Sacramento Arstists Agent Terminated By Employer After Sex Suit, Part 4 of 10

The following blog entry is written from a defendant’s position as trial approaches. Reviewing this kind of briefing 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.)

Hill’s 2nd Cause of Action for Discrimination Based on Sex Is Unsupported By the Evidence

The thrust of Hill’s gender discrimination claim is that Lee favored his male purported paramour Davis White over her, afforded him preferential treatment and terminated her to give White her accounts. Defendants deny Hill’s claim in all respects. White and Lee were not involved in a romantic relationship at any time during White’s employment. Furthermore, Hill has admitted, and numerous witnesses will testify, that none of her work was taken away and given to White. And, even if Lee was in a relationship with, and favored, White over Hill (and her other male co-workers), this does not constitute gender discrimination as a matter of law. Proskel v. Gattis, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1626, 1630 (1996) For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Where, as here, there is no conduct other than favoritism toward a paramour, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that no claim of sexual harassment or discrimination exists ). Finally, the evidence demonstrates that Hill was terminated because she was unable to satisfactorily perform her job as agent, including not closing a single deal for a RLAC client.

Hill’s 3rd, 5th and 6th Causes of Action for Retaliation Are Unsupported By the Evidence

By her 3rd, 5th and 6th causes of action, Hill claims that she was terminated for opposing/complaining about harassment and discrimination and Lee’s use of client discounts, as well as because she purportedly refused to lie in support of Lee’s adoption of a child. Defendants deny Hill’s claims in all respects. Indeed, Hill admits that she never complained to Lee about his speech or conduct, and he had no knowledge that she had made any complaint to anyone else (which she did not). It is axiomatic that if Hill never engaged in protected activity, then Lee could not have based any employment decision on her protected activity. (See Part 5 of 10.)

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

Contact Information