California Employment Lawyer Blog

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

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