Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog

The Los Angeles Times is reporting that California taxpayers dished out $120,000 to a woman who accused a state senator of sexually harassing her.

Being the victim of sexual harassment in Los Angeles is a situation no person wants to find themselves getting into. It usually happens when a person in power attempts to skirt the law, believing they won't be stopped.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers have seen sexual harassment cases where the aggressor was a public official, big business executive, Hollywood big-wig or otherwise rich or powerful person who said some things or took some actions that weren't appropriate. But rather than thinking about how awkward it would be for the victim, they continued on and created a bad situation worse.

In this case, the Los Angeles Times has learned through a public information request, Sen. Roderick Wright, a Democrat from Inglewood, was accused of sexual harassment of a legislative aide. Senate leaders approved a $120,000 payment behind closed doors in an agreement they agreed required "no publicity." The settlement was made to avoid future costs and a public dispute.

The woman's Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer said the actions include inappropriate behavior and comments over a period of time while the legislative aide worked for the senator. It resulted in her leaving the office. Given that there was a confidentiality clause as part of the settlement, the lawyer declined to provide more details.

The deal was signed in April 2010, but wasn't made public until recently because Senate leaders sealed the complaint and the settlement was agreed upon in secret and not as part of a public meeting.

The senator is facing six felony counts in a perjury and voting fraud case out of Los Angeles County and declined comment on the sexual harassment settlement. Senate leaders deemed the matter a "personnel matter" and declined to discuss it. The situation only came to light after the newspaper made a public records request.

Public records advocates disputed the secret settlement, saying that when taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for such allegations, they should know about it. But it is customary in settlements for many types of civil lawsuits to include confidentiality clauses. The aggressor typically wants the details of what happened to remain private in exchange for paying off the victim.

Only if the case goes to trial -- a gamble for both sides -- will details typically be made public in a sexual harassment case. It is an embarrassing situation for both sides and rarely does anyone want the facts to become public.

In this case, the public has a right to demand that if taxpayer money is being used in a Los Angeles sexual harassment case, it should be made public. But, in all likelihood, the settlement with confidentiality clause actually saved public money. Having lawyers attend years of hearings, going to trial and potentially losing could have cost much more in the long run.