Articles Posted in Sexual Harassment

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

f) Defendant Paul Smith did not utter any similar sexually and/or racially offensive words at the non-Latina workers and did not perform any same or similar acts to the non-Latina workers.
g) During the course of Green’s employment at UCC, Defendant Paul Smith persistently demanded a romantic and sexual relationship with Plaintiff Patricia Green. Green repeatedly rejected Paul Smith’s demands.
h) Thereafter, Defendant David Smith spoke with Brown and demanded that Brown provide to David Smith private details and private information concerning the personal and intimate life of Plaintiff Patricia Green.
i) Brown only informed David Smith that Plaintiff Patricia Green was dating Plaintiff White, but otherwise refused to divulge any information concerning Plaintiff Patricia Green.
j) After daily sexual harassment from Defendant Paul Smith, Plaintiff Green refused to continue to work in such an abusive environment and considered herself constructively discharged and quit her employment.
72. All times herein mentioned, Defendants Paul Smith and David Smith daily maintained a pattern and practice of unlawful workplace racial discrimination and harassment against Latino and Latina plant floor workers, including Plaintiff, consisting of racial insults and racially offensive remarks, including:
– Mother fucking Mexican
– Ignorant Mexicans
– Hurry up motherfucker
– Lazy Mexican
– Fucking Mexican
– Wet back
– Fucking wet backs
– Stupid Mexican
– Mexicans are ignorant

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO GREEN
67. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs1 through 28 with full force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
68. Green is a Latina female, born XX/XX/1962, and is of El Salvadoran descent and/or national origin. Green is presently 45 years of age.
69. On or about October 2003, Green was hired by Defendant UCC. Her last position with Defendant UCC was working as a floor manager, earning $9.00 per hour.
70. On or about August 15, 2006, Green was forced to quit her employment with Defendant UCC as a direct result of constructive discharge.
71. While Green was employed at UCC, she was subjected to a daily pattern and practice of sexual and racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation as a result of serious and pervasive sexual and racial discrimination and harassment against Latina workers resulting in a sexually and racially hostile work environment, including but not limited to:
a) Defendant Paul Smith vocally announced on many occasions on the work floor to the Latina workers that as the owner he had the right to demand and expect sexual favors from the Latina female workers.
b) Defendant Pal Smith did not make the same statement to the non-Latina female workers.
c) Defendant Paul Smith maintained inside the workplace areas open and notorious sexual relationship with two other women known as Marta and Justine.
d) Defendant Paul Smith made it clear to the Latina work force that things would be better for them at work is they went along with the sexual expectations. For example, Defendant Paul Smith extended more favorable treatment to the women romantically involved with him in the workplace with respect to terms and conditions of employment.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

60. Defendant UCC also discriminated against Plaintiff because of his vocal opposition to the sexual favoritism at his workplace.
61. The effect of Defendant UCC’s unlawful employment practices has been to limit, classify and to discriminate against plant floor workers in ways which jeopardize and tend to deprive them of employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex and/or race, and Plaintiff is a victim of such practices, is and will continue to be unlawfully deprived of income in the form of wages and of prospective retirement benefits, seniority, social security benefits, insurance coverage and non-monetary due solely to his sex and/or race.
62. Defendant UCC and/or its agents and employees, supervisors, managers, officers and/or directors knew or should have known of the severe and pervasive sexual favoritism on the basis of verbal and/or written reports of such actions made by Plaintiff to Defendant UCC’s supervisors, managers, officers and/or directors. Despite Defendant UCC’s actual and/or constructive knowledge of such favoritism, Defendant UCC failed to take immediate and/or appropriate corrective action to stop the favoritism. Furthermore, before the resulting unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation occurred, Defendant UCC failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such unlawful actions from occurring.
63. Defendant UCC also subjected plaintiff to discriminatory enforcement of company rules, arbitrary enforcement of rules, arbitrary write-ups, racially hostile comments, innuendos, and offensive and insulting remarks, unfair performance evaluations, contrived terminations, demotions, punishments and retaliation against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

55. Within one year prior to the filing of the administrative complaint, Plaintiff complained to his superiors, supervisors, managers, and officers about the above described discrimination, harassment and abusive treatment.
56. Defendant UCC maintained and/or allowed a pattern and practice of unlawful sexual and racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation against female workers.
57. Such discrimination and harassment also created a hostile and/or offensive working environment for Plaintiff.
58. Plaintiff was obliged to work in an atmosphere which was hostile to females by virtue of severe and pervasive favoritism granted to Latina females plant floor workers who would go along with Defendant Paul Smith, including unsolicited and unwelcome sexual remarks and/or innuendos, advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal and physical conduct of a sexual nature. The sexual harassment was sufficiently serious and pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiffs employment and create a working environment which was intimidating, insulting, and abusive.
59. Defendant UCC discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of Government Code Section 12940 et seq. by constructively discharging and/or firing and otherwise discriminating against Plaintiff by engaging in, tolerating and/or failing to prevent the favoritism alleged above and by failing to take any action, or make any reasonable and/or adequate investigation of plaintiff’s reports of favoritism and failed to take any steps reasonably calculated to end the discrimination, harassment and retaliation and/or correct or redress the unlawful employment practices. (See Part 10 of 18.)

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO PLAINTIFF WHITE
49. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs1 through 28 with full force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
50. White is a Latino male, born XX/XX/1968, and is of Mexican descent and/or national origin. White is presently 40 years of age.
51. On or about January 2006, White was hired by Defendant UCC. His last position with Defendant UCC was working in packaging, earning $7.50 per hour.
52. On or about June 2006, White’s employment with Defendant UCC was terminated by Defendant Paul Smith on the basis that there was no work. That was and is false and is a pretext for abusive employment practices at UCC.
53. While White was employed at UCC, he endured a daily pattern and practice of sexual and racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation resulting from serious and pervasive sexual and racial discrimination and harassment against Latina workers resulting in a sexually and racially hostile work environment, including but not limited to:
a) Defendant Paul Smith vocally announced on many occasions on the work floor to the Latina workers that as the owner he had the right to demand and expect sexual favors from the Latina female workers.
b) Defendant Paul Smith did not make the same statement to the non-Latina female workers.
c) Defendant Paul Smith maintained inside the workplace areas open and notorious sexual relationship with two other women known as Marta and Justine.
d) Defendant Paul Smith made it clear to the Latina work force that things would be better for them at work is they went along with the sexual expectations.
e) Defendant Paul Smith extended more favorable treatment to the women romantically involved with him in the workplace with respect to terms and conditions of employment.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

41. Defendant UCC also discriminated against Plaintiff because of her vocal opposition to the harassment at their workplace.
42. The effect of Defendant UCC’s unlawful employment practices has been to limit, classify and to discriminate against female employees of defendant in ways which jeopardize and tend to deprive them of employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex and/or race, and Plaintiff is a victim of such practices, is and will continue to be unlawfully deprived of income in the form of wages and of prospective retirement benefits, seniority, social security benefits, insurance coverage and non-monetary due solely to her sex and/or race.
43. Defendant UCC and/or its agents and employees, supervisors, managers, officers and/or directors knew or should have known of the harassing actions on the basis of verbal and/or written reports of such actions made by Plaintiff to Defendant UCC’s supervisors, managers, officers and/or directors. Despite Defendant UCC’s actual and/or constructive knowledge of such harassing actions, Defendant UCC failed to take immediate and/or appropriate corrective action to stop the harassment. Further, before the unlawful discrimination, harassment and retaliation occurred, Defendant UCC failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such unlawful actions from occurring.
44. Defendant UCC also subjected plaintiff to discriminatory enforcement of company rules, arbitrary enforcement of rules, arbitrary write-ups, racially hostile comments, innuendos, and offensive and insulting remarks, unfair performance evaluations, contrived terminations, demotions, punishments and retaliation against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activity.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

33. All times herein mentioned, Defendants Paul Smith and David Smith daily maintained a pattern and practice of unlawful workplace racial discrimination and harassment against Latino and Latina plant floor workers, including Plaintiff, consisting of racial insults and racially offensive remarks, including:
– Mother fucking Mexican
– Ignorant Mexicans
– Hurry up motherfucker
– Lazy Mexican
– Fucking Mexican
– Wet back
– Fucking wet backs
– Stupid Mexican
– Mexicans are ignorant
34. Within one year prior to the filing of the administrative complaint, Plaintiff complained to her superiors, supervisors, managers, and officers about the above described discrimination, harassment and abusive treatment.35. Defendant UCC maintained and/or allowed a pattern and practice of unlawful sexual and racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation against female workers, including Plaintiff herein.
36. Defendant UCC directly and/or through its agents and employees, supervisors, managers, officers or directors, allowed Plaintiff to be subjected to unlawful sexual and racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation in that Plaintiffs acceptance of sexual and racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation by Defendants, and/or its agents employees, supervisors, managers, officers and/or directors was an express and/or implied condition to the receipt of certain job benefits and was the cause of tangible detriment to Plaintiff.
37. Such discrimination and harassment also created a hostile and/or offensive working environment for Plaintiff.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATING TO BROWN
29. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 with full force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
30. Brown is a Latina female, born XX/XX/1959, and is of Mexican descent and/or national origin. Brown is presently 49 years of age.
31. On or about 2004, Brown was hired by Defendant UCC. Her last position with Defendant UCC was working in packaging, earning $7.50 per hour. On or about July 11, 2006, Brown’s employment with Defendant UCC was terminated by Defendant David Smith who stated that there was no work. That was and is false and is a pretext for abusive employment practices at UCC.
32. While Brown was employed at UCC, she was subjected to a daily pattern and practice of sexual and racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation as a result of serious and pervasive sexual and racial discrimination and harassment against Latina workers resulting in a sexually and racially hostile work environment, including but not limited to:
a) Defendant Paul Smith vocally announced on many occasions on the work floor to the Latina workers that as the owner he had the right to demand and expect sexual favors from the Latina female workers.
b) Defendant Paul Smith did not make the same statement to the non-Latina female workers.
c) Defendant Paul Smith maintained inside the workplace areas open and notorious sexual relationship with two other women known as Marta and Justine.
d) Defendant Paul Smith made it clear to the Latina work force that things would be better for them at work is they went along with the sexual expectations. For example, Defendant Paul Smith extended more favorable treatment to the women romantically involved with him in the workplace with respect to terms and conditions of employment.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

GENERAL STATEMENT OF BACKGROUND FACTS
22. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant UCC is a family owned company, operated by and owned by Paul Smith. Defendant UCC operates as merchant wholesaler with a garment factory manufacturing clothing for men, and manufacturing women’s, children’s, and infant’s clothing. The family also operates two factories in China.
23. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that: Defendant Paul Smith is of Iranian nationality, and of Muslim culture and heritage; Defendant Paul Smith is the principle owner and operator of Defendant UCC; Defendant Paul Smith is the father of Defendant David Smith.
24. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant David Smith is the son of Defendant Paul Smith and is an agent, supervisor, manager and/or managing agent of Defendant UCC at the subject premises.
25. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs worked on the manufacturing plant floor area of UCC while the plant was then located at 123 East Blvd., Sacramento, CA. Plaintiffs last worked at the subject location during 2006. During 2006, there were about 50 to 60 average number of workers per day on the manufacturing plant floor during peak months and approximately 10 to 20 average number of workers per day on the manufacturing plant floor during the slower months.

Continue Reading ›

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION/RIGHT TO SUE LETTER (WHITE)
16. On or about April 15, 2007, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (hereinafter “DFEH”) notified Mendoza of Plaintiff’s right to initiate legal proceedings on said charge of harassment, discrimination and retaliation on account of Plaintiffs sex, race, national origin and association.17. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant UCC from January 2006 until June 2006 at which time Plaintiffs employment was terminated by Defendant Paul Smith.

18. At all times herein mentioned, the acts and/or words constituting the discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation alleged herein occurred within one year prior to the filing of Plaintiffs administrative accusation and charges with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION/RIGHT TO SUE LETTER (GREEN)
19. On or about April 15, 2007, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (hereinafter “DFEH”) notified Mendoza of Plaintiff’s right to initiate legal proceedings on said charge of harassment, discrimination and retaliation on account of Plaintiffs sex, race, national origin and association.
20. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant UCC from October, 2003 until August 15, 2006 at which time Plaintiff was forced to quit and/or constructively discharged.

Continue Reading ›