Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog

Large technological firms, particularly those in Silicon Valley, have long been described as "boys' clubs," where gender discrimination has prevented women from advancing far in their field.

This was further underscored when Marissa Mayer was named Yahoo's new CEO, which several media outlets colored as being a monumental crack in that notorious glass ceiling.

Now, a lawsuit filed against a prominent California firm alleges not only gender bias but also sexual harassment at one of those firms against a Harvard-educated female employee.

While the details so far revealed about this case make it particularly interesting, our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers know that the basic principal remains the same: Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act bars companies from engaging in discrimination based on gender, and sexual harassment is illegal under both state and federal statutes.

This case involves Caulfied & Byers, a billion-dollar investment firm that made its money investing in companies such as Amazon and Google. Senior partners in the firm include such high-profile figures as Colin Powell and Al Gore. They, however, are not at the center of this controversy.

A junior partner at the firm, a 42-year-old woman who has worked there for seven years, alleges that she and other females at the firm were blocked from advancement opportunities and promotions in order to award those posts to male members. She further contends that she personally suffered sexual harassment by at least two different employees, and that a pervasive culture of sexually offensiveness created a hostile work environment for her and other female workers.

She continues to work at the firm while litigation is ongoing, and the company has called her accusations baseless. While the company maintains that a quarter of its senior partners are in fact female, that wasn't the case for much of the firm's history, dating back more than three decades.

The complainant, who has undergraduate degree from Princeton and a law degree and masters of business administration degree from Harvard, said she was hired in 2005 as a junior partner and told she could advance within three years if she performed well in her post.

But early on in her position, she reportedly engaged a handful of times in consensual sexual relations with another junior partner at the firm, who was married. She said when she broke it off, he harassed her for the next five years. That harassment reportedly included leaving her off of important e-mail correspondence and withholding from her certain critical information that would have been vital to her success at the firm.

She said she complained to her supervisors, but nothing was done, and in fact, her supervisors began to exclude her as well. She says one even suggested that she marry her harasser. There were private business trips and dinner parties that she contends she was purposely excluded from. Regarding one dinner party, she was told that they were solely for the men at the firm because women were a "buzz kill."

While her alleged harasser was promoted, she never advanced.

Then in 2007, she says another senior partner on Valentine's Day sent her a book of pictures and poems that contained sexually explicit content. The firm counters in court records that the gift, which was actually from the partner's wife, was misunderstood.

The woman's lawsuit does not contend that the sexual relationship she had with the other junior partner was anything but consensual (not a Quid Pro Quo situation). However, a relationship with a co-worker, while perhaps professionally inadvisable, does not open the doors for an allowable level of sexual harassment in the office.

The case is currently in a phase of private arbitration.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment, Gender Bias, Alleged at Large Tech Firm" »

Bars and restaurants have a long history of sexually-themed gimmicks to try to get customers in the door.

But these establishments cross legal boundaries when they impose sanctions or criteria on one sex over the other.

That's what happened to one Los Angeles woman who is suing her former employer for imposing a dress code on female employees that included short schoolgirl skirts.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers know that the courts have typically upheld the rights of a business to enact a dress code in general. However, it does not give them the right to impose dress codes that some employees - particularly females - consider demeaning.

With specific regard to the issue of gender discrimination, back in 1989, the U.S Supreme Court decided a case called Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins . In that decision, the court held that under Title VII, employers could not penalize employees for failing to conform to certain gender stereotypes.

The case is further bolstered if it applies solely to one sex.

This recent lawsuit is more of an issue of retaliation. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission bars employers from retaliation against employees who file a complaint for discrimination. Retaliation is defined as when an employer fires, demotes or harasses someone for engaging in this protected form of speech.

In this case, the former waitress is claiming wrongful termination, sexual harassment and unpaid wages.

According to her lawsuit, the 23-year-old said she had been employed at a Los Angeles bar/restaurant since 2007. When she started, the dress code allowed her to wear pants and a blouse to work.

However, back in October, one of the restaurant's co-owners cooked up a plan to boost sales: skin-tight, short school girl skirts, which were held together by a thin strip of Velcro. Making it worse, the plaintiff maintains, was the fact that restaurant owners strategically placed fans on the floor throughout the establishment, so that the waitresses' skirts would blow up, exposing their bottoms.

At first, the waitress thought it was a joke. But when she realized the owners were serious, she tried for a short time to wear the uniform. However, she found it completely demeaning.

Adding to the atmosphere of objectification, she says, was a bar policy that included rating female patrons on a scale of 1 to 10. Those who ranked six or higher were awarded a free shot of liquor.

The waitress says she wasn't the only one to be appalled at the policy and the new dress code, but she was the only one to file a formal complaint with management about it. In response, the dress code was dropped.

The issue may have ended there, but subsequently, the waitress says her hours were cut significantly and a few days later, she was terminated.

The restaurant's management has said that she was not fired - she quit - and that her claims are without merit.

Presumably, though, there are other employees who can testify to the dress code details and other facts.

Continue reading "Waitress Takes Restaurant to Task for Skimpy Dress Code, Retaliation" »

Sexual harassment is often just as much about power as it is about sex.

Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand that the retaliation that often results from speaking out about the original actions is often a further display of that power. But it's not right, and you do have legal recourse - no matter how powerless the entire ordeal has made you feel.

A 17-year-old immigrant female farm worker and others working at a California vineyard experienced this scenario first hand - and can now claim victory, following a $350,000 settlement that includes the company's agreement to revamp its sexual harassment training and policies - not only for supervisors, but for thousands of migrant workers as well.

According to the federal lawsuit, EEOC v. Giumarra Vineyards Corp., brought forth by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, there was a hostile work environment toward female employees at the farm, which is known for growing grapes, as well as an array of produce from zucchini to apples.

The complaint indicated that the teenage worker had been sexually harassed by a co-worker, who repeatedly made sexual advances toward her, made graphic requests for her to have sex with him and made offensive and inappropriate comments about his anatomy to her. The teenager told him his comments were unwelcome, asked him to stop and tried her best to avoid him. It did not stop.

The teenager and three other workers subsequently went to management to complain about the actions of the co-worker. Rather than taking action against the offender, the employer subsequently fired the female workers who had complained.

The EEOC sued for sex discrimination and retaliation.

The case had been scheduled for a trial, but the farming company agreed to settle instead.

Part of that settlement payment will go toward advancement of training on sexual harassment and sexual harassment retaliation for existing workers, new employees and administrative staff. Additionally, human resources staff at the company will undergo annual training on how to appropriately handle such complaints, the EEOC stated.

Altogether, it will mean training for some 3,000 employees by a third-party trainer. Other measures include new policies at the company addressing anti-discrimination, as well as complaint procedures that will be available and clearly outlined in several languages. Additionally, a full-time human resources professional will be hired to handle complaints of discrimination at the farm.

Although we do typically think of sexual harassment as occurring within an office setting, migrant workers are among the most vulnerable for this type of abuse - simply because their harassers exploit the fact that these are women who have little education and few options.

But they are not powerless. Let us be your voice.

Continue reading "California Migrant Farmer Sex Harassment Case Settlement Reached" »

A top Orange County official has been fired amid allegations that a former subordinate sexually harassed a string of female co-workers, ultimately leading to 12 felony charges in some of those cases.

The county's public works director was terminated the week after a former employee was criminally charged in the attempted sexual battery, stalking and false imprisonment of seven of his female subordinates over a period of eight years.

Our Orange County sexual harassment lawyers know that this is an extreme example, but sexual harassment is not uncommon in workplaces, and scenarios can even sometimes rise to the criminal level. In those situations, at the conclusion of the criminal trial, victims can also move forward to seek civil penalties - even if there wasn't enough evidence to convict the defendant criminally.

Sexual harassment victims should consider additionally pursuing legal action against their company or organization, particularly if there is evidence that higher-ranking officials overlooked the harassment once informed of it. The fact that county officials are taking action to fire at least one supervisor will only help to bolster any future civil cases.

In this case, according to the Los Angeles Times, some of the alleged incidents happened on government property, often in the office of the accused.

Attorneys for the fired official, unsurprisingly, railed that he was being thrown under the bus. But the fact of the matter is, organizations have a responsibility to have clearly-established sexual harassment policy guidelines and to ensure that those in charge are enforcing them. When that doesn't happen, swift action is advisable.

Not only has the public works director been fired, but there is talk that the county's chief executive officer may lose his job as well.

At issue for them is the fact that the county CEO received at least two anonymous letters detailing some of the allegations against a former county administrator in the public works department. Those included accounts of the administrator luring female employees into his office, saying he needed to discuss work-related matters. Instead, according to the women, he would sexually assault them by hugging and kissing them and pressing his body against theirs. He allegedly told one employee that it was pointless to scream because his walls were soundproof.

The county CEO reportedly instructed the public works director to "informally investigate" the matter. That resulted in questioning of some of the women by a human resources staffer. However, because their claims reportedly could not be corroborated by outside evidence, no action was taken and the administrator continued to hold his county position.

Prosecutors have been quoted as saying that investigators will continue to press forward in determining whether others were responsible for dropping the ball in this case. Their findings in this regard will no doubt have at least some bearing in the future civil cases that will inevitably arise.

Continue reading "Firing of O.C. Official in Sex Harassment and Assault Case Boosts Future Civil Cases" »