(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this workplace discrimination/sex harassment case and its proceedings.)
i. Unwanted harassment because of her pregnancy/disability: Plaintiff was subject to abusive conduct because of her pregnancy. Verbal harassment by itself can support a hostile work environment claim. Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, (1st Cir. 1988) 864 F.2d 881, 905. Numerous negative comments were made about her pregnancy by Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan. Including: 1) Telling her multiple times (at least 10 times) that she is not wanted there because she is pregnant and she should either quit or go on disability, 2) Yelling that if she can’t handle the job she should quit or go on disability, 3) saying that pregnant women have hormones and attitudes and she should quit or go on disability, 4) disciplining her for talking about her pregnancy, 5) telling her she cannot ask others to help her lift heavy items when her doctor told her not to do so because of her pregnancy, 6) calling her in the office 7 times to change a T-shirt that is fine to begin with, 7) telling her she cannot work unless her note is clearer when it was clear to begin with, 8) laughing at her over her complaints of harassment, 9) cursing at her (shit and fuck), 10) telling her that she is a bad person and 11) suspending her for wanting to go to the doctor. A hostile work environment can also be found when employees engage in forms of intimidation. Birschetein v. New United Motor Mfg., Inc., (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 994, 1001-1002[FN1]. As stated above, much of the harassment was intimidation over Plaintiff’s job including yelling and swearing.
ii. The conduct was unwelcome: Plaintiff complained of the conduct as harassment and told Mr. Davis and Mr. Chan it was unwelcome. (See Part 19 of 19.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.