Skip to main content

Sexual Harassment and the case of 100 hugs


Can 100 hugs from your supervisor over the course of 12 years amount to sexual harassment?

 AN OVERVIEW OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Sexual harassment can be verbal, physical or visual.  There are two types. (1) Quid pro quo, AKA, tit for tat, where decisions are conditioned on sexual favors. (2) Hostile Environment, where an offensive work environment is created by conduct such as staring at someone, making sexual comments and jokes, or physically touching or blocking a person in an intimidating manner. 
A hostile work environment must be sufficiently extreme to change the terms and conditions of employment.  All verbal or physical harassment in the workplace is not actionable.  It must be severe or pervasive.  To be deemed pervasive, the incidents of misconduct must be sufficiently continuous and concerted.  A single incident may in some instances support a hostile environment claim depending upon its severity.  The required showing of severity of the harassing conduct varies inversely with the pervasiveness or frequency of the conduct; i.e., the more incidents, the less severe they need be, and vice versa. 
In California, employers are held strictly liable for the unlawful harassment of the company’s supervisors.  However, for the acts of a non-supervisor, an employer is only liable for the unlawful harassment if the employer knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take corrective action. 
California employers are required to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment.  This includes policies & procedures in place to prevent it, and how to address complaints.  There are strict rules re policies/procedures; displaying posters; information sheets; and training. 
To help prevent harassment, California employers’ policies should include (1) explanations of prohibited conduct; (2) protections against retaliation for those who complain and assurance of confidentiality to the extent possible; (3) a clear and accessible complaint process that includes a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation; and (4) upon determination that harassment occurred, assurances of immediate and appropriate corrective actions. 

ZETWICK V. COUNTY OF YOLO (9th Cir. 2017) 850 F.3d 436

This case illustrates the difficulty in identifying conduct that qualifies as sexual harassment.  Victoria Zetwick alleged that her employer created a sexually hostile work environment, such as by greeting her with unwelcome hugs on more than one hundred occasions, and kiss at least once, during a 12-year period. The US District Court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed.  The Ninth Circuit stated that a reasonable juror could find that the supervisor's conduct was sufficiently pervasive; the frequency of the hugs could be interpreted as out of proportion to the ordinary level of work-place socializing, and is instead abusive.  

- Eric A. Boyajian, Esq., Law Offices of Eric A. Boyajian, APC.  www.loeab.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

$4.5 Million in Wage Theft by Cheesecake Factory

The Labor Commissioner's Office recently found Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. liable in a $4.57 million wage theft case that underpaid 559 janitorial workers managed by Magic Touch Commercial Cleaning.  Americlean Janitorial Services Corp., the Cheesecake Factory's janitorial contractor that subcontracted the work to Magic Touch is also liable.  The wage theft occurred at eight locations in Ornage and San Diego counties. “This case illustrates common wage theft practices in the janitorial industry, where businesses have contracted and subcontracted to avoid responsibility for ensuring workers are paid what they are owed,” said Labor Commissioner Julie A. Su. “Client businesses can no longer shield themselves from liability for wage theft through multiple layers of contracts. Our enforcement benefits not only the workers who deserve to be paid, but also legitimate janitorial businesses that are underbid by wage thieves.” Investigators found that the janitorial worke
Post a Comment
Read more

California's Dynamex Case: The ABC Test Simplifies The Misclassification of Workers as Independent Contractors

On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court published a ground-breaking decision in the case of Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, Cal. Supreme Ct. no. S222732 , 2018 WL 1999120.  The 85-page opinion is about when a worker may be classified as an independent contractor, as opposed to an employee, under California's Wage Order.   Wage Order 9 was at issue in this case.    Dynamex is a nationwide courier whose drivers were once classified as employees by the company, but were later reclassified as independent contractors in 2004. Such reclassification is often executed by companies in order to generate economic savings at the expense of its employees. For example, in Dynamex , the drivers were required to provide their own vehicles and pay all transportation expenses, maintenance, insurance, taxes, etc. The gist of the decision is this:  If the employer cannot satisfy the ABC test, then the worker is an employee under the "suffer or permit to work" definit
Post a Comment
Read more

Reimbursing Employees for Slip-Resistant Shoes

In a recent case, Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that the employer did not have to reimburse its employees for requiring them to buy and wear slip-resistant shoes.  To avoid slip-and-fall accidents, BJ’s adopted a safety policy that required employees to wear black, slip-resistant, closed-toed shoes.  The policy did not require employees to purchase a specific brand, style, or design of shoe.  The policy also did not prohibit employees from wearing their shoes outside of work. Because the employees were not reimbursed for the cost of purchasing these shoes, a class action lawsuit was filed in 2014, seeking reimbursement for such costs under California Labor Code section 2802. California Labor Code section 2802(a) provides that “An employer shall indemnify his or her employee for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by the employee in direct consequence of the discharge of his or her duties, or of his or her obedience to
Read more