Sacramento Woman Sexually Harassed Brings Lawsuit Against Company, Part 2 of 2

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.

Plaintiff alleged defendant XYZ was liable for defendant Amos’s harassment because (1) defendants XYZ and EHS were “joint” or “dual” employers who were both responsible for defendant Amos’s conduct because they put defendant Amos in a supervisory position in which he determined whether or not she could work for EHS Fleet Services Division and she was fired because of his request that she be removed; (2) defendant XYZ failed to provide plaintiff a meaningful avenue to report defendant Amos’s harassment to defendant XYZ and retaliated against plaintiff when she previously reported Johnson’s harassment, discouraging her from reporting future harassment; and (3) defendant XYZ ratified defendant Amos’s sexual harassment and his tainted decision to have her removed by not taking corrective action once it was discovered that EHS had conducted an investigation and determined that defendant Amos had sexually harassed plaintiff and repeatedly lied about having sex with her.

Defendant XYZ contended that it was not liable for defendant’s harassment of plaintiff because defendant Amos was a state employee over whom it had no control and plaintiff did not report defendant Amos’s sexual harassment until after defendant XYZ fired her.

According to court records:
Sexual assault; emotional distress.
Verdict/Judgment: Plaintiff
Verdict/Judgment Amount: $4,965,000
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information