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.)

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 " »