the most extensive it has ever investigated.

By 2005, the government agency identified more than 500 women it believed had a strong case to support its claims.

Presented with this information, the federal court judge dismissed the case as a class action. What this meant was that each of those more than 500 cases would have to be tried separately.

This was a legal nightmare for both sides, but many of those cases were litigated. Some were dismissed, but many went on to receive summary judgments in favor of the plaintiffs.

So these 89 cases were what was left over.

The company denies it has done anything wrong, but says the cost of continuing to litigate the remaining cases was beginning to be more of a burden than it was worth.

In addition to the payout, the firm has agreed it will do more to prevent sexual harassment in the future, including enhancing and effectively communicating its policies on sexual harassment through clearly established training and procedures. Plus, the firm will have to report the results of its beefed up anti-harassment efforts to the EEOC for the next two years.
Continue Reading

A former police cadet alleges she was forced to quit the academy after suffering sexual harassment at the hands of a high-ranking lieutenant on the force – the second lawsuit involving the same man in six months.

Rancho Cucamonga Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that anytime more than one person steps forward to allege mistreatment, each claim is bolstered. This is why we dedicate a great deal of time to conducting thorough research in preparation for each case. Sometimes, that does mean asking difficult questions of you as well as your current or former colleagues. The end goal, however, is always to secure the greatest amount of compensation for what you have endured.

We’re not surprised that this case involves a police agency. Although such historically male-dominated fields have far greater access and opportunities to female employees than ever before, the bravado that often accompanies such professions is often used as an excuse for untoward behavior. Women in the field are often instructed by superiors to either suck it up, or risk being ostracized.

It takes incredible courage to speak up under these circumstances. We have found when our clients do this, though, they often learn they weren’t alone.

According to the Los Angeles Times, this case stems from an incidents in the Irwindale Police Department, about a half hour outside of Rancho Cucamonga.

In a complaint filed last month in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the former cadet said she started working at the agency back in 2008, when she was 19-years-old. During the time she worked there, she said the lieutenant in question held her hand, kissed her and touched her inappropriately while they were on duty. These incidents happened both in his city-owned cruiser and in his office.

At first, the complainant said she refused his advances. However, as time went on, she said his actions began to create a hostile work environment. He reportedly promised her a full-time, permanent job with the agency if she submitted to him. So, she did. She later said it was her dream to be a police officer. This superior officer knew it, and he used his position to manipulate her and obtain sexual favors.

In her lawsuit, she claims that when she refused his come-ons, he was very “mean” and would make it difficult for her to complete her everyday duties. However, when she submitted, he was exceedingly pleasant to her, and would help her out.

What this case illustrates is that legitimate sexual harassment cases can involve consent. The key in these cases is the imbalance of power, and how that disproportionate power is used in the course of the relationship.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act gives a host of scenarios that constitute as sexual harassment, which can take on many forms. These definitions include the offer of employment benefits in exchange for sexual favors. It also involves threats or reprisals after a person refuses sexual advances.

The complainant here says that during her four years with the agency, the lieutenant gave her lingerie gift cards worth hundreds of dollars, as well as expensive clothing, jewelry and accessories.

The lieutenant, questioned during a deposition, did not deny that he had given these gifts, but said the two were good friends. He further admitted to lending her money and renting her a condo at below the market value. However, he forced her to move out when he learned she was living there with her boyfriend.

After that revelation, he reportedly told her she had to quit, which she did.

The previous lawsuit filed against this same lieutenant involves a male officer who said he was harassed and given negative performance reviews for voting against a union contract provision that the lieutenant had favored.
Continue Reading

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