A hostile working environment can be a form of sexual harassment, which is illegal sex discrimination under Title VII federally and under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) in California. However, many companies don’t know how to protect employees from sexual harassment and many people do not understand exactly what do and do not constitute a hostile work environment under the law, understandable given the complexities of legal matters. Importantly, hostile conduct does not necessarily need to be sexual in nature to be considered as creating a hostile work environment and thereby a form of unlawful sex discrimination. In fact, there are many cases where this idea has been upheld. If any of the following scenarios sound familiar to you, you may be a victim of sexual harassment. If so, consider speaking with a discrimination attorney to discuss your rights.

1. Gregory v. Daly
   In this case, After Theresa Gregory talked to a sexual harassment lawyer she alleged that her executive director subjected her to sexual ridicule, advances, and intimidation. Additionally, after she complained, he punished her further by undermining her ability to complete her work, depriving her of job duties and salary increases, and terminating her in the end. Initially, her case was dismissed due to the defense that the complaint was “nothing more than accusations of demeaning comments,” [internal quotes omitted] which essentially pointed to a lack of connection between the plaintiff’s sex and the hostile conduct. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree, however, saying that a work environment can be considered hostile (and thereby a form of sex discrimination) even when the conduct lacks a sexual component or explicit reference to the sex of the victim. They discussed the need to look at the entirety of the evidence and said that the “sex-based character of much of Daly’s behavior permits the inference that the remainder of his harassing conduct was also due to Gregory’s sex.” In other words, just because certain incidents in isolation might not appear to be sex-based discrimination, taken together, they can be inferred to be related to sex.
2. Smith v. Sheahan
   In Smith v. Sheahan, Valeria Smith was violently assaulted by a fellow guard, Ronald Gamble, at a county jail. This was preceded by unpleasantness towards his female colleagues generally. While Smith complained internally, little was done by the department to rectify the wrongs. Due to the inaction of the Sheriff’s Department after her complaints, after a free consultation with a discrimination attorney Smith filed a lawsuit for sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment under Title VII. The district court initially ruled that the harassing behaviors were too isolated to be considered sex discrimination under Title VII, but the Seventh Circuit disagreed. To show that Gamble’s actions were not random violence and were instead motivated by the sex of his victims, Smith presented “me too” evidence, providing affidavits from six other women at the county jail that showed Gamble’s pattern of offensive behavior with female coworkers. For instance, one woman described two incidents with Gamble, one when he made sexual comments about her body while scanning her at the jail’s entrance; when she objected to this, he became hostile and called her a “bitch,” and coworkers had to intervene to prevent escalation. In the other incident, Gamble made a demand without proper authorization and when refused, he again became hostile and called her a “bitch,” going so far as to threaten to “kick [her] ass.” Again, another officer had to intervene and try to calm down Gamble. While this incident was reported, nothing was done about it. Together, there were seven incidents where Gamble became verbally abusive and threatened physical assault, five of which were reported. When Smith filed a criminal complaint against Gamble and he was found guilty of criminal battery, the Sheriff’s Department promoted him. More than that, they effectively demoted Smith by transferring her to an undesirable position. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit found that Gamble’s violent assault of Smith, even though it was not sexual assault, could qualify as an action that created a hostile work environment given the broader context of his patterned negative attitude towards women.
3. EEOC v. National Education Association, Alaska
   In a similar case, EEOC v. National Education Association- Alaska, the EEOC filed a case of sex discrimination on behalf of three women whose manager, Thomas Harvey, abused them daily. Harvey screamed at female staff with little or no provocation, often employing profane language and castigating them publicly. Additionally, he intimated the women physically by doing things like sneaking up on them to watch them work without reason and shaking his fists at them while within striking distance. They feared he might attack them. One woman described working with him as feeling like “working with a ticking time bomb” that “raises the hairs on your neck because you just don’t know what you’re going to get.” Moreover, although high up management officials knew about the harassing conduct, no action was taken to stop it and in fact, Harvey was actually promoted. Initially, the case was dismissed because the behavior was deemed to be not overtly sexual and thereby not sex-based harassment. As in the aforementioned cases, the Court of Appeals, this time the Ninth Circuit, disagreed. The Ninth Circuit said harassing behavior need not be motivated by lust or blatant misogyny to be considered unlawful sex discrimination. In this case, the conduct was targeted at women specifically and therefore can be considered discriminatory. Ultimately, the case was settled for $750,000 in damages and an agreement by the defendants to expunge plaintiffs’ negative employment records associated with the discrimination as well as provide annual training to all employees about how to address issues of discrimination. In these three cases, the final say was that nonsexual hostile conduct can still create a hostile work environment for women. Such conduct can include verbal abuse (e.g. calling women “bitches”), violence, and intimidation, among other things if the behavior is targeted at people because of their sex. Of course, sex discrimination can happen to men or women, as well as to non-binary people. In any case, it is a serious matter that needs to be addressed promptly. If you believe you have suffered from sex discrimination in the workplace, if you have been retaliated against for protesting such discrimination, reach out to a discrimination lawyer and figure out what your options are. You may be entitled to monetary damages.

Sometimes a good training can prevent sexual harassment or discrimination in the workplace

How good training can prevent sexual harassment in the workplace

In the United States of America, each state has its own laws on employment law. In California, laws that regulate employment are quite extensive. Employment laws and regulations in California provide protection for employers as well as employees. The downfall in providing this body of law, however, is that it is vast, making it difficult to know all in which it provides.  As a result, most employers and employees remain uninformed of their rights as well as obligations. A Sexual Harassment Lawyer will likely ask during a consultation if the employee was provided any sexual harassment training by their employer.

Per employment laws in California, employers are required to provide sexual harassment prevention training to their employees.  But does this training actually train to prevent?  The seminars have tons of information on the current laws that prohibit sexual harassment and the way in which the law defines certain conduct it forbids, yet sexual harassment remains a reoccurring issue in employment law litigation.  Mainly a Sexual Harassment Lawyer would handle these types of cases.

The current debate is the training seminars are appropriate in theory because they inform individuals on-site what is inappropriate behavior under the law and sometimes they forget to tel the employee has the right to make a complaint about sexual harassment.  However, the other side of the argument is that this information results in a superficial understanding. Laws and regulations can only extend as far as reciting the “do not’s” of the system which entails lengthy legal jargon which does not resonate with every employee. Relaying what the law prohibits is simply talking at the employees rather than talking to them. Effective training would be a type of training that would impact the way in which employees and employers choose to conduct themselves within a work environment. This argument was affirmed by a rent update in the training programs.

In October 2017, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released two new types of training sessions, one for employers and one for employees. The Commission took a new approach in the creation of the new training programs. Prior programs only recited the law along with legal definitions. The two new programs focus on what behavior is acceptable rather than amplifying prohibited behavior. By sharing information on what behavior is appropriate, employees and employers will have ideas to reference on how to act within the workplace. This shows that the old training programs only commanded employees and employers do not act in a certain way, leaving them with little guidance on how they should conduct themselves without a sexual harassment prevention policy.

The new training sessions provide more opportunities for employers to provide a safer and harassment-free work environment, which can be obtained through the Commission’s training facility. Although the new training programs are available, they do not guarantee a workplace to be free of sexual harassment. It remains that employees need to be aware of the current laws on sexual harassment and their rights. Some other kind of sexual harassment that employee should be aware include send nudes, hot gossip and trade-offs.

If you are an employee who find any signs of sexual harassment at work and did not receive anti-harassment training from your employer, you should call a local Sexual Harassment Lawyer for a free consultation.

What does it take to transform a simply annoying work environment into a sexually harassing hostile work environment?

People usually asked

• What is a hostile work environment?
• What is a hostile work environment definition?
• Which of the following is a factor the courts consider when they determine whether a work environment is hostile or abusive?
• …

To answer this question, it is important to look at all of the circumstances together. Four primary factors are considered when looking at the totality of the circumstances. To your knowledge, these four factors are described in this article, although it is important to note that no single factor is required for a work environment to be deemed hostile. If you think you might have a claim for sex discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment, contact a discrimination attorney as soon as you can to figure out what you can do about your situation. 

Please look at the four primary factors:

• The frequency of discriminatory conduct
• The severity of discriminatory conduct
• Whether or not the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance
• Whether or not conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance

Let’s start from the top of the list:

1. The frequency of discriminatory conduct

   
   Sometimes, work environments can be deemed hostile because of how pervasive the inappropriate behavior is. Incidents of abusive conduct have to be sufficiently concerted and continuous to be considered pervasive. An isolated inappropriate sexual remark made to a co-worker would not be enough to claim sexual harassment, for example, as was supported by the case, Clark County School District v. Breeden. There are several examples of cases where the plaintiff has not succeeded because the inappropriate behavior was not considered pervasive. In one case, Brennan v. Townsend & O’Leary Enterprises, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that there were four incidents that occurred over four years involving three different employees, and two of the incidents were at Christmas parties that were off of work property. In this case, it was ruled that the evidence did not constitute a concerted pattern of harassment. On the other hand, in Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc., only three incidents were considered enough to create a hostile environment. However, in that case, all three incidents happened in one week and included a forced French kiss, a crass comment, and an attempt to unfasten the plaintiff’s bra. While frequency is an important factor to consider, sometimes a single incident is sufficient to establish a hostile environment claim. However, in those cases, the incident must be quite severe.

2. The severity of discriminatory conduct

   
   Severity is one of the other four primary factors that must be considered in hostile environment claims. As mentioned, a single incident can show a hostile environment if it is very severe. For example, physical groping qualified in the case of Myers v. Trendwest Resorts. Physical assault or the threat of physical assault can also be sufficient in isolation, as seen in Hughes v. Pair. In cases like those, the employer can be held liable if their response does not quickly and effectively eliminate the problem (e.g. removing the harasser from the workplace). For example, a single incident of sexual assault followed by inaction on the part of the employer can mean trouble for that employer, as seen in Doe v. Capital Cities and Lockard v. Pizza Hut, Inc. This can be true even when the assaulter is not an employee. Employers can be held liable for their conduct following severe harassment by a third party, such as a client. This was the case in Little v. Windermere Relocation: an employee was drugged and raped by a client and when the employer found out, he cut her pay and told her to move on and clean out her desk after she protested the pay reduction. The plaintiff claimed her employer had made the work environment hostile with his reaction, and the Ninth Circuit agreed with the logic of her argument that the employer’s response following a single, severe incident can be grounds for a hostile work environment claim. In general, the more pervasive the conduct, the less severe it has to be, and the more severe the conduct, the less pervasive it has to be, to be considered a hostile environment. 

3. Whether or not the conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance

   
   In claims of a hostile working environment, it can be helpful for a plaintiff to show that there was some sort of negative effect on their psychological well-being, which could be produced by a physical threat, for example. While this kind of evidence of psychological injury is relevant and helpful, it is not necessary for a plaintiff to demonstrate that they suffered a psychological injury as a result of the sexual harassment. This was upheld in Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc.

4. Whether or not conduct unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance

   
   Lastly, it is important to consider if the harasser’s abusive conduct was so severe or pervasive that it actually altered the work environment. In one case, Westendorf v. West Coast Contractors of Nevada, Inc., the plaintiff alleged a violation of Title VII based on her supervisor’s sexual remarks to her at work on four occasions over a three-month period. For example, he told her that she needed to clean a trailer in a French maid uniform and asked if women “got off” using a specific type of tampon. She was also asked by the supervisor and another co-worker if she was intimidated by another woman’s breast size, a woman they called “Double D.” The court decided that these remarks were not severe or pervasive enough to alter the plaintiff’s terms of employment under Title VII. A similar case came to the same conclusion but under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In this case, McCoy v. Pacific Maritime Association, the plaintiff’s coworkers made offensive and inappropriate remarks in her presence fewer than ten times across four months. These incidents included shouting and calling the plaintiff “stupid,” making crass comments about female employees’ buttocks, and making crude gestures towards an employee once her back was turned. The court decided that the comments, which were not generally directed at the plaintiff, were not so severe or pervasive that they changed the conditions of her employment.
   Every situation is different and has its own nuances. Sometimes, one court will disagree with another on the facts or legal standards to employ in a given case. For that reason, it is very important when considering litigation for sex discrimination to speak with an experienced employment attorney or consult with a professional sexual harassment lawyer who can navigate the common pitfalls and obstacles posed by such cases and give you a better chance at getting justice.

……………………………………..

3 Types of Sexual Harassment at The Workplace

Do you know visual harassment is a form of sexual harassment in the workplace?

California’s Constitution protects employees from being harassed within the workplace.  Employees and employers should be familiar with the Fair Employment and Housing Act and the California Government Code § 12940(j)(1), which makes it illegal to harass an employee. Harassment isn’t always physical or directed at a particular employee, but it may still offend that employee. Employees may be targets of harassment based on their gender, gender identity, how they express their gender, or based on an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions (Cal Gov Code § 12940(j)(4)(C)). However, sexual harassment remains the most prevalent in the workplace, above all other forms of harassment.

Sexual harassment can come from physical, verbal, or visual acts.

• Physical Sexual Harassment
• Verbal Sexual Harassment
• Visual Sexual Harassment

What is expected of the employer and or organization?

It is not always an employer who is sexually harassing the employee; sometimes, it can even be other employees sexually harassing an individual. However, this does not absolve the employer from being responsible for the occurrence of the harassment (Gov. C. § 12940(k)). Under FEHA regulations, employers are held accountable for not taking reasonable steps to prevent harassment from taking place. Employers took reasonable steps to ensure a safe and sexual harassment-free work environment, including providing prevention training. Employers are also expected to provide all employees with a copy of the California Fair Employment and Housing fact sheet upon being hired.

If an employee feels unsafe in their workplace, it is important to discuss their potential claim with a Sexual Harassment Lawyer.

1- Physical Sexual Harassment

Physical sexual harassment is the most obvious and well-known form of sexual harassment. It is exercised through unwelcome touching, such as rubbing up against a person, physically interfering with another’s movements, or preventing another from completing their work. Examples of unwanted touching would be if Employee A placed his arms around Employee B and Employee B felt uncomfortable with this and asked Employee A to stop. Another example would be if Employee A would block Employee B with his body from leaving the copy room, preventing Employee B from leaving that area without touching Employee A. An employee who has been subjected to physical harassment should discuss the matter with a Sexual Harassment Lawyer.

2- Verbal Sexual Harassment

Remarks or comments that are disrespectful insults or slurs may also be considered verbal harassment towards an individual. Under FEHA regulations, employees may identify their experience with verbal comments as “harassment” even through nicknames, labeling, or titles.  Examples of this would be employee A nicknaming employee B “Hot Stuff” or “Big Butt Belinda.” These kinds of nicknames or titles are offensive and comment on an individual’s anatomy, and also have a sexual connotation.

Although the workplace is a space for professionals employed by an organization, some employees today are subjected to feeling uncomfortable and endure unwelcome interactions while at their place of employment.  This can be distracting for a victim of this behavior, leaving him or her afraid to go to work.  The Fair Employment and Housing Act regulations recognize verbal harassment as a form of harassment and specify “romantic overtures” as a type of verbal harassment. But what exactly does that even mean? Put simply, this means romantic or flirtatious gestures from person A to person B to attempt to progress a platonic or formal relationship to a romantic level. These attempts, as in plural, are continuous and consistent.

To give rise to a claim, romantic or flirtatious remarks are still considered harassment whether the remarks are subtle or obvious. Subtle verbal overtures may be an invitation to go on a lunch or dinner date.  In this scenario, although an invitation to lunch or dinner may be a way in which friends interact with one another, depending on the particular circumstances this may be construed as harassment.  An obvious verbal overture may be a comment such as “We would make beautiful babies together” or “I wonder what it would be like if we dated”. These comments are obvious in an attempt to escalate a relationship into a romantic and or sexual realm.

An individual with this issue at work would need to contact a Sexual Harassment Lawyer to see if they have a claim against their employer.

3- Visual Sexual Harassment

The Fair Employment and Housing Act recognizes that sexual harassment may come in the form of visual harassment (2. Cal Gov. Regs. § 11019(b)(1)). At first glance, “visual harassment” may seem obvious because one individual is exposing themselves to another who does not appreciate the exposure. However, visual harassment comes in other forms that are not as blatant as perhaps a fellow employee exposing. Visual harassment can be demonstrated through cartoons or drawings considered offensive and/ or insulting to the victim. For example, a male employee may draw the character of a fellow female colleague in which her breast size is exaggerated. In that scenario, the female employee is being sexually harassed based on the visual of herself, which could be construed as sexual while also making her feel uncomfortable.

More commonly, in an age of technology, one employee showing a video or picture to another employee in the workplace in which that individual finds the visual offensive or insulting may be considered visual harassment even though it does not involve that particular employee being offended. For example, a female or male employee may show or attempt to show another coworker a video of herself or himself having sexual intercourse with his or her partner. In this scenario, although the video does not have anything to do with the employee shown in the video, this act is still considered visual harassment because it is sexual, offensive, and unwelcome.

Visual sexual harassment is also exercised through posters displayed within the workplace. Posters that would fall under this category of visual harassment, as mentioned above, would contain visuals that are offensive in their sexual nature and offend the particular individual.

Lewd gestures are also recognized under the Fair Employment and Housing Act as visual harassment. This could be interpreted to cover an array of acts being performed by one employee that offends another particular employee. For example, one employee may gyrate or perform pelvic thrusts toward another employee. Although the employee carrying out the act is not touching this particular employee, nor are they even conducting themselves in that way about that specific employee, it is still considered visual harassment.

An employee who is experiencing this type of visual harassment should call a Sexual Harassment Lawyer.

How to stop sexual harassment at work?

Do you know what is sexual harassment? And what to do to stop sexual harassment at work. Although harassment in the workplace is illegal in California, the issue remains a hot topic in the media and the courtroom. The Fair Employment and Housing Act requires employers and organizations to ensure a harassment-free workplace. However, this obligation only requires them to take “reasonable steps” to make this happen. Recent news stories have highlighted that more applicants and employees have spoken out to disclose the unlawful treatment they received at work. Unresolved is the question of what the best way to encourage change in the workplace is to stop sexual harassment. However, employees must know their rights and what constitutes a hostile workplace environment until this issue is resolved. An employee may feel that there is a problem at work and should contact a sexual harassment attorney to discuss their case.

A Harassment Attorney is available to explain harassment definition and assist in cases where sexual harassment has been a problem. In EEOC v. Prospect Airport Servs., 621 F. 3d 991, 2010 U.S. App. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought suit under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to terminate an employee. It claimed that the employee had been unlawfully placed in a hostile workplace. According to the former employee, he was subject to constant sexual advances by a female co-worker. The inappropriate behavior and sexual advances included the sending of love notes and photos to the employee. She also shared suggestive photos with the employee and sent romantic messages to other employees. He was also cat-called by a female coworker as he passed certain work areas. The employee continued this behavior for a long time, making numerous complaints to his supervisors and managers. While some complaints were ignored, others were not addressed.

In this case, the Court found that the employee had a hostile work environment claim due to three factors. First, the employee presented sufficient evidence to prove that it was a matter of fact whether he encouraged his coworker’s sexual acts even though he had repeatedly rejected her. He presented evidence to show that he did not encourage his female coworker. The co-worker was propositioned so often that the employee could reasonably consider her abusive and hostile behavior. The third factor was that the coworker was so pervasive, and the employer’s insufficient response was sufficient to make the matter go before a jury.

This case shows that an employee can bring a lawsuit against their employer or organization regarding co-workers’ actions. It strengthens the case if they do so more than once. Continuous behavior is more important when a plaintiff has to present their case against a coworker. However, it is not the exact same standard when making a claim against a supervisor. It may suffice to make a claim against an employer for creating a hostile working environment if the employee is subject to sexual assault by their supervisor. This was proven in Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc, 2003 106 CA4th 30 and 35, 129CR2d 923, 927. Even though the case involved a racial insult, the Court found that the plaintiff was able to create a hostile work environment by merely mentioning it once.

What level of conduct is necessary for hostile work environments to be considered? 

The nature of the unacceptable behavior is important when deciding whether a workplace environment is hostile because of sexual harassment. A set of facts may consist of subtle comments or one comment, but a sexual assault allegation or horseplay that is sexually explicit can be as significant as a whole. Hocevar (8 ^th Circuit. 2000) 223F3d 721, 738 is an example of conduct that would not be considered severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment. The Court did not consider that the comments made by the employee were offensive, coupled with a slow dance at a company event, to be sufficient to constitute a hostile work environment. Even if a supervisor made the invitation, it may not be considered a hostile work environment if it is only on one or two occasions.

The bottom line is that employees who are well-informed about their rights will be more able to protect themselves in the workplace, even if the employer does not take reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. An employee might also be able to gather enough evidence to call a sexual harassment attorney in their locality to discuss possible remedies.

( Brennan Townsend & O’Leary Enterprises Inc. (2011) 199 CR3d 292, 325) The severity of inappropriate behavior must be measured to determine if there is a hostile environment in the workplace. ( Ellison v. Brady (9th C. 1991) 924 F2d 872, 878)

………………………………………..

From suing a dry cleaning service for losing a pair of pants to filing for the return of a kidney, people today will sue for the craziest things.  In order to sue for all of these wacky claims, there needs to be a lawyer to take it to court. There are so many lawyers out there today who specialize in particular types of law in order to represent a multitude of lawsuits.  However, while people are busy suing over strange things, most seem to forget that there is an entire body of law that helps those who have been fired or mistreated at work.  Employment lawyers are the type of lawyers who uphold and protect the rights employees have at work or even individuals applying for jobs. Below are 3 types of situations employment lawyers may handle.

Discrimination

In the great state of California, employees and individuals applying for jobs have the right to not be discriminated against.  To be more specific, employees and job applicants who can say they belong to a protected class cannot be mistreated or denied employment benefits or opportunities for belonging to that class.  Some examples of protected classes included race, age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, pregnancy, and religion.  For example, Fred, an employee at an ice cream manufacturing company, recently was injured in a biking accident.  Fred’s initial job at the company was to operate the machine that sealed the lids on the ice cream tubs.  Although he was injured from his accident, he was still able to operate the machine as long as he was permitted to take a sitting break every 3-4 hours, per his doctor’s recommendation.  When Fred provided the documents from his doctor explaining the adjustment he would need to continue working, his boss Ned refused to allow Fred to return to the company. Whenever Fred called Human Resources or emailed Ned regarding his return, he was told the work roster was “full”.  After being denied work for two months, Fred was finally let go by the company.  Normally, in California, the company does not need a reason to fire Fred because California is an at-will state.  Here, because Fred has a temporary disability from his accident, he is considered to belong to a protected class.  Ned, as well as the Human Resources Department refusing to allow Fred to work because of his disability, may be considered as disability discrimination.  This is a type of case that Fred could seek the guidance of an Employment Lawyer. 

Sexual Harassment

Sexual harassment cases can be tricky because the majority of cases are based on behavior that was directed at an employee who did not want the behavior directed towards them.  The experience and expertise of an employment lawyer are needed to examine the facts of a case to identify what behavior may constitute as sexual harassment.  Basically, certain behavior can become categorized as sexual harassment when it is “unwanted” or “unwelcome”.  For example, Kelly, an employee at the headquarters of a media-services provider, had been working at the company for three years.  A few weeks ago, a new manager Greg was hired to manage Kelly’s team.  Kelly began having issues with Greg once he started hugging her every chance he could.  He would hug her whenever he saw her; upon her arrival, in the break room, at meetings, and even once in the elevator.  Once, Kelly tried to avoid one of Greg’s hugs and later that day Greg did not choose Kelly for a project that was promised to her the previous month.  Denying Kelly this opportunity meant missing out on a pay increase and a chance to enhance her job experience.  This demonstrated to Kelly that unless she allowed Greg’s physical affection, she was going to be punished.  Here, although the facts do not mention whether these hugs were sexual or if Greg was even romantically interested in Kelly, nonetheless the behavior was unwelcome and made Kelly feel uncomfortable.  The fact that following a rejection of one of his hugs, Greg took Kelly off of a project, we can infer that Greg may have retaliated against Kelly, sending the message that if she refused his physical affection she would be denied employment benefits.  Kelly would likely need to report the issue to another manager or Human Resources or she could also call an employment lawyer to discuss what her next step should be.

From inappropriate touching to crude jokes, certain actions can be considered as sexual harassment and may be deemed unlawful in the workplace.  More specifically, not only is it unlawful, but an employer is responsible for enforcing a zero-tolerance policy for particular types of harassment that involve sexual harassment. Within reason, an employer is expected to take certain measures to ensure that the workplace is free from being susceptible to sexual harassment. For instance, an employer should arrange sexual harassment prevention seminars for their employees in order to educate staff on what behaviors are appropriate and which may be unwelcome and/or offensive. 

Wrongful Termination

Wrongful termination means that an employee was fired for an unlawful reason. Wrongful termination can cover a multitude of situations in the workplace.  One example of wrongful termination may be found where an employee reports illegal activity occurring at their workplace.  If the employee reports the issue and is then fired, it may be inferred that the employee was fired for an unlawful reason.  Another example of wrongful termination may be if an employee requests to take a medical leave due to pregnancy or a medical condition.  Also, if an employee is fired for having a disability, for requesting accommodation for their disability, and/or for taking time off for their disability, that may constitute as wrongful termination.  Lastly, another example of wrongful termination may be if an employee makes a complaint about being sexually harassed or discriminated against. 

Some lawyers may handle some wacky cases, but employment lawyers are there to protect the rights of employees across California.