 |
|||
| Sexual
harassment in the workplace has received a great deal of attention
over the last decade. News accounts of certain high profile
cases and big jury verdicts have underscored the importance of this
issue in a society where women continue to struggle for equality.
Many women still endure the humiliation of sexually harassing conduct and experience the sense of degradation and powerlessness which it typically causes. Understanding what conduct constitutes unlawful sexual harassment is an important first step in taking control over this aspect of your work life. • Conditioning a job, benefits or a promotion on acceptance of sexual advances or conduct. The law calls this type of sexual harassment “quid pro quo,” a Latin phrase meaning “this for that.” • Creating a hostile or abusive work environment by subjecting a person to unwanted harassing conduct based on that person’s sex when the harassing conduct is so severe, widespread, or persistent that a reasonable person of the same sex in the same circumstances would consider the work environment to be hostile or abusive, and when the person herself or himself in fact considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive. Harassment because of sex includes sexual harassment, gender harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Harassment because of a person’s race or age or other protected status is also unlawful. See Age/Race/Sex Discrimination. “Harassing conduct” may include the following: • Verbal harassment, such as obscene language, demeaning comments, slurs, or threats; • Physical harassment, such as unwanted touching, assault, or physical interference with normal work or movement; • Visual harassment, such as offensive posters, objects, cartoons, or drawings; • Unwanted sexual advances. Harassing conduct does not create a hostile work environment if it is only occasional, isolated, or trivial. In determining whether the work environment was hostile or abusive, a judge or jury would consider all the circumstances, including the following: • The nature and severity of the conduct; • How often, and over what period of time, the conduct occurred; and, • The circumstances under which the conduct occurred. Remember...not every offensive remark or incident of rude or bad behavior is unlawful sexual harassment. An employer is liable for the harm caused: • by a supervisor’s engaging in “quid pro quo” sexual harassment. • by the creation of a hostile work environment when it is a supervisor -- with actual or perceived authority over the person affected -- who created the hostile work environment, or assisted or encouraged another or others in creating it. • by the creation of a hostile work environment due to the conduct of a co-worker(s) when a supervisor knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. An employer is also liable for retaliating against any person who makes or files a complaint about sexual harassment or opposes sexual harassment occurring against another. You are not alone. See how we will help. Legal Team Thomas L. Tosdal Position: Partner Admitted to Bar: 1975, California; U.S. District Court, Southern and Central Districts of California; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court. Education: University of California at Santa Barbara (B.A., high honors, 1971); Harvard University (J.D., cum laude, 1975). Of Note: Listed in The Best Lawyers in America (Labor Specialty). Law Clerk, Honorable Edward J. Schwartz, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, 1975-1976. Staff Counsel, Agricultural Labor Relations Board, State of California, 1976-1978. Private Practice, 1978 --. Member: Association of Trial Lawyers, Consumer Attorneys of California, Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, American Inns of Court, San Diego County Bar Association, and State Bar of California. Ann M. Smith Position: Partner Admitted to Bar: 1985, California and U.S. District Court, Southern District of California; U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Education: Simmons College; Monterey College of Law (J.D., cum laude, 1985). Of Note: 1993 Recipient, Outstanding Trial Lawyer Award, San Diego Trial Lawyers Association. Labor Negotiator for United Farm Workers of America 1976-1981 and for San Diego Municipal Employees Association 1986--. Member: Consumer Attorneys of California, Consumer Attorneys of San Diego, San Diego County Bar Association, and State Bar of California. Languages: Spanish. Reported Cases: Salgado v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (9th Cir. 1987) 823F 2nd 1322. Branch v. Homefed Bank (1992) 6 CA. 4th 793. Fern M. Steiner Position: Partner Admitted to Bar: 1977, Illinois; 1978, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois and U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit; 1985, California, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California and U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; 1987, U.S. District Court, Northern and Central Districts of California. Education: Northwestern University (B.A., 1971); John Marshall Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1977). Of Note: Listed in The Best Lawyers in America (Labor Specialty). Author: "Interference with Rights of Employees," Labor Law for the General Practitioner, Chapter 4, 1984. Member: American Bar Association, Industrial Relations Research Association, AFL-CIO Lawyers Coordinating Committee, National Lawyers Guild and its Labor & Employment Committee, San Diego Bar Association, and State Bar of California. Jon Y. Vanderpool Position: Partner Admitted to Bar: 1992, California; 1995, Massachusetts; and U.S. District Court, Southern, Central, and Northern Districts of California. Education: Rice University (B.A., 1986); Pepperdine University (J.D., 1992). Member: American Inns of Court, San Diego County Bar Association, and State Bar of California. Note: Nothing on this page should be construed as a legal opinion regarding any claim you may have. For a legal opinion, please speak with an attorney. |
|||
