Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog

For anthropologists and graduate students who aspire to the career, the chance to engage in fieldwork is viewed as a golden opportunity.

However, a new survey conducted by a female anthropologist at the University of Illinois reveals a much darker side of these journeys.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand that of the hundreds of female survey respondents, nearly one quarter said they had endured some form of unwanted sexual contact or physical sexual harassment.

The vast majority of the victims were female, though a few males did respond that they too had been victimized.

The primary aggressor in these situations were either colleagues who were higher up on the professional ladder or in some cases, the mentor of the victim.

The study was born out of a conversation that the primary researcher had with a female colleague. A male colleague had raped her while the two were in the field on assignment. When she reported the incident to her mentor, he simply urged her to remain silent, if she wanted to continue advancing in her career.

The study author then began maintaining a blog, where she allowed fellow anthropologists to anonymously submit stories of how they had been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted in the field. It was a way to open the eyes of her colleagues as to what was going on.

For some of those who responded, they reported harassment and abuse that went on for years. One said that she has been questioned about why she didn't leave or speak up sooner. She said like so many others, she had invested years into the research and into her graduate program. Changing professors would have meant a significant delay in graduation. Others in the field may think her unreliable. New professors will want to know why it was she left, but it would be a tough question to answer. If she leaves, she could have a tough time getting a recommendation from her old professor. That's going to limit her options.

The study, which was recently presented at the yearly American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting in Tennessee, was a way to take all of this a step further.

Among the findings:

• About 30 percent of both men and women reported that verbal abuse with regard to inappropriate or sexual remarks at field sites was experienced either regularly or frequently.


• With regard to inappropriate sexual remarks, 63 percent of female anthropologists answered that they had personally experienced this. About 40 percent of men said the same.


• Nearly 25 percent of women said they had experienced unwanted physical contact or physical sexual harassment on a field site, while a small percentage of men said the same.


• Less than 20 percent of these incidents involved the people within the community where the study site was located. Rather, the primary abusers were within the team of researchers, usually by someone higher up professionally.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers want victims to understand that they are not alone. Even if the harassment occurred outside the country, the perpetrator, the school and others may still be held accountable for failing to prevent, failing to address and retaliation.

Continue reading "Report: Sexual Harassment Rampant in Anthropology Fieldwork" »

Frank O'Connell spent nearly three decades in prison for a Pasadena murder he didn't commit.

Now finally freed after nearly 10,000 days behind bars, he says it was the shoddy work of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department that put him there - and he is demanding restitution.

Our Los Angeles wrongful conviction attorneys are educated in forensic sciences, and we know that many cases such as these have arisen with the advent of DNA evidence. It's now becoming clear just how faulty the sheriff's department was in so many of its criminal investigations.

This case started back in 1984, when O'Connell, then a former high school football star, was reportedly involved in a romantic relationship with the victim's ex-wife who was involved in a custody battle with the victim over their young son.

The victim was gunned down in the parking lot of his South Pasadena apartment. O'Connell reportedly matched the vague description given by a witness, who was on the other side of the darkened parking lot that night.

O'Connell, who at the time had his own 4-year-old son, has maintained all along that he was with friends that night.

The trial by judge rather than a jury - at the defendant's request - was based mostly on eyewitness testimony. In particular, it involved one individual who heard the shots from across the parking lot.

However, that witness years later recanted, saying the reality was he never did get a good look at the suspect. However, he felt pressured by the sheriff's detectives to make a positive identification after he had tentatively identified O'Connell during a photograph lineup.

The witness said he had been more focused on the gun in the assailant's hand, as opposed to the man's facial features.

The defendant was ultimately sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. His case was later chosen for assistance from Centurion Ministries, a group dedicated to helping free innocent prisoners.

Centurion Ministries later learned that another man had confessed to no fewer than five people regarding the crime. Further, Los Angeles police detectives had maintained a file regarding that individual, which included information detailing a prior attempt to kill the victim in this case. That involved the ex-wife and a male friend of hers attempting to run over the victim.

However, this information was hidden by the investigators and not turned over to the defense prior to trial.

Earlier this year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled that the defendant should be granted a new trial, primarily on the basis that the sheriff's department failed to disclose key records at the time of the trial that would have lead to another possible suspect. Additionally, there was evidence that they improperly influenced witnesses.

The district attorney's office has said it does not intend to retry him.

Now, he's taking legal action against the department with his lawsuit, seeking unspecified damages.

Continue reading "LASD Sued Over 1980s Wrongful Conviction" »

A black police officer who joined the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department in the late 1980s has won a $1.2 million verdict, after a jury found he was harassed on the basis of his race.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers know that it took a great deal of courage for this 25-year veteran to speak out about the humiliation and mistreatment he suffered from his supervisor and colleagues.

This verdict is the latest in a string of judgments and settlements against the agency, which has faced dozens of allegations of cop-on-cop harassment, discrimination and retaliation. One after another, these cases have revealed an inherent ineptitude on the part of the department's administration to properly address these complaints when they are first made and appropriately discipline those responsible.

In fact, this verdict was the second seven-figure judgment the city had to pay in a week. Another claim involved two lesbian police officers, one of whom already retired, who had suffered for years with the sexual harassment of their supervisor.

In the case involving racial discrimination, the officer alleged he had endured the abuse for years. One example given at trial was when he requested to leave work early one day. His supervisor responded if his reasoning had to do with his needing to "go pick watermelons."

In another instance, he claimed, his supervisor brought in a cake to celebrate the officer's two decades of service. The cake was topped with a slice of watermelon and a piece of fried chicken.

Other officers testified that the plaintiff had laughed along with everyone else, even going so far as to eat a bite of the chicken cake-topper. However, people who are embarrassed, in shock and on the spot might not always verbally express their true feelings right at that moment.

A lieutenant for the department testified that the plaintiff was a willing participant in the ongoing, inappropriate racially vulgar banter. The jury disagreed.

The verdict followed the department's own internal investigation, which had resulted in a number of supervisors being either reassigned, demoted or terminated. Initially, the city offered to settle the case for $10,000. The plaintiff's attorney rejected that offer, instead suggesting a payment of $400,000, which the city rejected. Now it will be paying three times that amount.

Employees are protected from racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies to private employers as well as those in the federal, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor organizations.

Racial harassment may include derogatory or offensive remarks about a person's skin color or race, a display of racially-offensive symbols or racial slurs. Although the law doesn't specifically forbid simple teasing or an isolated, offhand comment, it may be considered harassment if it's severe or continues for some time.

The city's police chief said his agency had taken what was learned in this most recent action to heart in stepping up its efforts to create a working environment that lacks hostility.

Time will tell.

Continue reading "LAPD Loses $1.2M Lawsuit for Harassment of Black Officer" »

A deputy with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is suing his employer for violation of Gov. Code. 995(a) after he was denied access to an agency-funded attorney to represent him in a civil lawsuit brought during the course of his employment.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers are representing the deputy.

The basics of what happened are this:

An incident occurred back in 2011, during the scope of the deputy's employment with the agency that came under scrutiny. Subsequently, in an unrelated action, the deputy filed a formal complaint of racial discrimination against his former supervisor, as well as the agency itself.

Such complaint would be protected under the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. However, the defendant(s) responded by immediately initiating a barrage of retaliatory acts.

Later, that earlier incident resulted in a civil lawsuit, Teeman v. County of Los Angeles, filed against the plaintiff in Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit alleged unlawful assault by the deputy. Despite the fact that it occurred within the scope of his employment and while he was acting as an employee, the agency refused to hire an attorney to represent and defend him in this action. As a result, he has had to pay for his own defense attorney, at enormous personal cost. He has even had to request that his defense attorney cut certain corners, as he doesn't have the money on his own.

The law requires that upon request of an employee or former employee, a public entity SHALL provide for the defense of any proceeding - including civil actions - brought against the employee, in either his individual or professional capacity, so long as the claim was in the scope of his or her employment with that agency. This includes any kind of counterclaim, cross-complaint or cross-action.

The only instances for which an employer may deny this request would be:

• If the action or omission wasn't in the scope of the individual's employment;


• Because he or she failed to act or acted because of fraud, malice or corruption;


• Because the defense would create a notable conflict of interest between the employee and the public entity.

Yet, neither the supervisor nor the agency nor the county outlined that any of these were of issue or concern in this case.

As such, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $25,000 for compensatory, general and non-economic damages, as well as any other relief that the court deems proper.

The notice of filing of the discrimination complaint has already been submitted to the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing, which has responded by declining further investigation and granting the deputy's right to sue.

Continue reading "Carter v. County of Los Angeles - A Violation of Civil Rights" »

A current lieutenant with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department has filed a civil lawsuit against the agency, alleging sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and retaliation.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers are representing the lieutenant, who was subjected to severe and prolonged harassment by her former supervisor. After four years of trying to ignore, deflect and tell him in no uncertain terms his advances weren't welcome, she filed a formal complaint.

The conduct of Commander Joey Fennell was in clear and direct violation of California's Fair Employment Housing Act, which holds that employers have a responsibility not only to prevent sexual harassment, but to ensure complainants aren't subjected to retaliation as a result of their complaint, which is a protected act.

The lieutenant is suing not only the sheriff's department, but the county of Los Angeles, as well as the individual supervisor, Commander Fennell, who subjected her to this crass and illegal treatment. She had worked for the agency for four years. During that time, she was harassed, stalked, threatened and retaliated against by her boss, who was reportedly relentless.

Interestingly, the Sheriff's Department has a long history of such behavior, as evidenced by two previous lawsuits - Bowman v. County of Los Angeles and White v. County of Los Angeles. Yet it seems the sheriff's department turned a blind eye to this behavior, as he continues to remain on the job.

In vulgar terms, the supervisor would demand sexual favors from the victim, saying that her cooperation would make her work life "better for her." When she did not concede to his demands, he allegedly did in fact make life worse for her. Her refusals resulted in something he termed, "freeway therapy," which meant she was forced to work as far away from her home as possible. Even then, he tried on numerous occasions to coerce her into spending time with him.

This was an individual who had the authority and discretion with regard to the plaintiff's hiring, transfer, promotion, assignment, reward, discipline or discharge. He also was responsible for oversight of grievances and the details of her daily work.

The defendant reportedly threatened the lieutenant with loss of future promotions if she ever revealed the extent of his sexually explicit communication with her, saying that his wife would, "wring his neck" if she ever learned of it.

Not only did the plaintiff suffer economic losses in terms of her job, but she has suffered - and continues to suffer - from severe anxiety, depression, humiliation, mental anguish and even physical injury, some of which has cost her in terms of medical expenses. She is seeking compensatory, as well as punitive, damages for this infliction of harm.

DFEH holds that employees in the state of California have a right to work in an environment free of:

• Unwanted sexual advances;


• Offers of employment benefits in exchange for sexual behavior;


• Threats of reprisal for negative responses to sexual advances;


• Leering, sexual gestures, display of sexual objects, cartoons, posters or pictures;


• Derogatory epithets, slurs or jokes;


• Graphic verbal commentaries about a person's body or the use of sexually degrading, obscene or suggestive words to describe an individual in any communications;


• Physical touching and/or aggression, including blocking or impeding movements.

The lieutenant, as a professional and as a human being, was entitled to better treatment. Our experienced sexual harassment lawyers are committed to ensuring she will obtain the compensation she deserves.

Continue reading "Walton v. Joey Fennell, Et. Al - Sexual Harassment Among the Ranks" »

The reliability of police K-9 units is questionable, at best.

While our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers don't deny that a great deal of time and energy goes into training these animals, the question of how many times they get it wrong - allowing police to conduct a search under false pretenses - looms large.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department uses K-9s for a variety of different law enforcement functions, as CBS Los Angeles recently reported.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Florida v. Harris held that a police dog's affirmation of a suspicious substance, used in conjunction with other evidence, is sufficient enough to warrant a search.

This decision is particularly troubling to us from the standpoint of defending clients accused of drug-related crimes. As former San Francisco Police Commissioner Peter Kean wrote in s2011 editorial, police officers lying on the stand with regard to illegal drug searches is ridiculously common. He called it a "not-so-secret secret" that undercover narcotics units blatantly and intentionally lie under oath and no one seems interested in stopping them.

This backing of the K-9 units' supposed infallibility is extremely troubling. Defendants typically aren't going to know enough about K-9 training to say whether an indicator given by a dog is positive. But even if the dog gives a positive indication that later turns out to be wrong, it won't matter in terms of what was uncovered in the search, so long as the officer can show that he used the "totality of evidence" in determining whether there was probable cause.

At issue here was whether police agencies had a responsibility to track a K-9 unit's in-the-field hits or misses. The court has found they don't.

Here, a defendant was pulled over on a routine stop. He refused to let the officer search his car. The officer brought out a K-9 unit, which alerted in the affirmative. The officer searched. He didn't find anything the dog was trained to locate, but he did find items typically used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The defendant was arrested. Booked. Released.

A few days later, he was stopped by the same officer, same K-9 unit. The dog again alerted positive to drugs and again the car was searched. However this time, the officer found nothing.

The defendant sought to show that the dog's false positive record was poor. However, he couldn't do that because the agency didn't keep records of the dog's performance. And now, it's been confirmed that such records are not required.

But that doesn't mean your case is a lost cause, especially in cases where there was no other reason for the officer to suspect you of wrongdoing.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court: Police K-9 Sniffs Up to Snuff" »

Investigators with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office are accused of framing a man on false charges of date-rape against a babysitter.

Our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers understand that the man is claiming in his civil lawsuit that investigators with the agency knew the allegations were false, and yet pushed forward with them anyway - proceeding to arrest and book him and then forcing him to post $100,000 bail in exchange for his freedom.

According to the 53-year-old defendant, he was accused of drugging and raping the 23-year-old babysitter after he returned early from work one day. But he alleges investigators reportedly had evidence early on that he was innocent. Rather than dropping the charges, he says they forged a memo on state department of justice stationary indicating that they had found the defendant's DNA on the alleged victim's body. That letter, according to the claim, was then reportedly used by investigators to try to get the defendant to confess to a crime he didn't commit.

Further, the claimant says that investigators had evidence early on that the level of the drug found in the accuser's system ruled out the possibility that he could have administered the drug to her on the night in question. There was also no evidence of any other date rape drug and nothing else linking him to a crime.

Although the woman initially said she hadn't had sexual conduct in two years, she later retracted that statement to say she indeed had engaged in sexual intercourse, days before the alleged incident.

In the end, the Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed all criminal charges. Now, the former defendant is seeking $5 million in damages.

But this case brings up another question: Why do police officers lie in the first place? What's in it for them?

Numerous sources seem to indicate the answer is: A lot.

A recent opinion article in The New York Times questioned what incentive police officers had to lie under oath. The answer often lies in the incentive programs that police or police units receive when they make a stop or an arrest. There are federal grant programs that are often based on how many arrests are made versus how many crimes are reported. Agencies that have higher arrests rates can say, "We are doing something about the crime in our city."

However, they are rarely held accountable when those arrests turn out to be false arrests.

It's perhaps more of a common phenomenon in drug cases. In fact, former San Francisco Police Commissioner Peter Keane wrote an editorial two years ago, decrying the widespread practice of officer perjury in justifying illegal drug searches.

Defendants rarely challenge it. Judges hardly ever call them out on it. And prosecutors certainly aren't going to dig a whole lot deeper than they need to when it comes to the officer's word against a defendant's.

But you absolutely do have rights, and one of those is to be protected from unreasonable searches, seizures or arrests based on anything but probable cause. You have the right to remain silent - but not when it comes to police misconduct, fraud or perjury.

Continue reading "LA Sheriff's Office Accused of Framing Man, A Look at Why Officers Lie" »

The portrayal of the seven members of the super-secret law enforcement clique - the seven men who promoted aggressive police tactics, offered cheers to civilian shootings and branded themselves with tattoos - is utterly disturbing.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand that, ironically, these group of officers were part of the agency's anti-gang efforts, with a specific goal of removing guns from L.A. streets.

Yet, they were in many ways a gang themselves. They even had a name: The Jump Out Boys.

The Los Angeles Times reported on the group last year, but formal action by the department wasn't announced until earlier this month, when agency officials reported members of the clique had been fired.

What's probably even more troubling is the fact that such mini-gangs within the agency aren't all that uncommon. The Times reports that the agency has a "long history" with such groups. In many cases, members of these groups were elevated to top positions within the department.

To the public, the top brass has promised to crack down on these cliques, saying that they encourage conduct that is unethical and inflict damage to the agency's reputation.

The Jump Out Boys, the sheriff's office said, hadn't done anything illegal, according to the results of an internal review. However, the image the group portrayed was not in line with the official one the agency is trying to present. A pamphlet created by the group, which ultimately proved to be its undoing, likened deputies to "alpha dogs," who must think and act like "wolves," (i.e., criminals) but never actually become wolves.

Additionally, the department noted that the identical tattoos the members of this group got were huge smiling skulls with skeletal hands grasping a gun. Those who had been involved in an on-the-job shooting would mark it with ink depicting smoke from the barrel.

Members of the group said this was to show their bravery, dedication and courage. They said their connection was no different than those formed by fraternity brothers or Boy Scouts.

But Boy Scouts aren't routinely armed with weapons and fraternity brothers aren't responsible for upholding the law. We expect law enforcement officers will be held to a different standard, and, given the immense trust we place in them, that they will view gunfire as an absolute last resort - not something to be celebrated.

In light of this, we certainly wouldn't doubt if there was more to the practices of this group. Many times, victims of police brutality are afraid to come forward, fearing - often with good reason - that the retaliation would be swift and fierce.

Just two years ago, the agency fired six corrections deputies who had their own hand gang symbols and called themselves the "3000 boys." There were allegations that this group was racist and in fact targeted prisoners on this basis. However, the extent of their "brotherhood" wasn't discovered until they brawled at a holiday party and ended up punching a female officer in the face.

Continue reading "L.A. County Sheriff's Office to Fire Internal "Gang" Members" »

In the past three years, county taxpayers have been footing an enormous bill to settle litigation involving the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys understand that between 2009 and 2012, the county's board of commissioners has authorized judgements, settlements, court costs and attorneys' fees in excess of $100 million.

What's more, that $100 million figure didn't include another approximately $20 million that had been paid out of a fund that is specifically set aside for these types of claims or the $500,000 paid to the Citizens' Commission on Jail Violence.

That's according to Supervisor Gloria Molina, who recently reported that the county currently has more than 250 legal claims still pending against the agency.

A risk management and liability hearing was supposed to be held by commissioners in January, but the meeting has been postponed until the end of this month, as the county's CEO has requested additional time to review the information.

While any large operation may inevitably incur some liability, just based on sheer volume and the kind of business it conducts, the sheriff's department stands out in its liability payouts. During the 2010-2011 fiscal year, the county (i.e., taxpayers) shelled out nearly $108 million for all claims in all departments. The sheriff's office accounted for about a third.

Excessive force cases in particular shot up 75 percent that year. The county's litigation manager warned that this was something that the sheriff's office needed to watch. Setting aside the cost of such action, the fact is excessive force is illegal. That alone should be reason enough for the agency to re-evaluate its policies, procedures and practices!

The largest of these county-approved payouts was a $6 million class action case brought about due to gender discrimination. Another $5 million claim was filed after an impaired sheriff's deputy crashed his cruiser while on duty. Then there was a $4.3 million claim filed by a man who is now a paraplegic after a Taser injury while he was in his holding cell. Another $1.9 million payout was awarded to a man who was left paralyzed by a sheriff's deputy who shot him as he ran away.

More recently, the county agreed to pay more than $430,000 to the family of a man who died while in sheriff's office custody. The case stems from a 2007 arrest in La Peunte, in which officers apprehended a 41-year-old suspect who was visibly upset - yelling and striking vehicles. He reportedly tried to burglarize a home nearby. When deputies got there, he reportedly refused to obey orders.

They pepper-sprayed him. Then they handcuffed him. Then they restrained his ankles. Soon after, he was dead. The agency denied culpability, but agreed to pay the man's family in order to avoid having to go to court.

The sheriff's department's annual budget reaches almost $3 billion. For these kind of abuses to go on, routinely unchecked, is absolutely unacceptable.

Even the county's supervisor has said some management issues may to be blame for ongoing litigation concerns weighing on the agency.

Continue reading "Los Angeles County Has Paid $100M to Settle Sheriff Lawsuits" »

The Los Angeles Sheriff's Department is accused of gender discrimination and retaliation against Connie Cervantes, the agency's former 12-year director and manager of the Sheriff's Youth Foundation.

The Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers at the Okorocha Law Firm assert that Cervantes, who had gained national recognition for excellence in her role and strides in benefiting Los Angeles youth, was re-assigned to a lower post solely for her gender, at the behest of a new sergeant supervisor hired in 2011.

Multiple and independent sources verify that Cervantes was highly successful in her role - more so than anyone else who had previously held the position.

However in 2011, the department hired Sgt. A.J. Rotella as the executive director of the charity, effectively making him Cervantes' supervisor. At the outset, Rotella was hostile, not only directly to Cervantes but to women in general. Rotella told Cervantes that he "hated women," believed women to be "incompetent" and further promised that he intended to persuade Sheriff Lee Baca to terminate her employment because she was a female and he "wanted to work with males."

Cervantes' subsequent complaints to the department fell on deaf ears, and no action against Rotella was taken. Instead, Rotella was informed of these complaints, which served as further fuel for his hostility toward Cervantes. Rotella promised that both he and Sheriff Baca intended to get revenge on Cervantes for her complaints.

He made good on that promise by falsely alleging she had violated agency policy - when she had not - and taking multiple disciplinary actions against her. Prior to Rotella's arrival, she had not had a single write-up. Suddenly, she had many.

Further, when Cervantes requested a higher job title, per the national industry standard for someone with her professional duties and experience, Baca falsely asserted he could not give her this title because she lacked a bachelor's degree. However, a short time later, the sheriff awarded that higher title to another person - a male - who also did not have a bachelor's degree. To make matters worse, this individual had no prior experience whatsoever with the foundation. Along with that title, this other male individual was given a salary that was double what Plaintiff Cervantes was making ($120,000 annually to Cervantes' $60,000 annually).

She was subsequently re-assigned to a non-director position with a reduced salary and no prospect of promotion or further career advancement. Essentially, this is the equivalent of professional purgatory.

Specifically, the Okorocha Law Firm asserts that Cervantes was a victim of retaliation by the sheriff's department in violation of Gov. Code 12940 (h), as well as sex discrimination in violation of Gov. code 12940 (a), disparate treatment theory.

This is, but for Cervantes' gender, she would have been entitled to better pay, a higher title and prospective career advancement. Discrimination on this basis is illegal, and should not be tolerated by any entity - let alone one that is sworn to uphold the law.

Cervantes is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and interests.

Continue reading "LASD Sex Discrimination, Retaliation Lawsuit Filed by Okorocha Law Firm" »

The Okorocha Law Firm has filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department's former youth charity director against the agency, county and the sheriff himself for violation of state and federal civil rights laws after she was fired for her husband's connection to a legal medical marijuana dispensary.

Specifically, our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys allege that this termination is a violation of the following:

• 42 U.S.C. 1983, U.S. Constitutional Amendment I, Assembly Clause for Unconstitutional Restraint Upon Freedom of Association in an Intimate Human Relationship of Marriage;


• Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy;


• California Fair Employment and Housing Act. CA Gov't. Code 12940(a) and California Code Regulations Title 2, 7292.2, Marriage Status Discrimination

Former Youth Charity Director Dawn Zamudio was fired last month, after sheriff's officials learned that her husband, Ramiro, ran a legal medical marijuana dispensary called Ironworks Collective in Marina Del Ray.

The case garnered statewide headlines, with an agency spokesman/sergeant calling the association "shocking," given that Sheriff Lee Baca had been particularly vocal in his criticism of such operations. However in that same breath, the spokesman noted that Zamudio had been an outstanding employee.

The spokesman went on to tell media representatives that Zamudio had withheld information from her employer regarding her husband's identity and business. Legally, however, she was not required to provide such information. The assertion that she was is a clear indication that the agency believes it has a right to know to whom employees are married, what each spouse's profession is and to use this information as a basis upon which to take adverse employment action if the top brass does not approve of a significant other's occupation.

This is exactly what the agency went on to do to Zamudio on Jan. 6, 2013. Zamudio asserts that the sole reason for her firing was marriage to a man who ran a business with which the sheriff does not agree.

To assert that she could not be married to Ramiro Zamudio and also be an employee of the sheriff's department is a clear violation of Dawn's federally-protected constitutional rights. The defendants in this case may not argue immunity, per the precedent set in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984).

Additionally, this termination was a clear violation of public policy as it stemmed solely from the employee's engagement in protected activity - that is, marriage to a person of her choosing.

Flat-out, this is a clear case of discrimination by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the sheriff and the county. The legal livelihood of an employee's spouse is not just cause for termination - no matter what moral or ethical issues a supervisor has with it.

Plaintiff Zamudio, who had earned an annual salary of $103,700 in her previous position, is seeking both compensatory and punitive damages, as the actions of the sheriff's department were both malicious and oppressive. The Okorocha Law Firm believes Zamudio is additionally entitled to general damages, as well as non-economic damages for emotional distress and attorney fees.

Initially, Zamudio had filed a discrimination complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, but that action was effectively closed as a result of her request for an immediate Right to Sue notice, which she was granted.

Continue reading "Okorocha Law Firm Files Suit on Behalf of Dawn Zamudio Against LASD for Civil Rights Violations" »

The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has made a decisive ruling with regard to romantic relationships between prisoners and guards.

Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers had been closely watching the case, although it involved an Idaho prisoner. The rulings of the federal 9th Circuit court are applicable to California and several other Western states.

The question at hand was whether a prisoner had the right to file a civil sexual harassment lawsuit against a guard with whom he or she had previously been romantically involved.

The appellate court in a 3-0 ruling determined that the "enormous" imbalance of power between a prisoner and his or her keeper is such that any sexual relationship calls into question the issue of consent. In fact, it becomes incredibly difficult to discern between consent and coercion in such cases.

Therefore, the court ruled that any romantic or sexual relationship between guards and prisoners must automatically be viewed as harassment, unless proven otherwise. Furthermore, the court determined that such a relationship, even if consensual, should be viewed similar to the way we view sexual relationships between adults and minors. There is the presumption, and indeed in some cases the mandatory application, of guilt upon the party with the power in the relationship, regardless of whether the other person willfully submitted to sexual contact or sexual conduct.

Consequently, the court ruled the inmate can proceed with the case. He had alleged that a female guard groped him in a sexual manner when he attempted to break up with her. They reportedly had a romantic, but not sexual, relationship. She reportedly also subjected him to aggressive and sexual pat-downs. A district court had earlier ruled that the two incidents in which the guard touched the prisoner were consensual because the romantic relationship between the two had not clearly ended.

This is an important ruling because we know that sexual abuse within prisons is a major problem. Some take the view that it is what prisoners deserve. However, no U.S. court would sanction the sexual abuse of a prisoner as punishment for some other crime.

There are approximately 2.3 million Americans who are currently incarcerated, with California housing the most - about 175, 000. About 7 percent of those are female, though as this case shows, harassment is not solely a male crime.

A recent report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that about 4.5 percent of state and federal prisoners reported being sexually victimized within the last year. That is about 1 in every 20. We are encouraged that the appellate court has taken a hard line in addressing the issue.

Cases in which someone uses their position of power are commonplace and may involve either sexual harassment or a criminal sex offense. Prison guards, police officers, probation officers, immigration agents, teachers and other adults in a position of authority can face additional consequences when found guilty of using such a position to take sexual advantage of a subordinate.

Continue reading "9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: Inmate-Guard Sex is Presumed Harassment" »

Within the last 50 years, women have made amazing strides in terms of shattering the glass ceilings that prevented them from entering certain male-dominated fields, let alone excelling within them.

But our Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers know we still have a long way to go, as evidenced most recently by lawsuits filed by female police officers against the city and chief in Arroyo Grande.

Of the three complainants, one is the department's 2002 Officer of the Year.

According to the women, they had suffered ongoing offensive and demeaning remarks from a fellow officer. When they took their complaints to the chief, he did not discipline the offending officer. Instead, he offered him a full retirement with no disciplinary action.

Although failure to discipline definitely sends a clear message of where this agency's priorities lie, it might have all ended there - had the city and the chief not in turn retaliated against the female officers who had initially complained.

After the offending officer left the agency, the mayor called a mandatory department meeting. At that meeting, he reportedly dressed the women down for making allegations he suspected were a "misunderstanding," and which he expected to be cleared up.

Now first of all, it's important to note that California law prohibits a mayor and council members from directly advising or supervising city employees, other than the city manager and the city attorney. But secondly, such statements not only serve to invalidate the women's claims, they are a clear act of hostility.

When the women went back to the chief, requesting that he address the remarks, he allegedly refused.

This may not be surprising, considering that the chief reportedly has a history of problems with sexual harassment. Local news reports indicate that about a decade ago, when the chief was serving at a department in Colorado, several female officers complained to him about sexual harassment they were suffering. But instead of addressing it head on, he reportedly took various actions against the complainants. As a result, the city settled two lawsuits out of court for a total of $72,500. Background checks performed on the chief prior to his being hired at Arroyo Grande failed to turn up evidence of the past case.

But the chief's actions in the most recent case don't end there. The complaints also allege that male officers were favored for promotions over more qualified female officers. Additionally, male officers practicing at the shooting range were given the courtesy of being allowed to shoot in their t-shirts, while female officers were required to wear vests and uniform tops. Plus, female officers were made to undergo regular "grooming checks," whereas male officers were not.

While the city has denied allegations of biased treatment, at least one of the lawsuits is moving forward and is expected to be heard sometime early next year. Two of the three women are still employed at the agency, though they are currently on medical leave for work-related injuries.

We understand how incredibly difficult it can be for a police officer to allege they have been a victim. But at the end of the day, seeking justice is often necessary to effect change.

Continue reading "Female Police Officers in California Allege Sexual Harassment, Retaliation" »

A male model is suing a clothing chain giant and an agent, after he says he was taken advantage of during a photo shoot last year.

Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers understand that the victim in this case didn't initially recognize the actions as sexual harassment. This was the cause for the delay in reporting the incident, which involved a directive for him to strip naked and masturbate in order that he might appear "more relaxed" for the photo session.

He just knew that it made him uncomfortable. He knew he felt taken advantage of. But no one had touched him or physically forced him to do anything, so he felt ashamed and internalized the blame.

This is not uncommon for sexual harassment victims. They want to believe that they are somehow misinterpreting what is happening or that perhaps they are overreacting. They may recognize a behavior or pattern of behaviors as inappropriate, but they may not necessarily categorize it as sexual harassment.

Of course, there is no cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all picture of what sexual harassment is. Legally, though, it's defined as:

Unwelcome visual, verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is either pervasive or severe and affects the work conditions or establishes a hostile work environment.

It's a fairly broad definition, and it involves everything from comments about clothing to leering at someone to displaying overtly sexual posters or screensavers. And of course, it includes unwanted physical touching and sexual propositions. An instruction to masturbate in front of a superior without question falls into the realm of sexual harassment.

According to the 41-page complaint, the model reportedly was employed by Abercrombie & Fitch and Hollister Co. Of course, this is a company that has become quite famous for its racy marketing, which often showcases models that are scantily clad.

This may have made the photographer's request initially seem less outrageous than it might have otherwise. While the photographer wasn't directly employed by the clothier, he was highly recommended by the company. The 18-year-old model was reportedly encouraged to work with him in order to bolster his photo portfolio.

The photographer told the model that he had tried various methods in order to have models get a certain "look" for the camera. This "look," the photographer insisted, was what was required by all of the major modeling agencies.These methods he employed included plying them with alcohol, even though they were underage. But he indicated that the most effective method was masturbation, capturing their expressions just prior to orgasm.

The photographer further told him that if he did not submit to this demand, the representatives of Abercrombie would be "mad" at him. according to the allegations. The model said he was confused and worried that he would not advance in the industry if he did not follow this directive.

Following the shoot, the model claims that the photographer exposed himself, saying he wanted to compare members.

Again, this all seems like outrageous behavior, but in context of what was happening and the industry in which it occurred, it is not a stretch to believe that the model did not understand what was happening at the time - or his rights.

The model is seeking more than $1 million for fraud, deceit, sexual harassment, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent supervision and infliction of emotional distress.

Continue reading "Clothing Retailer Facing Alarming Sex Harassment Claims" »

A large electronics store settled a sexual harassment case for roughly $2.5 million, after an employee complained that her assistant manager was relentless in his unwanted advances, and her direct boss fired her for reporting it.

Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyers view this case as somewhat unique in that it was not the accuser, but the messenger, who was essentially singled out by management.

What this illustrates is that victims of sexual harassment aren't the only ones who may become ensnared in what can be an ugly battle to suppress the truth and avoid a controversy. Retaliation is defined as any attempt to fire, demote, harass or take other negative action against someone because he or she has filed a complaint of sexual harassment or because they alerted management to a complaint. It encompasses every aspect of the job, including termination, pay, promotions, job assignments, training, layoffs, fringe benefits or any other condition of employment.

In this case, however, Fry's Electronics, a California-based company, was harshly chastised by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which said that the company had gone to extensive lengths not only to silence the complainants, but also to destroy and withhold evidence. The company also reportedly employed abusive stall tactics that included filing numerous motions that were frivolous and without merit.

The company, which has more than 14,000 employees in stores across the country, vehemently denies it has done anything wrong.

Maybe you can decide for yourself. Here are the facts of the case, as reported by the Los Angeles Times:

A 20-year-old sales associate reported being uncomfortable, overwhelmed and stressed out by communication that her assistant manager was initiating. The assistant manager was said to have been incessantly calling and texting the junior worker. The text messages included commentary on her body, propositions for sex and invitations to join him at his home for drinks.

The younger worker expressed her distress to her direct supervisor. This was an individual who had reportedly obtained exceedingly positive remarks during his performance reviews. There had been no issues whatsoever regarding his job performance. That is, until he reported this issue to the company's legal department.

Within weeks, he was fired. He was told that it was due to a decline in his performance. It does not appear any negative action was taken against the female sales assistant, though one could argue that the action against the one person who spoke up on her behalf has a chilling effect on future complaints.

The assistant manager was allowed to stay, and it appears was never sanctioned.

Fry's says that it handled the situation appropriately. And although it says that it only settled in order to avoid a protracted legal battle, the court also fined it $100,000 for its handling of the case and abuses with regard to attempting to hide and destroy evidence.

In addition to the financial penalties, Fry's will also have to implement a three-year program to educate employees and supervisors on sexual harassment and on appropriate handling such incidents and complaints.

Continue reading "Electronics Store Settles Sex Harassment Case for $2.5 Million" »