Articles Posted in Workplace Discrimination/Sexual Harassment

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: The plaintiff sought recovery in the form of back pay, damages for emotional distress and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

Facts:

Plaintiff alleged that four female employees at ABC Inc., school bus transportation services company, were sexually harassed, retaliated against or forced to quit.

Plaintiff sued ABC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits gender discrimination in employment, including sexual harassment and retaliation, after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Plaintiff alleged a male supervisor at the company’s facility in Los Angeles sexually harassed at least four women, including bus drivers and a human resources assistant. The supervisor began by making constant explicit remarks about the workers’ body parts and the sexual acts he wanted to perform on them. According to the plaintiff, the harassment turned physical when the supervisor exposed himself, grabbed the breasts of a bus driver and rubbed his private parts onto her.

Plaintiff contended that a male manager who received the workers’ complaints of harassment not only failed to correct the situation, but also disciplined one victim and transferred another in retaliation for complaining. The plaintiff claimed the harasser cut another bus driver’s hours upon refusal of his advances and promised extra hours to female employees who might agree.

The plaintiff noted that three of the victims felt forced to resign as a result of the ongoing harassment.

ABC denied the allegations.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: Youman sought recovery for lost wages, benefits, medical expenses and mental suffering. He is currently working at a new position coaching the NCAA Division II baseball team at Benedict College in Columbia, S.C.

Facts:

Plaintiff Segero Youman, a 50-year-old black male and a former Sacramento College head baseball coach and adjunct instructor at Sacramento College and California College, claimed that he was initially hired in February 2006 and fired without the required approval of then-President Dr. Sam Murk. After complaining about the misuse of funds to the Board of Trustees of the Sacramento College District in September 2007, Youman was reinstated on Sept. 20, 2007, only to be fired as head baseball coach again two weeks later. His last teaching assignments at Sacramento College and California College were taken away in December 2007.

Youman sued the Sacramento College District for retaliation, after he claimed he was not renewed for reporting to the board and college president fraud and other wrongdoing by school officials (such as that assistant coaches were being paid, but not coaching), as well as retaliation for reporting violations of statute, retaliation for opposing discrimination, failure to prevent retaliation, violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 and racial discrimination.

Youman also sued his boss, Matt Murdok, the athletic director and head basketball coach, for racial discrimination and sexual harassment, and Murdok’s assistant coach Dave Casen for aiding and abetting discrimination.

Youman contended that Murdok gave “no-show” coaching assignments worth thousands of dollars to his associates and arranged for students to be given credit for classes they failed or never attended. He further contended that Murdok used the computer password “hailhitler” and unlike white coaches in other sports, Youman claimed he could not select his paid assistant coaches during the 2007 season and that Murdok hired a relative of his and Casen as no-show assistant coaches for Youman’s teams. Youman claimed that one of the no-show assistant coaches did errands for Murdok, while billing the school for his time, and Casen allegedly told another coach that he went to games “to collect a check.”
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: Herman claimed $210,000 in economic damages and additional damages for her mental and emotional distress.

Facts:

In August 2002, plaintiff Cassandra Herman, a speech professor, was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), after collapsing on the campus of Sacramento Community College, where she was a staff professor for 20 years. Herman claimed the PTSD stemmed from an alleged sexual assault incident involving a dean at the college years before. After being diagnosed, Herman went on a three-year leave of absence, returning on a part-time basis in 2005.

Herman claimed that her superiors at Sacramento attempted to defame her reputation and remove her from the staff due to her extended leave. She applied for a faculty exchange program to a community college in Hawaii, but Sacramento denied her request. Herman also claimed she was denied multiple requests to teach online classes as an accommodation.

Herman sued Sacramento Community College District, alleging disability discrimination, sexual harassment and defamation, as well as a violation of Education Code section 87031.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to court records: Defendants ABC Healthcare Solutions Inc. hired plaintiff Alice Sarah in December 2007. Defendant reprocessed medical equipment. Plaintiff represented the company in working with hospitals in Northern California.

In February at the Sacramento Airport, following a company function, plaintiff’s direct manager, Mary Mark, allegedly propositioned plaintiff and proposed plaintiff split from her spouse. Plaintiff claimed the proposition followed 16 months of unwelcome sexual advances including inappropriate touching, late-night phone calls, and threats to withhold promotions.

According to plaintiff, she reported many instances of harassment by Mark to defendant’s Human Resources department. Plaintiff claimed Mark issued her a disciplinary action letter in response to her complaint. Plaintiff said the HR department and employees refused to properly investigate her complaints. In 2009, plaintiff claimed, she was forced to take medical leave because of the harassment.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Darroll pleaded no contest to criminal charges for vandalism and trespass on March 26, 2008, in regard to breaking Hirsch’s TV and end tables. She paid a $2,000 fine and served probation. The criminal charges were subsequently expunged.

Hirsch contended that he did not fire Darroll because of her gender or because she would not continue to be his girlfriend, and hence, he wasn’t liable for wrongful termination. He claimed that she was an insubordinate employee. He further claimed that he hired the private investigator for his own safety after Darroll vandalized his office.

Hirsch denied the rest of Darroll’s accusations, claiming that he had nothing to do with the damage inflicted on her and her cousin’s cars, and that he was not responsible for the defamatory remark on the Internet.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

INJURIES: Darroll asked the jury for $135,850.36 in special damages for lost wages, property damage and therapy costs for her emotional distress. She also sought $3 million for her pain and suffering, as well as $2.5 million in punitive damages.

Facts:

In 2002, plaintiff Kerry Darroll, 25, began a romantic relationship with Ben Hirsch, owner of XYZ Records. Hirsch signed Darroll to be a recording artist, and she appeared on the soundtrack for the film “Whoohoo.” In 2004, Darroll began to pursue a career as a hair stylist, and the following year, she began working at a salon in Folsom. In November 2006, Darroll’s relationship with Hirsch ended, and she moved out of his home in Sacramento.

Darroll claimed that between November and December 2006, Hirsch began a campaign of harassment, defamation and vandalism against her. She alleged that in an attempt to bring back their relationship, Hirsch purchased the salon where she had been working for more than a year. She claimed that when she agreed to work for Hirsch but refused to return to the relationship, Hirsch fired her on Dec. 18. The following day, Darroll then went to Hirsch’s office when he wasn’t there and destroyed a television set and some end tables with a baseball bat.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

Plaintiff said defendant XYZ then only offered her assignments during the day when it knew she could not accept such assignments because she was going to school. Ultimately, plaintiff took medical leave, but when plaintiff’s doctor released her to return to work, defendant XYZ delayed her return for months. Plaintiff said when she was allowed to return, defendant XYZ assigned her to the DFS Division, but continued its campaign of harassment, intending to force her to quit or to create a pretext to fire her.

Defendant Amos was the defendant EHS employee responsible for supervising the security guards assigned to the EHS Fleet Services Division. Before plaintiff could be assigned to the Fleet Services Division, defendant Amos had to interview plaintiff and approve her assignment. He then acted as her site supervisor. After initially defending her against defendant XYZ’s continuing harassment, defendant Amos informed plaintiff that she “owed” him. Defendant Amos used his supervisory position, and threats to have her fired, to force plaintiff to perform oral sex on him on the job. He insisted on going to her house during work hours, where he threatened to have her fired if she refused to have sex with him. Within days, defendant Amos requested that plaintiff be removed from the EHS contract, which defendant XYZ used as a pretext to fire plaintiff.

Defendants Amos and EHS settled with plaintiff.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading

The following blog entry is written to illustrate an example of a sexual harassment case. Reviewing this kind of lawsuit should help potential plaintiffs and clients better understand how parties in personal injury cases present such issues to the court.

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this sexual harassment case and its proceedings.)

CASE INFORMATION
FACTS/CONTENTIONS

According to court records: On May 2, 2002, plaintiff went to work for ABC Company, which had a contract with California Department of General Services (“EHS”) to provide security services at state facilities in Sacramento, California. In August 2001, defendant XYZ Inc. took over the ABC contract with EHS, and plaintiff was hired by defendant XYZ on September 18, 2001. At the time plaintiff was hired by defendant XYZ, she informed them that she was going to school, but was available to work evening or night shifts.

In the fall of 2001, Johnson, a janitorial supervisor working at the B Building where plaintiff was assigned began subjecting plaintiff to inappropriate sexual comments and unwelcome sexual advances. Plaintiff said she made it clear that she did not welcome the sexual advances, and Johnson began retaliating against her. Plaintiff was reluctant to report Johnson’s conduct because her assignment accommodated her schedule and was close to home. Plaintiff said her manager promised her that her shift would not be changed and she would not be transferred.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this employment discrimination/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

DAMAGES

Had Ms. Church remained at Kaiser she would have received increasing salary (including increased salary from promotions which were denied to her by her second level supervisor, Charles Smith and her quasi-supervisor, David Black, for thirteen (13) years until retirement with an average increase of approx. 3 %, totaling $1,262,776. Had Plaintiff received promotions, the total would be $1,528,201 assuming a salary of $95,000 a year in 2006, $1,608,632 assuming a salary of $100,000 a year in 2006, and $2,010,791 assuming a salary of $125,000 in 2006. While Ms. Church is currently working as a temporary employee for Bayer, through an agency, this is not comparable employment. She is paid $30 an hour with no benefits. Ms. Church’s many other attempts at gaining employment have been unsuccessful.

Benefits lost by Ms. Church as a result of the termination are:

1) Medical and dental benefits

2) Flexible employee life ($500,000 death benefit)

3) Accidental Death Benefit
4) Long-term Disability Benefit

5) Three years build up of contribution to sick time and vacation which increases with time served.

6) The contribution to the time served would have resulted in medical benefits for life; fifteen (15) years of service gains towards retiring-employee medical benefits for life.

7) The ability to contribute to a 401K that Kaiser matched .50 on the dollar.

8) Two $1,000 reimbursements for education.

9) Bonuses of 3-5% of an employee’s gross salary or $2,355 – $3,925, increasing per year of service.

In addition, Ms. Church has suffered substantial emotional distress.

Continue reading

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this employment discrimination/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

EQUAL PAY ACT CLAIM

While Ms. Church worked for Kaiser, she suffered wage discrimination as defined by the state and federal Equal Pay Acts. Ms. Church’s salary was very low for her position. Many others in her position were managers but she was refused that title. Plaintiff alleges that the male hired in her prior position shortly after she asked to be transferred to Sacramento was paid $6,000 more a year than she was in that same position.

Kaiser argues that the reason for the pay discrepancy was the male employee’s greater qualifications but Ms. Church will testify that the qualifications which actually applied to the job in question were equal; it was the pay that was different.

CONVERSION CLAIM

At the time that Ms. Church was terminated, she was not permitted to take numerous binders of material which belonged to her. This property consisted of numerous documents regarding her personal research into compliance issues and represented numerous hours of personal work. Ms. Church later learned that Mr. White callously discarded this personal property belonging to her. In his deposition Mr. White suggested that the material might still exist in his office but Kaiser still has not returned the binders to Ms. Church. The discarding or wrongful retention of Ms. Church’s material without permission constitutes conversion:

Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages. Conversion is a strict liability tort.

Continue reading

Contact Information