Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

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

Summary Judgment is Improper Here Because Triable Issues of Material Fact Exist and Plaintiff Has Provided Sufficient Showing Of Severe and Pervasive Harassment and Discrimination Based on Perceived Sexual Orientation, Creed, and Affiliation With African- Americans

Even if Defendants' evidence is deemed admissible and they are able to meet their initial burden of proof, triable issues of disputed material facts exist which preclude Defendants from successfully moving for summary judgment.

To preclude summary judgment, all the opposing party has to do is successfully introduce enough evidence to show the existence of even a single triable issue of material fact. Plaintiff has accomplished this. As Plaintiff’s Separate Statement of Undisputed and Disputed Material Facts shows, sufficient disputed facts exist to support Plaintiff’s causes of action.

Plaintiff has provided facts, and will produce further evidence at trial, showing that Defendant Green initiated an ongoing and pervasive harassment campaign against Plaintiff based on Defendant Green's perception that Plaintiff was homosexual. Plaintiff will also demonstrate Defendant Green was biased against Plaintiff because Plaintiff is Jewish and because of Plaintiff's affiliation with African-Americans. (See Part 6 of 7.)

Continue reading " Sexual Orientation Harassment Lawsuit Filed By Sacramento Coach, Part 5 of 7 " »

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

The California Constitution Applies to Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation

California Courts have interpreted Article I, Section 8 of the California Constitution to include protection against disqualification from entering or pursuing a business, profession, vocation or employment because of sexual orientation. In In re Marriage Cases the Court found that, just as it is not constitutionally permissible to discriminate against ethnic minorities or women ... an individual's homosexual orientation is not a constitutionally legitimate basis for withholding or restricting the individual's legal rights. In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 757, 822. Further, "this state's current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognize that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all other individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation." In re Marriage, supra at 821-822.

The provisions of the California Constitution, Article I Section 8 are in place to protect individual's basic civil right to access to non-discriminatory employment. In light of the evolution of our state's understanding concerning the equal dignity and respect to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation, it is not appropriate to interpret these provisions in a way that, as a practical matter, excludes gay individuals from the protective reach of such basic civil rights. In re Marriage Cases, supra at 823.

Continue reading " Jewish Basketball Coach Files Suit Against Sacramento University, Part 4 of 7 " »

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

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DRASTIC AND SHOULD BE USED WITH CAUTION
The summary judgment procedure is a drastic measure depriving the losing party of a trial on the merits and may not be granted (in this workplace harassment case) unless it is clear from the affidavits or the declarations filed in connection with the motion that there are no triable issues of fact. Rawlings v. D.M. Oliver Inc. (1979) 97 Cal. App. 3d 809, 895. The court need not look at the counter-affidavits or counter-declarations unless the moving party's declaration, standing alone, but considered in light of the pleading, would support the summary judgment motion. Id. at 896. In all cases, any doubts as to whether summary judgment is proper should be resolved against the moving party. Id. at 896.

In examining the sufficiency of the affidavits, the moving party's affidavits are strictly construed and those of the opposing party are liberally construed. Corwin v. Los Angeles Newspaper Service Bureau. Inc. (1971) 4 Cal. 3d 842, 851, 852. In Corwin, supra at 852, the Court noted that summary judgment procedure is drastic and should be used with caution so that it does not become a substitute for the open trial method of determining facts.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Defendants Have Failed to Meet Their Evidentiary Burden
California Code of Civil Procedure §437c states, in relevant part, as follows:
Any party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit... (o) A defendant ... has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant ... has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff ... to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists to that cause of action or a defense thereto.

Continue reading " Sexual Harassment Suit Filed By Sacramento University Athletic Director, Part 3 of 7 " »

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff John White has been an employee of the CCD since 1992 when he was hired as head men's basketball coach at Community College ("CC") In 2003, Plaintiff was appointed Athletic Director at CC and presently continues to serve in that role as well as that of head men's basketball coach. Dr. Sean Green became President of CC on August 1, 2005. On or about August 2007, Defendant Green was reassigned to another branch of the CCD and removed from the position of President of CC.

During the time that Defendant Green was President at CC its men's basketball team was comprised entirely of African-American males. From the time that he took his position as President at CC to his abrupt departure from CC Defendant Green harassed, discriminated against and attempted to destroy, discredit and defame Plaintiff Miller. Plaintiff’s record as Athletic Director and Men's Basketball coach was excellent. Defendant's bias against Plaintiff was clearly unwarranted by his performance and instead was based on his false perception of Plaintiffs sexual orientation, his perception of Plaintiffs religious affiliation (Plaintiff is half Jewish), and his racist disapproval of the all African-American men's basketball team coached by Plaintiff.

Defendant was also biased against homosexuals. And because Defendant suspected that Plaintiff was homosexual Defendant threatened him based on this rank suspicion. Defendant additionally suspected that Plaintiff was Jewish and made disparaging remarks about Jews to Plaintiff.

Continue reading " Sacramento Basketball Coach Files Action For Workplace Harassment, Part 2 of 7 " »

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

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

INTRODUCTION
Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden of presenting admissible evidence to show that either one or more elements of Plaintiffs first cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of action.

As Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint ( FAC ) alleges, and the facts in this case support, Defendants engaged in consistent and malicious workplace harassment of Plaintiff and made defamatory statements against Plaintiff. As a result of this willful and malicious illegal treatment, Plaintiff suffered injury to his emotional well being and his professional reputation. Defendants argue that the treatment endured by Plaintiff and his resulting injuries are not sufficient to trigger protection under applicable anti-discrimination statutes such as the Fair Employment and Housing Act and anti-defamation statutes. Plaintiff disagrees with this contention and will present admissible evidence at trial to support Plaintiff's positions. Therefore, disputed material facts exist in this case which preclude Defendants from succeeding on their Motion for Summary Judgment.

Continue reading " Sacramento Basketball Coach Sues For Harassment, Part 1 of 7 " »