Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog

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" »

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" »

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 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" »

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" »

House v. Interline is a recent Circuit Court case that discusses the intricacies of Orange County sexual harassment cases.

Our Orange County sexual harassment attorneys understand how difficult these cases can be, and we will concentrate on getting you the justice you deserve.

Tracette House (House) was an employee of Interline Brands, Inc. (Intraline). House had a habit of violating Intraline's attendance policy by being late or absent from work. Finally, Intraline terminated Houses' employment. A month after this termination, House filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming that she had been the victim of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, and "retaliation in connection with her employment at Interline." House alleged that she was terminated because she refused the sexual advances of two Intraline employees. Upon the receipt of this complaint, EEOC issued letter indicating that House could sue Intraline. House sued Intraline and the lower court granted a summary judgment motion on behalf of Intraline.

When filing a claim for sexual harassment, you are required to prove specific elements of your case. The plaintiff must prove that she belongs to a protected group, that she was the victim of unwelcome harassment, the harassment was on the basis of sex, by refusing the unwelcome harassment the plaintiff suffered a tangible job detriment and that the employer can be held liable on some grounds.

Therefore, the court in this case notes that in order for the plaintiff to win her sexual harassment case, she was required to provide material evidence of each of the five elements listed above. When a plaintiff fails to provide evidence that could convince a reasonable jury of her contentions then a summary judgment on behalf of the opposing party is usually granted.

Summary judgment is where the court decides on the case before the trial is over. It is provided by the court after there is adequate time for discovery and the presentation of evidence, and when the plaintiff fails to prove the critical elements of their case. The only way a party can defeat the entry of a summary judgment is by citing material that is in the court record to support their case.

In attempting to defeat a summary judgment from the court, the plaintiff in this case presented extensive evidence in the form of doctor's notes, company employee handbook, timesheets, etc. However, the court said that the evidence the plaintiff presented was flawed because it did not support any of the five elements plaintiff needed to prove.

On the other hand, Intraline presented affidavits and deposition testimony as evidence that House had never been sexually harassed. Also, through the presentation of timesheets and company records it was established that the plaintiff had been terminated because she had been chronically late or absent from work. Furthermore, Intraline provided the testimony of several former co-workers of House that stated that she tried to persuade them to lie to the court regarding the facts of this case

Because plaintiff failed to prove her case, and because the court felt that this claim was "fabricated;" the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals entered summary judgment on behalf of Intraline.

Continue reading "The Law Surrounding the Proof Required in Sexual Harassment Cases Discussed in House v. Interline " »

A physician assistant has been awarded $168 million in her California sexual harassment lawsuit - believed to be the largest award ever in such a case.

Our Los Angeles sexual assault attorneys applaud the jury's decision to send a clear message that such behavior should never be tolerated in the workforce.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the jury sided with the assistant by ordering her former employer, Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento, to pay $42.7 million for mental anguish and lost wages and $125 million in punitive damages, or basically, to punish them.

The assistant reportedly had worked for a number of hospitals on the East Coast and in California before landing a position at Mercy, which is a branch of Catholic Healthcare West. She told a jury that while it was not uncommon for surgeons in the cardiac field to be somewhat vain and engage in what she termed "locker room humor." But this, she said, crossed the line into intimidation, bullying and retaliation - on top of the sexually inappropriate behavior.

She started the job, working with heart surgeons, in late summer of 2006. Within two years, she was fired after filing the last of 18 complaints regarding the doctors' inappropriate behavior, as well as patient care issues.

According to her testimony in U.S. District Court, one surgeon in particular targeted her relentlessly. According to her, the surgeon one time stabbed her with a needle and would repeatedly greet her in the morning by slapping her on the bottom and saying, "I'm horny." In another instance she recalled, that same surgeon broke the ribs of a patient who was under anesthesia because the surgeon was angry.

Another doctor reportedly called her a "stupid chick," demeaned her heritage and asked if she was joining the terrorist network, Al Qaeda.

Superiors at the hospital said that it was actually the assistant who was the problem. While a trial court did find her guilty of professional misconduct (which was the basis for her firing and subsequently, a denial of her unemployment benefits). The circumstances of that aren't clear. However, what we do know is that there is nothing an employee can do that will excuse sexual harassment from another party.

A Los Angeles sexual harassment attorney was quoted as saying that jurors were shocked by the entire workplace environment. Over the course of the trial, which spanned three weeks, a number of witnesses described a culture in which female employees were regularly denigrated.

Witnesses said because cardiac surgeons typically made the most money for the hospital, administrators were more willing to look the other way when it came to illegal behavior.

Sexual harassment laws are outlined in California Penal code 1604.11. Under the statute, an employer can be held liable for sexual harassment when they knew or should have known what was going on, and did nothing to stop it.

Continue reading "California Sexual Harassment Case Garners $168 Million Verdict" »

The Los Angeles Times Magazine's former publisher has filed suit against the Tribune Company, asking for $13 million for what he claims was wrongful termination, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and violations of business and professions code, The Wrap reports.

Wrongful termination in Los Angeles, especially cases in which men are involved and sexual harassment is alleged, has become more and more common.

Many years ago, sexual harassment claims in Los Angeles typically were filed by women who said they were being treated unfairly. But that has changed. Men are now not only subjected to sexual harassment, but have become confident to report it -- two critical changes in our country's workforce in recent years.

Like any sexual harassment claim, the victim mustn't attempt to go about this type of action alone. It is a complex area of law and requires the trained eye of a Newport Beach sexual harassment lawyer. Because the stakes are high -- a person's job is on the line and high dollar amounts hang in the balance -- an experienced lawyer must be called in to help.

According to the article, the man filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court saying he witnessed sexual harassment and was rebuffed when he tried to contact Human Resources to report it.

He also alleges that customers in low-income and "demographically minority neighborhoods" called to complaint that they weren't receiving the magazine even though they were paying the full subscription price like everyone else.

When he went to his boss, he was told there was a "story" to explain the situation.

After bringing forth both complaints, he claims his character was attacked by higher-ups in order to make him look bad in front of co-workers and loosen his grip of power on the operation. Later, he was fired for "poor revenue," "damaged relationships" and an "inability to manage his direct reports."

He denies those claims, saying he got bonuses for meeting high revenue marks during his tenure with the magazine. He believes he was fired because he brought up sexual harassment in the workplace and because he was concerned about the unethical distribution of the magazine.

He is seeking $13 million in damages, mostly due to loss of salary and emotional distress, but also due to damage of his reputation. He claims his bosses went to great lengths to defame him and make it difficult for him to get work in the future.

Lawsuits like these take a lot of courage and the right set of circumstances. They can serve to not only help a victim of wrongful termination and sexual harassment, but also change the culture of a company.

If bosses allow unlawful treatment of their employees, it often takes a big-dollar settlement or jury verdict to get them to change their tune and create change. Other employees may not want to come forward with complaints, but even one whistle-blower can make a big difference.

Continue reading "L.A. Times Magazine Former Publisher Sues For Sexual Harassment" »

High-profile Hollywood producer Jon Peters recently lost a jury trial and was ordered to pay $822,000 in damages to a former personal assistant, the Los Angeles Times reports.

This is yet another case of a person in power -- most typically a man -- who lords over a person at work without power to make his or her work environment uncomfortable. This is, plain and simple, sexual harassment in Los Angeles.

It's not only wrong, but also unlawful. And, unfortunately, it's not uncommon. As the Los Angeles Sexual Assault Lawyer Blog reported recently, a "Price is Right" model recently sued the show, alleging that upper management harassed and bullied her and others at the show.

This type of work environment is unacceptable and only an experienced and aggressive Orange County Sexual Harassment Lawyer can teach these bosses a lesson through litigation aimed at correcting an unlawful situation.

Sexual harassment is typically defined as unwanted sexual advances, touching, conversations and can even include sexually based emails that are offensive or requests for sexual favors in exchange for promotions and benefits at work. This doesn't only apply to male bosses and female worker situations; it has applied to male workers and female bosses in recent years, as well.

In this case, Peters, who produced "Caddyshack," "Rain Man," Bonfire of the Vanities" and "Superman Returns," among other movies, was accused of acting with malice toward his former personal assistant, which will require an additional hearing that could result in more damages awarded to the 44-year-old woman.

According to the news article, Peters inappropriately touched her at his Malibu home, got into bed with her in an Australian hotel, and exposed himself to her and her then-2-year-old daughter in an outdoor restroom at his Santa Barbara ranch. After she quit his firm, the man's influence prevented her from getting another job, she claimed.

Sadly, this is a way of life for some people working in the movie business in Los Angeles and throughout Southern California. People in power like to throw around that influence and make sure nothing threatens it, including a person who works for them.

Unfortunately, this often ensnares hard-working people who face difficulties at work simply because of their appearance or because of the poor decisions being made by higher-ups who control the purse strings and hiring and firing duties. And with unemployment -- especially in California and the movie industry -- in bad shape, some people will simply endure a bad situation in order to continue getting a paycheck.

But that doesn't have to be the case. Hiring an experienced sexual harassment lawyer is the first step in fighting back. Don't allow bosses to treat you poorly because of the job market and your insecurity. Turn the tables and make them pay for treating you poorly.

Continue reading "High-Profile Hollywood Producer Ordered to Pay $800k For Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

A busing company has been ordered to pay $150,000 to settle a sexual harassment suit in Los Angeles and allegations of retaliation, School Transportation News reported.

Unfortunately, it is all too common for an employee to face retaliation in the workplace when asserting his or her rights. Whether you are dealing with a sexual harassment or discrimination claim, or you are involved in a work accident or work-safety issue, state and federal laws prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who exercise their workplace rights. Consulting an Orange County employment attorney is frequently the best bet when it comes to asserting your workplace rights and protecting yourself against discrimination, retaliation or harassment.

"Last year, retaliation charges became the number one type of complaint that the EEOC received," said Olophius Perry, district director for the EEOC's Los Angeles District Office. "The increase signals a widespread problem wherein employers seem to choose retribution over working toward eliminating the sources of discrimination in the workplace. Employers must understand that workers have the right to complain, and it is illegal to retaliate against those that do."

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission levied the fine against First Student after a supervisor and another manager were accused of covering up sexual harassment and retaliation complaints filed by four female employees.

The case involved a male supervisor who was accused of sexual harassing three female drivers and an HR assistant. The allegations were that the supervisor made numerous sexual remarks to the employees. The harassment then turned physical when he reportedly exposed himself, grabbed a driver's breasts and rubbed himself against her.

The EEOC charged that a male manager covered up the harassment and failed to take corrective action. He was also accused of disciplining one of the victims and transferring another. The accused supervisor also allegedly cut one of the driver's hours when she refused his advances, while promising more hours to female employees if they submitted.

Three of the victims resigned in the face of the harassment. The four victims will split the $150,000.

"As noted in the consent decree entered into by First Student and the EEOC, the First Student settlement of the matter was a resolution of a disputed claim and there was no finding that First Student violated any federal employment law," the company said in a statement. "First Student denies that it violated any employment laws and its decision to enter into the settlement is in no way an admission of any type of violation."

However, as part of the decree, First Student is required to hire an outside consultant to revamp sexual harassment and other employment policies. It is also required to train its supervisors to report allegations to human resources within 24 hours.

Continue reading "Busing Company Fined for Sexual Harassment, Retaliation in Los Angeles" »