Sacramento Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blog

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 " »

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.)

DEFENDANTS’ TRIAL BRIEF

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Gabrielle Hill's ("Hill") Complaint never should have been filed. Though she has sued her gay, former friend and boss defendant Randy Lee ("Lee") and his company, Randy Lee Artists Collective ("RLAC"), for sexual harassment based almost entirely on Lee's use of vulgar speech, the evidence shows that his speech was not directed at or about her, that Lee was Hill's close personal friend, that she had expressed love for Lee and referred to him as "sweetie," "doll," and "sunshine," that she regularly socialized and vacationed with him, and that she herself used vulgar language (including the words "cunt," "cock," and "bitch"), and Hill talked about sex (and her boyfriend’s penis size) around Lee (and even sent Lee a video of completely naked men dancing with their pensises exposed). For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Based on these facts and many others like them - most of which are undisputed - Hill will be unable to establish each of the necessary elements of a claim for unlawful harassment: (1) that she was subjected to unwelcome and offensive speech or conduct, (2) because she is a woman, and (3) that such speech or conduct was so severe or pervasive that it altered the conditions of Hill's employment and created a hostile work environment. Furthermore, to the extent that Hill seeks to base her claim on speech that was not even directed at her -- for example, Lee's conversation with his female friends -- her claim must be dismissed based on the right of free speech guaranteed Lee by First Amendment of the United States Constitution and its California counterpart, article I, section 2 of the California Constitution (hereafter collectively the "First Amendment").

Hill's other claims fair no better. Hill cannot prove gender discrimination without evidence that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her gender. If anything, the evidence shows that Hill was treated better than her male co-workers.

Continue reading " Female Artists Agent Sues Sacramento Employer for Sexual Harassment, Part 1 of 10 " »