Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: The two plaintiffs suffered from emotional distress and shame at having been coerced into believing that they needed to have sex with the recruiters in order to gain entrance into the ABC Company. Counsel further argued that Dallas lost her virginity to Damon while she was intoxicated at the recruiting office and that Damon had infected her with Chlamydia. According to counsel, when Dallas told Damon that he had given her the disease, Damon responded by exclaiming, “I should have used a condom with your dirty ass.”

Facts:
In the fall of 2003, plaintiff Jane Dallas, a Sacramento high school student, was contacted by an ABC Company recruiter, Phil Damon, about the potential for her to embark on a career in the ABC Company. By the end of January 2004, the two would have sex on three occasions. On the last occasion, Dallas was accompanied by her friend, Martha Rice, who claimed that she had sex with Damon's fellow recruiter, Ben Fallows at the Sacramento recruiting office.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Two Teenage Girls Bring Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Company and Its Recruiters, Part 1 of 3" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff said defendant XYZ then only offered her assignments during the day when it knew she could not accept such assignments because she was going to school. Ultimately, plaintiff took medical leave, but when plaintiff's doctor released her to return to work, defendant XYZ delayed her return for months. Plaintiff said when she was allowed to return, defendant XYZ assigned her to the DFS Division, but continued its campaign of harassment, intending to force her to quit or to create a pretext to fire her.

Defendant Amos was the defendant EHS employee responsible for supervising the security guards assigned to the EHS Fleet Services Division. Before plaintiff could be assigned to the Fleet Services Division, defendant Amos had to interview plaintiff and approve her assignment. He then acted as her site supervisor. After initially defending her against defendant XYZ's continuing harassment, defendant Amos informed plaintiff that she “owed” him. Defendant Amos used his supervisory position, and threats to have her fired, to force plaintiff to perform oral sex on him on the job. He insisted on going to her house during work hours, where he threatened to have her fired if she refused to have sex with him. Within days, defendant Amos requested that plaintiff be removed from the EHS contract, which defendant XYZ used as a pretext to fire plaintiff.

Defendants Amos and EHS settled with plaintiff.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Sexually Harassed Brings Lawsuit Against Company, Part 2 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS
According to court records: On May 2, 2002, plaintiff went to work for ABC Company, which had a contract with California Department of General Services (“EHS”) to provide security services at state facilities in Sacramento, California. In August 2001, defendant XYZ Inc. took over the ABC contract with EHS, and plaintiff was hired by defendant XYZ on September 18, 2001. At the time plaintiff was hired by defendant XYZ, she informed them that she was going to school, but was available to work evening or night shifts.

In the fall of 2001, Johnson, a janitorial supervisor working at the B Building where plaintiff was assigned began subjecting plaintiff to inappropriate sexual comments and unwelcome sexual advances. Plaintiff said she made it clear that she did not welcome the sexual advances, and Johnson began retaliating against her. Plaintiff was reluctant to report Johnson's conduct because her assignment accommodated her schedule and was close to home. Plaintiff said her manager promised her that her shift would not be changed and she would not be transferred.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Brought Against Company, Part 1 of 2" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff May Not Offer Evidence of Lee's Private Relationships and Conduct.

Defendants anticipate that Hill will attempt to prejudice the jury against Defendants by offering evidence relating to Lee's non-work related sexual conduct, including relationships with men and other private conduct outside of the workplace. For example, in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Hill submitted a declaration in which she asserted, without foundation, that Lee ordered so many pornographic videos on his Directv account at home that his Directv account was repeatedly blocked by Directv .... (Hill Decl., filed in opposition to Defendants’ MSJ) In some cases, it is anticipated that Hill will seek to justify her proffer of certain evidence, by baldly claiming that she was at Lee's private home for work meetings. (Hill Decl.) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Any such evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, and its introduction would violate Lee's Constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy. The constitutional right of sexual privacy, both within and without the marital relationship, is a fundamental liberty arising from both the United States and the California Constitutions. The California right has been described as a protective zone of privacy "surrounding sexual behavior..." Boler v. Superior Court, 201 Cal. App. 3d 467, 473 (1987). Indeed, California accords privacy the constitutional status of an "inalienable right, on a par with defending life and possessing property." Vinson v. Superior Court, 43 Cal. 3d 833, 841 (1987) (internal citations omitted).

Continue reading "Sexual Conduct Inside Workplace At Issue In Harassment Case, Part 10 of 10" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff may not offer evidence of purported comments made by Lee relating to race, national origin and religion. Hill is a Caucasian female who is claiming only gender based harassment and discrimination. Nevertheless, it is anticipated that Hill will attempt to sway the jury with testimony of purported racist and anti-Semitic remarks made by Lee. Evidence of any such remarks is manifestly irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded. See e.g. Galarraga v. Marriott Employees FCU, 70 F.E.P. Cases 1605, 1610 (D. Md. 1996) (in granting defendant employer's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination under the Equal Pay Act ( EPA ), the Court held that evidence of comments regarding plaintiff's accent would demonstrate national origin-based animus rather than gender-based animus, and would not raise a reasonable inference of gender discrimination, and is, therefore, irrelevant to plaintiff's claim). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

See also, McClain v. Mack Trucks. Inc., 85 F.R.D. 53, 63 (E.D. Penn. 1979) (limiting discovery on motion to compel to evidence of racial discrimination on the ground that [w]hether [defendant] discriminates against employees on the basis of religion, creed, gender or national origin is wholly irrelevant to [plaintiff's] present claim of racial discrimination).

Continue reading "Sacramento Woman Files Gender Based Lawsuit Against Employer, Part 9 of 10" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Major Evidentiary Issues

Defendants intend to file a number of motions in limine directed at Hill's anticipated evidence. Defendants anticipate the following major evidentiary issues:

Plaintiff may not offer evidence of speech or conduct that was not directed at her or other female employees. Plaintiff apparently hopes to prove her harassment claims with evidence that Lee engaged in vulgar banter with his female, non-employee friends, that Hill overheard and by which she was offended. However, Hill cannot rely on such evidence because it is (1) irrelevant to her harassment claim under Lyle v. Warner Brothers because it was not directed at her or other female employees "because of" gender, and was welcomed by (and non-harassing of) the women to whom the speech was directed; and (2) Lee's non-directed speech is protected by his right of free speech, particularly where some of the speech occurred at social dinners and outside of the workplace.

Further, see Title 2, California Code of Regulations 7287.6 (DFEH's regulations provide that the rights of free speech and association shall be accommodated consistently with the intent of this subsection. ); DeAngelis, 51 F.3d at 596-97; Saxe, 240 F.3d at 204, 206. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins. (See Part 9 of 10.)

Continue reading "Sacramento Employee's Personal Life At Issue In Sexual Harassment Lawsuit, Part 8 of 10" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

ALL CONTESTED ISSUES OF LAW

Based on briefing in connection with Defendants' motion for summary judgment, Defendants believe the following to be the contested issues of law:

Whether Defendant Randy Lee's alleged vulgar speech is protected by his right of free speech under the First Amendment and California Constitution.

Hill's sexual harassment claim seeks to invoke state law to punish Lee (and indirectly Randy Lee Artists Collective) for exercising his right of free speech. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing ("DFEH") has recognized that free speech rights exist even in the context of alleged harassment. Although the DFEH's regulations provide that certain forms of verbal and visual conduct can constitute unlawful harassment, the regulations go on to provide that the rights of free speech and association shall be accommodated consistently with the intent of this subsection. Title 2, California Code of Regulations 7287.6. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

In Lyle, the Supreme Court ultimately did not address the Constitutional limits of sexual harassment laws, because it construed FEHA narrowly to punish only discriminatory speech or conduct that was aimed at the plaintiff or female employees generally because of their gender. Lyle. 38 Cal. 4th at 294 (declining to address First Amendment issue).

Continue reading "Free Speech At Issue In Sacramento Sexual Harassment Case, Part 7 of 10" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

ALL CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT

Most of the facts in this matter are undisputed. The principal disputes of fact appear to be:

1. Whether Hill used vulgar language around Lee: while the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Hill used vulgar speech in her communications with Lee (including, emails in which she used the words "bitch" and "fuck," and forwarded a video of naked men), Hill apparently does not recall using certain words remembered by others (like "cunt" and "cock") and does not recall discussing with Lee her boyfriends' penises. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

2. Whether Hill freely socialized with Lee: While numerous witnesses will testify that Hill regularly and freely socialized with Lee, including dining with him almost every night for 7 years, Hill apparently intends to testify that she socialized with Lee only to "curry favor" with him. (As stated in the Declaration of Gabrielle Hill filed in opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.)

3. Whether Hill made any protected complaint or protest: Hill has admitted that she never complained to Lee. However, she apparently contends - and Defendants dispute - that Hill complained to others, who, in any event, did not take part in the decision to terminate Hill's employment.

Continue reading "Sacramento Artists Collective Sued For Sexual Harassment, Part 6 of 10" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Hill's 7th Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Is Unsupported By the Evidence

Hill's 7th Cause of action largely duplicates her other causes of action and alleges that Defendants' conduct caused her severe emotional distress. Defendants deny this claim, which fails for the same reasons as the underlying claims on which it is based. Further, the purported conduct Hill seeks to rely upon to support her claim is neither "extreme" nor "outrageous" as a matter of law, or is nonsensical (e.g., gay men who did not sleep with Lee were fired). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Hill's 10th Cause of Action for Violation of Labor Code Section 226 Is Unsupported by the Evidence

Hill's 10th cause of action alleges that she requested to review her wage statements, but was denied the opportunity entitling her to a $750 penalty under Labor Code Section 226(f). Defendants deny this claim. Hill never requested to review her wage statements, and a letter from her lawyer to a lawyer for RLAC asking for a copy of her personnel file did not constitute a request for payroll records (which were not kept in any personnel file) by Hill within the meaning of Section 226. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading "Sacramento Sexual Harassment Case Includes Emotional Distress Claim, Part 5 of 10" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Hill's 2nd Cause of Action for Discrimination Based on Sex Is Unsupported By the Evidence

The thrust of Hill's gender discrimination claim is that Lee favored his male purported paramour Davis White over her, afforded him preferential treatment and terminated her to give White her accounts. Defendants deny Hill's claim in all respects. White and Lee were not involved in a romantic relationship at any time during White's employment. Furthermore, Hill has admitted, and numerous witnesses will testify, that none of her work was taken away and given to White. And, even if Lee was in a relationship with, and favored, White over Hill (and her other male co-workers), this does not constitute gender discrimination as a matter of law. Proskel v. Gattis, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1626, 1630 (1996) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Where, as here, there is no conduct other than favoritism toward a paramour, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that no claim of sexual harassment or discrimination exists ). Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Hill was terminated because she was unable to satisfactorily perform her job as agent, including not closing a single deal for a RLAC client.

Hill's 3rd, 5th and 6th Causes of Action for Retaliation Are Unsupported By the Evidence

Continue reading "Sacramento Arstists Agent Terminated By Employer After Sex Suit, Part 4 of 10" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Hill's 1st Cause of Action for Sexual Harassment and 4th Cause of Action for Failure to Prevent Harassment Are Unsupported by The Evidence

Hill's harassment claims are based on her assertion that her former friend and supervisor Randy Lee used vulgar language in her presence that she purports to have found offensive and harassing. Defendants deny that Hill was subject to unlawful harassment. Hill has admitted, and numerous witnesses will testify, that Hill and Lee were friends who vacationed and regularly socialized together, that Hill used vulgar language around Lee (and even sent him a video of naked men with exposed penises) and that Hill never complained to Lee about his use of vulgar language. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

The evidence demonstrates that Lee's speech and conduct was not because of Hill's gender (if she had been a man, she would have been subjected to the same speech), unwelcome to Hill or so severe or pervasive that it altered the conditions of Hill's employment and created a hostile work environment. In addition, much of the speech upon which Hill hopes to base her claim - for example, Lee's private discussions with his female friends -- is protected by the free speech guarantees under the First Amendment and California constitution. All such evidence must be excluded. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 932-34 (1982) (verdict must be vacated where court cannot tell if the verdict was based, in part, on constitutionally-protected activity). (See Part 4 of 10.)

Continue reading "Vulgar And Offensive Language Leads To Sexual Harassment Suit In Sacramento, Part 3 of 10" »

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF CLAIMS AND DEFENSES PRESENTED AND ISSUES TO BE DECIDED

The Court granted summary adjudication on Hill's 8th and 9th causes of action for overtime pay and meal penalties, and Hill has agreed to entry of judgment on her related 11th cause of action under Labor Code Section 201. Accordingly, Hill has eleven remaining causes of action. As set forth below, one of Hill's causes of action will be tried to the Court and, depending on the outcome of that proceeding, eleven of the causes of action may be tried to the jury. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

14th Cause of Action under Business & Professions Code § 17200 to Be Decided By Court

Hill's 14th Cause of Action for violation of Business Professionals Code Section 17200 (harassment, discrimination, and retaliation on the basis of sex) must be tried to the Court rather than the jury. Hodge v. Superior Court, 145 Cal. App. 4th 278, 281 (2006) ( We conclude no jury trial is warranted. The gist of the section 17200 cause of action is equitable and the relief sought is equitable even though plaintiffs could have requested damages for the same violations, even though the employer has asserted an affirmative defense, and even though the UCL cause of action will require proof of the underlying Labor Code violations. ); People v. First Fed. Credit Corp., 104 Cal. App. 4th 721,732-733 (2002) ( [T]he concern that juror passion or prejudice may affect a punitive damage award ... is absent in UCL cases because there is no right to a jury trial in such cases.")

Continue reading "Sacramento Artists Collective Subjects Employees To Sexual Harassment, Part 2 of 10" »