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 sexual harassment/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

NATURE OF THE CASE

The plaintiff is seeking damages for the injury of the first cause of action for discrimination in hiring. The plaintiff therein sites sufficient facts and unambiguously includes each of the elements for the cause of action. The plaintiff is a protected applicant for employment and the defendant is a covered employer under the Cal. F.E.H.A., Gov. Code sec. 12900 et seq. The plaintiff states the facts of the adverse treatment of a supervisor of the defendants and the support of those acts by the Executive Director and a V.P. of the Board of Directors.

The plaintiff enquired as to, and discloses the discriminatory intent of the hiring policies. The plaintiff exhausted every administrative remedy not only by the powers of the Cal. D.F.E.H., but also in appealing to the public entities that fund as an independent contractor the defendants, the County of Sacramento, and the City of Sacramento.

The plaintiff has made a prima facie case in that she has clearly stated that she is a member of a protected class, qualified for the jobs offered and denied to her, suffered adverse action, and learned from the defendants on what basis others got the job she was seeking.

Continue reading " Discriminatory Hiring By Sacramento Public Agency, Part 3 of 5 " »

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

With respect to both the plaintiff and the defendant the Cal. Fair Employment and Housing Act was at all times mentioned within the complaint in effect, the plaintiff has standing to sue, and has been issued a Notice of Right To Sue by the Cal. Department of Fair Employment and Housing, served to Thomas Brown, Executive Director, S.H.P., by Owen White, District Administrator, 02/28/2006, and attached to the Third Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff states the dates and actions of the defendants that deny her the right to seek employment on the basis of age, association with employees, clients, and other applicants for employment, TAC, dated 02/05/2007.

Plaintiff states the dates and actions of the defendants that deny her the right to marry one, and all employees, of the defendants, TAC, dated 02/05/2007.

Plaintiff states the dates and actions of the defendants to intentionally inflict severe emotional distress, their actions and words to involve her case manager at Sacramento Mental Health, their transferring her to a different shelter, TAC, dated 02/05/2007.

Continue reading " Sexual Harassment Claim Filed By Sacramento Woman, Part 2 of 5 " »

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

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

SUMMARY OF DEFENDANTS' POSITION

Defendant S.H.P., moves the court to sustain a demurrer to each of the causes of action on the grounds that each fails to plead facts sufficient to state a cause of action, Code Civ. Proc. sec. 430.10 (e), and for reason that they believe that the complaint is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible, Code Civ. Proc. sec. 430.10 (f).

The Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer of Sacramento Housing Project to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint for sexual harassment, dated 03/16/2007, and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Sacramento Housing Project's Demurrer to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint, dated 03/16/2007 are both unverified as to any facts therein (plaintiff accepts the case citations), therefore the plaintiff will address the grounds of the demurrer, only.

Plaintiff notes that the pleading of the Third Amended Complaint, dated February 5, 2007, was written with the aid of the source Cal. Causes of Action, James Publishing, Inc., Santa Ana, CA, 2007, on the elements and Calif. Civil Practice Guide, Weil and Brown, The Rutter Group, 2008, on declaratory relief.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Cal. Fair Employment and Housing Act, Gov. Code sec. 12900 et seq., applies to applicants of employment equally, as to employees.

Continue reading " Sacramento Public Agency Sued For Sexual Harassment, Part 1 of 5 " »

(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.)

Showing the Defendants' intent and motive is difficult. All courts have recognized that the question facing triers of fact in discrimination cases is both sensitive and difficult. There will seldom be eyewitness testimony as to the employer's mental process U.S. Postal Service Bd. Of Govs. v. Aikens (1983) 460 U.S. 711, 716. Much of the time the employer's intent must be extracted through a complicated process of panning and sifting. O'Mary v. Mitsubishi Electronics America (1997) 59 Cal.App. 3th 576,575. Plaintiff has provided sufficient disputed facts to warrant an analysis of his claims at trial.

The objective severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the Plaintiffs position, considering all the circumstances. In harassment cases, that inquiry requires careful consideration of the social context in which particular behavior occurs and is experienced by its target. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) 118 S.Ct. 998, 1003. The total circumstances of Plaintiffs work environment as shown by the facts and evidence presented could clearly be considered by a reasonable person to constitute severe and pervasive harassing conduct. Proof of discriminatory intent may be direct, circumstantial, or may be inferred from statistical evidence. All evidence that a plaintiff presents can contribute to this inference, and should therefore be considered as cumulative. Stender v. Lucky Stores (N.D. Cal. 1992) 803 F. Supp. 259, 319.

Continue reading " Sexual And Workplace Harassment Action Filed By Sacramento Basketball Coasch, Part 7 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.)

Defendants’ Harassment and Discriminatory Conduct Toward Plaintiff was Severe and Pervasive

When taken as a whole and analyzed in context, Defendant's blatant racist and anti-homosexual comments combined with his inappropriate questioning and innuendo regarding Plaintiff's sexuality clearly show that Defendant Green had a problem with Plaintiff based on race, religion and perceived sexual preference. Defendant Green acted on his perceptions against Plaintiff by consistently intimidating and harassing him through micro management of his department, derogatory remarks about Plaintiff to other staff, intimidation of students on Plaintiff's team, attempting to create violations of policy and then discipline Plaintiff for such violations, over penalizing Plaintiff with unreasonably harsh punishments, initiating an unwarranted NCAA investigation of Plaintiff, and waging an overall campaign to get Plaintiff fired.

When the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule and insult that is "sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment," the law is violated. Kelly-Zurian v. Wohl Shoe Co. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 397, quoting Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993) 510 U.S. 17, 21. Defendants' actions continued nonstop from August 2005 through July 2007.

Continue reading " Sacramento Men's Basketball Coach Files Suit For Racial Discrimination, Part 6 of 7 " »