Our Newport Beach sexual harassment lawyers have written extensively about the widespread – and often ignored – problem of sexual harassment on college campuses.
It continues to proliferate, in large part because administrators, faculty and advisers take advantage of a student’s vulnerability, desire to please and succeed and lack of understanding about what constitutes sexual harassment and what rights they have to protect against it. In many cases, much like victims of sexual assault, college student victims will internalize the blame, assuming that they somehow brought it upon themselves.

What we try to help our student clients understand is that they should not under any circumstances feel responsible for the inappropriate or illegal actions of someone else, particularly someone who tried to use their power to exploit someone in a lesser position for purposes of their own sexual gratification.

One of the most recent cases of this involves a journalism student at a small college in Pasadena, who alleges that the adviser of the campus newspaper made repeated unwanted sexual advances toward him. When the openly-gay student refused to submit to those advances, he claims the adviser retaliated by slashing his grades and refusing his newspaper entries.

In the suit, the student seeks $100,000 in damages – an amount the college’s board of trustees has initially rejected. However, the faculty member in question remains on administrative leave pending the completion of an internal investigation into his alleged misconduct.

The faculty member had been adviser to the college newspaper for the last five years. When he was put on leave, an outcry was raised by both teachers and students, who alleged the action was taken due to the paper’s critical coverage of campus leaders.

However, as it turned out, it had more to do with the adviser’s alleged actions behind closed doors. For some time, the student says the professor responded to his work with positivity and praise. At one point, the adviser even asked him out for a beer.

But one day, the adviser called the student into his office and handed him a nude photograph of himself. He asked the student what he thought. The student, uncomfortable, twice changed the suspect. Disappointed, the adviser asked that the exchange be kept private.

After that, the student says the professor became highly critical of his work, often denying his articles entry into the final published version of the paper and handing him poor grades for work the student felt was above average.

The student said all of this forced him to stop attending the adviser’s classes and seek treatment for headaches, stress, depression and anxiety.

The sudden about-face in the pair’s working relationship is reportedly backed in e-mails, mark-ups on assignments and revisions on stories.

An attorney representing the adviser pointed to the man’s tenured position and said that such allegations shouldn’t warrant a leave of absence. But tenure doesn’t make a professor above the law.

The allegations as described almost certainly amount to sexual harassment, and should be dealt with accordingly by both the college and the courts. Students should never be made to feel as if they don’t have the right to speak up about such treatment.
Continue Reading

As the federal government wrestles with how to handle the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, the House recently passing a bill that would provide fast-track residency status to California farm workers. Still, those in the fields face additional burdens.
Orange County Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi knows that for immigrant farm workers, particularly females, sexual harassment and even sexual assault is a constant threat.

As it is, these women are far from their families, their support systems and a familiar culture. They work in sweltering, back-breaking conditions for a pittance that they desperately need and feel constantly under the threat of being discovered by immigration officials.

Their circumstances leave them vulnerable to sexual harassment and abuse by both co-workers and supervisors. They feel they have no one to turn to and often, they may fear retaliation or reprisal or they don’t realize that they are protected under the law.

One of those who is the exception is a 40-year-old grandmother and farm worker in Salinas. A few years ago, she said she faced daily sexual harassment by her supervisor. First, he began asking her for a massage. Then, he would detail the ways he wanted to “be with” her. His suggestions seemed to become more lewd by the day.

This made her extremely uncomfortable, but she didn’t know what to do or where to turn. One day, on the way back from the fields, he told her the two of them needed to pick up some boxes. In an empty clearing, she says, he raped her. She described how she couldn’t even scream because she was in such shock and horror.

She didn’t file a police report. She was afraid to go to management, afraid she would be fired. She needed that work to feed her family. Her supervisor had told her that if she told anyone, he would make sure there were no other opportunities for her.

So she endured another seven months of facing this man every day. Finally, seven months later, she worked up the courage to file a complaint. She ultimately reasoned that she had daughters and sisters. She never wanted them to have to endure what she had been forced to endure.

Unsurprisingly, she was fired soon after lodging the complaint. She followed that with a civil lawsuit against the company. The supervisor of course denied the allegations, but the firm agreed to settle with her for an undisclosed amount three years ago. The terms of the settlement bar her from naming the company or how much was paid.

But her case is rare in that few immigrant women take the step of reporting what is happening to them.

A spokesman for the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the entire farm worker system is established on the basis of a power imbalance. You have a supervisor who has the power to hire, fire, promote or retaliate. If that individual is a sexual predator, he or she is in a strong position to abuse that power. The immigrant may view her very survival as dependent on their compliance – and silence.

The EEOC reports that in the last 15 years, it has handled some 185 charges of sexual harassment in the agricultural industry. That’s more than what is seen in any other state, but it’s still believed to be a very skewed reflection of the problem. The actual number of harassment and assault incidents are almost assuredly much higher.
Continue Reading

A decision recently handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court is going to make it more difficult for those making employment-related claims of discrimination and retaliation to win their cases.
However, Riverside Discrimination Lawyer Houman Fakhimi is not discouraged and nor should you be. We are dedicated to ensuring that your discrimination/retaliation case is strong before ever setting foot in the courtroom.

What’s more, the recent decision by the court may result in Congressional intervention to strengthen worker protections, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg urged in her dissenting opinion.

Decisions on both issues came down along the court’s partisan lines of 5-4. The first of those decisions limited the liability of an employer by determining that only someone with the ability to hire and fire could be considered a supervisor for purposes of discrimination litigation. That could make it tougher to sue a company for racial or sexual harassment if such action is carried out by a co-worker.

What those cases will depend more heavily on is what action, if any, the employer took to mitigate or eliminate problems.

In the second decision, the court set limits on how juries may decide lawsuits claiming retaliation. What this decision establishes is that it’s not enough for an employee to say that illegal retaliation or bias was part of the reason for termination. Rather, it must be established that it was THE reason for the termination.

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg said the decision erodes worker protections, adding that it was reminiscent of the 2007 Lilly Ledbetter decision in which the court tossed the pay discrimination verdict of a female plaintiff in Alabama. That later was the basis for Congressional action in the equal pay legislation that now bears Ledbetter’s name – the first piece of legislation President Barack Obama signed upon taking office. Ginsburg hoped that similar action might be taken with these measures.

It’s worth noting that when Ginsburg was a practicing lawyer, she represented sexual discrimination victims.

The first case had involved a discrimination lawsuit brought by a black cafeteria worker at Ball State University. According to court documents, the worker did not get along well with the white cafeteria manager, who was her direct supervisor. The manager had reportedly made a number of derogatory comments about the worker. The court upheld an earlier ruling finding that her case had been properly dismissed because the manager was not an individual with hiring and firing power. Therefore, it was questionable whether she could be considered a “supervisor.” As one justice reasoned, there was no evidence to suggest that the employer had empowered the manager to make “tangible employment actions” against the cafeteria worker.

The second case involved a Texas doctor who sued his former hospital/university employer after he said racial bias on the part of a top official at the hospital led to his ouster. He had alleged he was the victim of illegal retaliation when he was forced to resign.

The court, however, reversed an earlier $700,000 verdict in the doctor’s favor, saying that the doctor had not proven that illegal retaliation was the “motivating factor” for negative employment actions taken against him.
Continue Reading

Sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military has garnered the center-stage spotlight this year, with victims’ advocates jeering the military’s efforts to do more to curb the danger endured each day by female soldiers.
However, Westminster Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that, much like in the private sector, the victims often seen as the most vulnerable are males. They tend to feel less free to report such violations and are often harshly scorned when they do. Victims fear punishment, being ignored, ridiculed or even violent reprisal.

A recent report from the Pentagon estimates that some 26,000 service members experienced some form of unwanted sexual contact at some point in 2012. That was a nearly 37 percent increase from the 19,000 tallied two years earlier in 2010.

The report went on to say that of those 26,000 unwanted instances of sexual contact, nearly 55 percent involved attacks on men. The large majority of those involved cases in which other men were the aggressors.

As some male victims of military sexual assault point out, while there are those who claim only a small portion of the military is dealing with this issue, the reality is that it affects both genders and individuals of all ranks.

“It’s a cultural problem,” said one male victim.

It’s true that women are far more likely than men to be sexually harassed or assaulted, but it’s also far more likely for male victims not to report incidents.

For years, that had to do with anti-gay policies in the military, such as Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The fear was that any reported sexual contact between individuals of the same sex – even if it was forced – would be grounds for the top brass to discharge both parties. There is evidence that this did in fact occur on more than one occasion.

Male soldiers say instances of sexual assault haven’t risen a great deal, but rather that it was more widely tolerated before women became commonplace among the ranks.

Male victims reported internalizing those awful memories, often resorting to alcohol or drugs to numb the pain that stemmed from a deep well of shame and confusion.

Instances of “sexual hazing” included having genitals shoved in one’s face, simulated sodomy and forced cuddles. All of which, aside from being potentially criminal, undoubtedly contributed to a hostile work environment.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that about 15 percent of all claims of sexual harassment made annually are filed by men. However, the actual percentage of victims is believed to be much higher.

Sometimes, just like female victims, male victims may tolerate the abuse for extended periods of time because they may be unclear if what they are experiencing is actually harassment. They may also assume, particularly if the aggressor is a female, that they have few rights in the situation. That isn’t true. It is never alright for someone to make you feel unsafe or pressured or forced into a sexual or romantic relationship. Likewise, it is unacceptable for anyone to have to endure sexually-charged harassment at work, regardless of whether he or she is the direct subject of the harassment.

Male victims of sexual harassment should seek out a law firm with compassion and extensive experience in these types of cases.
Continue Reading

It’s summer, and many teens will be entering the workforce for the first time.
It’s an unfortunate reality that some of them may become victims of sexual harassment by superiors or older co-workers who see them as vulnerable, unaware of their rights and unlikely to speak up. The offenders are of course correct in all of those assumptions, which is why Fontana Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi encourages parents to take a few minutes to discuss sexual harassment with your child who is new to the workforce.

Talk about what it is, how to recognize it and what your child should do if he or she encounters it. Most importantly, they must know that such behavior is not a normal part of working, and it not something that they must or should tolerate.

Several recent cases prosecuted by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission illustrate just how unfortunately common such cases are.

The first is out of Hawaii, involving a national Chinese restaurant chain. The EEOC reported that the company recently agreed to pay $150,000 to settle claims that at least three teenage girls were sexually harassed while working there between 2007 and 2009.

The culprit was allegedly a male kitchen supervisor. The workers who were victimized were between the ages of 17 and 19 years-old. They were subjected to daily barrages of sexual comments, sexually vulgar language and repeated sexual advances at every shift.

The girls did the right thing by informing higher ups within the company about what was going on, in an attempt to get the supervisor to stop. However, the EEOC claims in its suit, EEOC v. Panda Express Inc., no corrective action was ever taken.

The lawsuit was filed last year by the EEOC’s regional office in Los Angeles, but was settled in May, just ahead of trial. In addition to paying the fine, the chain has agreed to revise all of its anti-harassment policies and to train all general managers in the state regarding those revised policies. An in-house equal employment opportunity coordinator must also be designated to ensure compliance is met.

Another recent case involves a pizza shop in Maryland. According to the EEOC complaint, the owner of the restaurant reportedly subjected numerous female employees – some of them teenagers – to sexual harassment. This included touching them on their buttocks, backs and shoulders, as well as rubbing his genitalia on the buttocks of female employees, leering at them and making comments about their bodies. He repeatedly used crude sexual innuendos, made sexually suggestive remarks and often asked for massages.

In some instances, he pressured female workers to stay later after their shift to drink alcohol with him. If they refused, he would act offended. One of the women reportedly said that the owner pressured her to drink until she passed out, which she later came to believe was an attempt on his part to sexually assault her.

In another instance, an employee said the owner invited her to his home to discuss a management opportunity. Instead, she says, she was drugged and sexually assaulted.

Several employees say it was so bad they were forced to quit. Management was made aware of the problem, and yet nothing was done to address it.

Teens need to be made aware that they have a right to work in an environment that is free from any type of harassment and that they have a right to complain about job treatment that is believed to be illegal without fear that you will be discriminated against for it.

If you believe your teenager has been sexually harassed at work, call us today.
Continue Reading

In response to alleged mishandling of sexual harassment claims on college campuses throughout the country, the Justice Department’s Office of Civil Rights issued a 47-page open letter to the University of Montana – one of many such offenders – outlining a “blueprint” for how to identify sexual harassment. universitylife.jpg

This blueprint was heralded as a guide for all college campuses across the country in trying to determine what conduct or action qualifies as sexual harassment, per the legal standard.

Our San Bernadino sexual harassment lawyers understand the rules greatly expand the scope of the definition of sexual harassment.

The document has come under fire from various civil rights groups, saying that as broadly-written as it is, it could violate First Amendment rights, prompting the OCR to issue clarification that its new directives should not be misconstrued as an attempt to suppress free speech.

Specifically, the offending passage refers to unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature that can include unwelcome requests for sexual favors, sexual advances and other verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, which may include sexual assault or other acts of sexual violence. The portion of the text that alarmed First Amendment defenders was that pertaining to “verbal conduct,” or, in other words, speech.

But clearly, the agency was not attempting to quell free speech. The goal is to curb sexual violence and sexual harassment on college campuses – a very real problem that has historically been very poorly addressed.

The case that prompted the agency’s review started in Montana in the fall of 2011. Two female students reported to the university that they had been sexually assaulted on campus by male students. The suspects were football players. The university hired an independent investigator, who later learned there had been seven additional reports of student-on-student sexual assault on campus between the fall of 2010 and the winter of 2011.

The independent investigator advised the university to implement better safety measures for students and more to provide more information regarding sexual harassment.

The Department of Justice subsequently launched its own investigation into allegations of on-campus sexual assaults and sexual harassment. The agency found that the university had conflicted policies on when sexual harassment was supposed to be reported and to whom. Also, definitions of sexual harassment, per the university policy, weren’t consistent.

The DOJ indicated that on-campus sexual harassment is sufficiently pervasive or severe when it creates a hostile environment that denies or limits a student’s ability to benefit or participate in the school’s programming. However, the DOJ said this definition doesn’t go far enough, and that sexual harassment should be more broadly defined as any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. The DOJ rejected the argument that the conduct must be objectively offensive “to a reasonable person” in order to be considered sexual harassment.

What’s more, the DOJ advised enhanced training of staff in these matters and clearer policies with regard to reporting violations and grievances. Deans who have a dual role in investigating complaints and then subsequently presenting cases on behalf of the university to the university court have an obvious conflict of interest.

Additionally, the DOJ indicated that many campuses lack adequate protections for all forms of sexual harassment, including those that lack specific threats, damage to property or bodily injury.

And lastly, the DOJ advised that universities need to do more to extend their policies to situations of sexual harassment that may arise off-campus.

Sexual harassment on college campuses is not a new thing. It is only just now gaining significant attention from state and federal authorities.

With these expanded definitions, students and employees at universities should have an easier time bringing forth sexual harassment claims for damages.
Continue Reading

He was once the head of Infosys, India’s second-largest software services exporter.

However, he was forced out following a sexual harassment lawsuit, which was later settled out of court.
He then took up at the California-based iGate CEO.

Now, our Irvine sexual harassment lawyers have learned, his career is taking a familiar turn.

Phaneesh Murthy is once again facing a sexual harassment lawsuit, this time claiming that he harassed the company’s investor relations executive, made her pregnant and then attempted to pressure her to have an abortion or quit.

Instead, the iGate Corp. board has fired Murthy, following a probe of his actions by outside legal counsel. While most of the firm’s employees are located in India, the company is based in California. The company has already named an interim chief executive.

The very fact that Murthy had a relationship with a subordinate was dangerous legal grounds for him. A consensual relationship between a superior and a subordinate doesn’t automatically equal sexual harassment. The question, however, is how much were those lines of consent blurred by the imbalance of power.

In the old case, a subordinate employee, a Bulgarian-American, accused Murthy of sexual harassment and wrongful termination. We don’t know all the details of that case, except for that the two apparently had some form of sexual contact during the time both worked for Infosys. At some point, the female employee took out a restraining order against Murthy.

She then complained about being not only sexual harassed but forced to quit her job. The board said an internal investigation couldn’t prove definitively that sexual harassment had occurred. However, it faulted Murthy with failing to disclose the relationship as well as the protection order. As such, it fired him – but still gave him a $575,000 parting settlement for breaking his contract.

The firm later paid $3 million to the plaintiff.

Now, Murthy is facing similar sanctions, although the plaintiff remains an employee at the firm in question.

The plaintiff says Murthy began sexually pursuing her shortly after she joined the company in the spring of 2010. She said he would insert himself into her personal life, using the pretext that such actions were a necessity of business.

Representatives for the plaintiff said that but for the tremendous personal and economic power the CEO had over the victim, she would not have engaged him in any sexual activity. She said she did so only because he was her direct supervisor and her continued employment, which allowed for basic living expenses, was dependent upon him. Further, she said, he told her that if she hoped to continue her employment and advance her career, she would have to engage in a sexual relationship with him. She did so, she says, reluctantly.

When she tried to break it off, she says, he slashed her hours and reduced her responsibilities. He also threatened to fire her and placed additional pressure on her not to leave him.

In continuing the relationship, she says, she ultimately became pregnant. Upon this discovery, she says, Murthy pressured her to have an abortion. When she told him she would not, he demanded that she quit.

Instead, she filed a lawsuit.
Continue Reading

Students from four U.S. universities – two of those in California – have filed federal complaints alleging that their schools did not take appropriate action to address campus sexual harassment and assault.
Orange County Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understand that the students each filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education. The schools at the center of the controversy include the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Southern California, as well as Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania and Dartmouth College in New Hampshire.

These cases represent part of a growing trend, with students filing complaints relative to Title IX sexual harassment violations as well as violations of the Clery Act. The latter, a federal statute, 20 U.S.C. 1092(f), holds that colleges and universities that collect federal financial aid must keep and disclose information regarding violent crimes on or near campus. Compliance is monitored by the U.S. Department of Education, and civil penalties of $35,000 per violation can be inflicted. Institutions may also face suspension from federal financial aid programs, which serves as a far more substantial threat.

The complaints ask that the Department of Education launch investigations into each claim.

The reality is, most colleges do all they can to downplay incidents of sexual harassment and/or sexual assault because they don’t want to damage their reputations, which in turn might negatively impact admissions. However, they end up compromising both student safety and justice for victims in the process.

A similar complaint was filed by the Occidental College in Los Angeles just last month. In that case, 37 students alleged that since 2009, the school had failed to properly investigate claims of sexual assault and sexual harassment on campus and also that it failed to properly document such claims, per the Clery Act.

In some of those instances, allegedly, perpetrators were allowed back on campus, even though it had been found they were responsible for engaging in non-consensual intercourse.

One student said she a dean discouraged her from reporting a rape. Another student, when she told an administrator she did not feel safe, was told not to worry because the administrator had met her alleged attacker and he “didn’t seem like the type of person who would do something like that.” That individual was allowed back to the school even after he was found responsible for attacking her and two other women.

Occidental representatives say they have improved sexual misconduct procedures.

But the problem continues to be widespread at college campuses not only across California but throughout the country.

In 2011, the Obama administration issued a new, more stringent interpretation of responsibilities held by universities under Title IX. The administration warned that many schools were in violation of the law because they were using a less stringent interpretation of the law.

This may have something to do with the increase in complaints.

But overall, claims of sexual harassment are down. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that there were about 15,500 complaints in 2000, compared to about 7,500 complaints filed in 2012. Part of that may be due to the fact that we as a country have gotten better educated about what sexual harassment is and why it mustn’t be tolerated.

Still, claims that are made are receiving higher payouts than ever, suggesting egregious violations continue to happen. The EEOC reports that about $56 million was paid out in 2000 for 15,500 complaints, versus $43 million paid out in 2012 for half that many.
Continue Reading

A student at a northern California university has alleged that a professor sexually harassed and assaulted her after she confronted him about a bad grade.
He reportedly admitted to inappropriate actions during the encounter, according to a recent report by investigative journalists, yet has not faced any administrative or criminal penalties.

Westminster Sexual Harassment Lawyer
Houman Fakhimi knows many times, victims face an uphill battle in proving their claim. When they fail to get satisfactory results through appropriate administrative channels, it’s time to reach out to an experienced legal representative.

In this case, it’s not only about justice for what allegedly happened to this young woman, but also about protecting other young females from someone whose reported actions suggest predatory tendencies that could put other students at risk.

According to a report from the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit, the problem started when the student showed up for a scheduled meeting to discuss a poor grade she had received from an adjunct professor the previous semester. She wanted to understand what happened.

She said when she arrived for the meeting, the professor told her that she had plagiarized a substantial portion of her final paper. She denies this, though she does admit she failed to properly cite a number of sources.

Rather than leaving it at that, the professor then reportedly turned to her and asked if she wanted to better her grade. The student alleges he then came close to her and began touching her, eventually straddling her and putting his hands up her shirt and under her sweater.

The encounter, which occurred after hours in a secluded part of the building, reportedly lasted for two hours. When the student got up to leave, the professor allegedly blocked her exit and refused to allow her to pass.

She eventually said she was able to break away and run down the stairs and out of the building. She contacted university police a few hours later to report the incident.

Initially, investigators were exploring charges of sexual battery and false imprisonment. However, the professor indicated that it was the student who had come on to him – something the student vehemently denies.

Essentially, it had become a he-said-she-said situation, and no criminal charges were filed. An administrative review reportedly resulted in no action as well.

This was despite the fact that the day after this reportedly happened, the professor wrote an e-mail to the student, apologizing for his “terrible mistake” and offering to change her grade from a D- to a B- “because it is the right way to handle this.”

The professor later told administrators that there was touching and kissing that occurred between the two, but that it was a consensual encounter.

It’s extremely troubling that there is acknowledgement from the accused that something untoward occurred, and yet, he has suffered no consequences. The university determined that even if the situation was consensual, the imbalance of power between a student and an instructor is such that a student may feel compelled to consent to activities she otherwise would not in order to attain success.

Professors are in a unique position over young, impressionable students. Exploitation of any kind is intolerable, and should be addressed swiftly and decisively.
Continue Reading

A former dispatcher for the Newport Beach Police Department has filed suit against the chief, as well as the department, claiming sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and wrongful termination. workers04.jpg

Newport Beach Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi has learned that the complaint was recently filed in Orange County Superior Court, and that the chief, the city attorney and the city manager have all denied the accusations.

An outright denial of course is common in these cases, especially at the outset of the case. The defendants have everything to lose by admitting wrongdoing, and they usually have the resources to vigorously fight back – often painting the accuser as unstable and untrustworthy or a problem employee.

Claimants should know to steel themselves for this before even filing a claim. The defendant’s initial reaction will typically have little bearing on the end result. It’s simply standard procedure to deny, deny, deny.

In this case, the female dispatcher has alleged that the chief made inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to her and used to intimidate her after her husband, a former police officer with the department, testified against the chief and other department officials in a separate case.

An administrative appeal of her termination is still pending, according to agency officials.

Her husband, too, has sued the department, alleging wrongful termination and retaliation. That case as well is pending. In that situation, the husband had attested to corruption and cronyism within the department. Those actions were reportedly prior to the new chief assuming his position a few years ago. However, much of the same type of behavior continued, according to the plaintiffs.

The former dispatcher’s husband was reportedly subjected to a series of retaliatory internal investigations before he was ultimately fired. The dispatcher said that after her husband was fired, she began to be the subject of harassment.

In one instance, she reported that the chief initiated an hour-and-a-half, closed-door, one-on-one discussion in which he sat inches from her face and used threatening language.

In other subsequent instances, she alleges that the chief would stand unusually physically close to her, once telling her that he “REALLY” like her, which had the obvious effect of making her feel both uncomfortable and intimidated.

These incidents were reported through appropriate administrative channels, but nothing was ever apparently done to address them.

Then in early 2011, the dispatcher was troubled following the outcome of a difficult 911 call. Officials within the department would later use her reaction to this call as the basis on which she was terminated. She was reportedly deemed to have been “disruptive,” and was subsequently fired.

All employers are responsible for taking reasonable actions to prevent harassment and discrimination from occurring. Those measures include developing and implementing harassment prevention policies – complete with a uniform procedure for the filing and investigation of complaints – as well as the duty to fully inform the complainant of his or her rights and the responsibility to fully and effectively investigate and take prompt and effective corrective action if warranted.
Continue Reading

Contact Information