Close

Articles Posted in Sexual Harassment

Updated:

New Year Brings a Longer Statute of Limitations But Proceed With Caution For Claims That Arise Before January 1, 2020

As employers across the country reckon with the impacts of the #MeToo movement, the California legislature and Governor Newsom took decisive action to extend the statute of limitations on certain workplace claims, acknowledging that those who have been targeted by discrimination, harassment, and retaliation do not always come forward immediately.…

Updated:

California Supreme Court Lets Franchisor off the Hook for Sexual Harassment, but Victims of Sexual Harassment Should Always Look at Franchisor’s Role

Franchise relationships are growing and need to be regulated. It is important to make both the franchisor and the franchisee responsible for the companies they create and/or run and/or set up. According to California Law, a franchisee is granted the right to engage in a business under a plan or…

Updated:

Same-Sex Harassment and Retaliation Case Reinstated by Court of Appeals

In good news for victims of sex harassment and retaliation, and especially for same-sex victims, Lewis v. City of Benicia, 224 Cal.App.4th 1519 (2014) reinstated many of the claims against the City of Benicia and one of its supervisors. First, the California Court of Appeals made clear that the trial…

Updated:

Retaliation Claim Survives Even When Underlying Sexual Harassment Claim Fails

Sometimes courts raise the bar on sexual harassment claims too high. Whether the sexual harasser’s conduct is “severe” or “pervasive” enough to go to trial often seems to be determined by the subjective lenses of the judges. The judges’ lenses are often colored by their own life experience. Certainly whether…

Updated:

California Supreme Court Places Responsibility for Sexual Harassment Squarely with School District That Knew or Should Have Known That Its Employee Would Sexually Harass a Student

Although this is not an employment case, C.A. v. William S. Hart Union High School District, 53 Cal.4th 861 (March 8, 2012) is a sexual harassment case, and as such, important to employees, employers and employment lawyers. School districts, like employers, have – under some circumstances – avoided legal responsibility…

Updated:

Court Rejects Employer’s Attempt to Reverse Finding of Sexual Harassment Based upon Allegation That Employee’s Testimony Was Inherently Improbable

Autozone did not accept responsibility for the fact that its managers, and thus Autozone itself, were found guilty of sexual harassment, leading it to appeal the jury’s verdict and claim that the plaintiff’s testimony was somehow “inherently improbable.” The California Court of Appeal was able to accurately discern that the…

Updated:

Court Imposes Unnecessarily High Hurdle for Female Employee to Prove Sexual Harassment Claim in Brennan v. Townsend & O’Leary

In the arena of sexual harassment, we’ve come a long way, baby. In general, the public is more aware of what conduct is forbidden in the workplace, and many employers train managers and employees alike to prevent such conduct. As a society, we are much more likely to have work…

Updated:

“Me Too” Evidence of Discrimination Admissible to Prove Discriminatory Intent in Sexual Harassment/Sex Discrimination Cases

Ms. Panjota, as well as a number of other women, had the bad fortunate of working for an employment lawyer, Mr. Anton, who should have known better. One must wonder how Mr. Anton got any work done, given that this case makes it look like every moment of his work…

Contact Us