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.)
ALL CONTESTED ISSUES OF FACT
Most of the facts in this matter are undisputed. The principal disputes of fact appear to be:
1. Whether Hill used vulgar language around Lee: while the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Hill used vulgar speech in her communications with Lee (including, emails in which she used the words “bitch” and “fuck,” and forwarded a video of naked men), Hill apparently does not recall using certain words remembered by others (like “cunt” and “cock”) and does not recall discussing with Lee her boyfriends’ penises. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
2. Whether Hill freely socialized with Lee: While numerous witnesses will testify that Hill regularly and freely socialized with Lee, including dining with him almost every night for 7 years, Hill apparently intends to testify that she socialized with Lee only to “curry favor” with him. (As stated in the Declaration of Gabrielle Hill filed in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.)
3. Whether Hill made any protected complaint or protest: Hill has admitted that she never complained to Lee. However, she apparently contends – and Defendants dispute – that Hill complained to others, who, in any event, did not take part in the decision to terminate Hill’s employment.
4. Whether Hill was terminated because of her gender, or a protected complaint or protest: Hill testified that she has no idea whey she was terminated. Nevertheless, Hill apparently will attempt to establish that Shemaraya was motivated by her gender or retaliatory animus. Defendants deny this, and will establish that Hill was terminated for unsatisfactory performance.
5. Whether Lee promised Hill that she could only be terminated for cause and that she would receive deferred compensation of some kind upon termination. Defendants deny the existence of any such promises. Hill admitted that she never discussed termination with Lee and never discussed severance pay. (See Part 7 of 10.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.