CalEmployeeRights

Supremes Decide Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines

The California Supreme Court has decided in Jones v. Torrey Pines (2008) ___ Cal.4th ___ (S151022) that non-employer individuals cannot be held liable for retaliation.  The applicable part of the FEHA, Government Code section 12940(h) makes it unlawful for "any employer, labor organization, employment agency, or person to discharge, expel, or otherwise discriminate against any person because that person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding" under FEHA.  Two California courts of appeal and the Ninth Circuit have all held that this language is unambiguous and means what it says:  an individual may not retaliate against a person who exercises FEHA rights, and can be held liable if he or she does.  Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216;  Walrath v. Sprinkel (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1237;  Winarto v. Toshiba America Electronics Components (9th Cir. 2001) 274 F.3d 1276.

Not so, said the Supreme Court:  the use of the term "person" is ambiguous, and the Court therefore goes through an extensive amount of "interpretation" to render the word surplusage to support its holding. In an  impassioned and very well-reasoned dissent, Justice Moreno (joined by Justices Werdegar and Kennard) assails the Court for implementing its own views of public policy and incentivizing supervisors who harass to also retaliate against employees who oppose the harassment in an effort to dissuade their victims from reporting the conduct. 

The majority argues that it is only addressing retaliation for complaining of discrimination, not harassment (fn. 4) and that it is not expressing an opinion as to whether retaliation for complaining of harassment makes a supervisor liable.  So this window remains slightly open.  But as Justice Moreno shows in his dissent (the majority doesn't discuss the facts of the case at all), the complaints which formed the basis for the retaliation clearly related to harassment.

All in all, not a good day for plaintiffs in FEHA retaliation cases.

Racial Harassment Claims Reported at All Time High

MSNBC reports a record year, and record decade for racial harassment claims to the EEOC:

"Racial harassment cases have more than doubled since the early 1990s, hitting an all-time  high of 6,977 in 2007, according to EEOC data. (Blacks file nine out of 10 race harassment charges.) From fiscal 2000 to 2007, the EEOC received 51,000 racial harassment charge filings nationwide, already over the number received during the entire 1990s."

Of course, that does not include claims under state laws, such as California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), nor civil court filings.  We don't have any numbers on these.  But we do know that the race harassment awards in California state court tend to be much higher than agency awards.

                                                                            --- Bruce Nye

How Not to Write An Employee Handbook

The Peters Law Group in Southern California is a small firm representing employees in discrimination, harassment and other litigation.  They also publish the often excellent California Employee Rights Blog.

Over the weekend, they published an amazing post on Tribune Co.'s (owner of the L.A. Times, which also covered the story here) new employee manual, designed to get rid of "mind-numbing lawyer gobbeldygook" and replace it with "common sense."  But the manual, apparently written by a PR executive,  is full of mistakes, and ripe for an enterprising employee-side lawyer to use against Tribune in a future discrimination and harassment case. 

The many gaffes should remind every company doing business in this state that it needs meaningful, written employment policies, and those policies should be vetted by an employment lawyer who knows what she / he is doing, not by the company flack. 

My favorite is the description in the manual of sexual harassment:

  4.2 Working at Tribune means accepting that sometimes you might hear a word that you…might not use…experience an attitude you don’t share…[or] hear a joke that you might not consider funny.

    4.3 This should be understood, should not be a surprise and is not considered harassment.

  4.4 Harassment means being told that a raise, promotion or other benefit is dependent on you going on a date with your boss or some other similar activity.

Well, no, not actually.  While harassment is sometimes "quid pro quo" harassment (the type described in section 4.4 above), the much more common type is "hostile environment" harassment, which apparently isn't described anywhere in the manual.  While I agree that use of "a word that you…might not use…[or] an attitude you don’t share…[or]  joke that you might not consider funny" is not usually sexual harassment, when a sexually charged atmosphere is created by conduct which is severe or pervasive -- including the use of words, jokes or expressed attitudes in some instances -- an employer might well face liability for harassment.  And a lawyer representing an employee making claims of this type against Tribune would love to cross-examine Tribune's executives about language like this in an employee handbook or manual.

                                                                           --- Bruce Nye