Workplace Harassment – What Are The Legal Standards – Do People Really Know What They Are Talking About?

Workplace harassment – its in the news, a lot, and it will continue to be in the news. But do people know what they are talking about? Allegations and assertions such as on social media are one thing – legal admissible evidence, causation, proof and damages are different. So . . . as a point of reference, below I have provided some of the legal standards (select California jury instructions) that may apply depending on the facts and circumstances. Best to you, David Tate, Esq.

Example California Civil Jury Instructions Re Harassment – Hostile Work Environment (CACI 2521A, 2523, 2524 and 2505)

Note: the complained of activity must constitute or amount to harassing conduct under the circumstances of the situation; unlawful harassment isn’t just any harassment – the harassment must be based on a protected status; and the harassing conduct must have been severe or pervasive. Also note, although the example jury instruction (CACI 2521A) that I have provided below is based on conduct that is directed specifically at or upon the plaintiff victim, the harassing conduct can be directed at other people if the conduct is otherwise observed or experienced by, or in some other manner affecting the plaintiff. Also note, other related issues can involve, for example, disparate treatment, disparate impact, retaliation, disability discrimination reasonable accommodation and attempt at reasonable accommodation, constructive discharge, battery, available defenses, etc. If you are dealing with issues in these areas, you also need to have a correct understanding of the intent of the law.

 

2521A. Hostile Work Environment Harassment—Conduct Directed at Plaintiff—Essential Factual Elements—Employeror Entity Defendant (Gov. Code, § 12940(j))

[__________ Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she] was subjected to harassment based on [his/her] [describe protected status, e.g., race, gender, or age] at [__________ name of defendant], causing a hostile or abusive work environment. To establish this claim, [__________ name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

That [__________ name of plaintiff] was [an employee of/a person providing services under a contract with/an unpaid intern with/a volunteer with] [__________ name of defendant];

That [__________ name of plaintiff] was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because [he/she] was [protected status, e.g., a woman];

That the harassing conduct was severe or pervasive;

That a reasonable [e.g., woman] in [__________ name of plaintiff]’s circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive;

That [__________ name of plaintiff] considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive;

[Select applicable basis of defendant’s liability:]
[That a supervisor engaged in the conduct;]

[That [___________ name of defendant] [or [his/her/its] supervisors or agents] knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action;]

7. That [__________ name of plaintiff] was harmed; and

8. That the conduct was a substantial factor in causing [__________ name of plaintiff]’s harm.

 

2523. “Harassing Conduct” Explained

Harassing conduct may include, but is not limited to, [any of the following:]

[a. Verbal harassment, such as obscene language, demeaning comments, slurs, [or] threats [or] [describe other form of verbal harassment];] [or]

[b. Physical harassment, such as unwanted touching, assault, or physical interference with normal work or movement;] [or]

[c. Visual harassment, such as offensive posters, objects, cartoons, or drawings;] [or]

[d. Unwanted sexual advances;] [or]

[e. [Describe other form of harassment if appropriate, e.g., derogatory,
unwanted, or offensive photographs, text messages, Internet postings
].]

 

2524. “Severe or Pervasive” Explained

“Severe or pervasive” means conduct that alters the conditions of employment and creates a hostile or abusive work environment.

In determining whether the conduct was severe or pervasive, you should consider all the circumstances. You may consider any or all of the following:

The nature of the conduct;

How often, and over what period of time, the conduct occurred;

The circumstances under which the conduct occurred;

Whether the conduct was physically threatening or humiliating;

The extent to which the conduct unreasonably interfered with an employee’s work performance.

 

2505. Retaliation—Essential Factual Elements (Gov. Code, §12940(h))

[__________ Name of plaintiff] claims that [__________ name of defendant] retaliated against [him/her] for [describe activity protected by the FEHA]. To establish this claim, [__________ name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:

That [__________ name of plaintiff] [describe protected activity];

[That [__________ name of defendant] [discharged/demoted/[specify other adverse employment action]] [__________ name of plaintiff];]

[or]

[That [__________ name of defendant] subjected [__________ name of plaintiff] to an adverse employment action;]

[or]

[That [__________ name of plaintiff] was constructively discharged;]

3. That [__________ name of plaintiff]’s [describe protected activity] was a substantial motivating reason for [__________ name of defendant]’s [decision to [discharge/demote/[specify other adverse employment action]]

[__________ name of plaintiff]/conduct];

4. That [__________ name of plaintiff] was harmed; and

5. That [__________ name of defendant]’s decision to [discharge/demote/[specify other adverse employment action]] [__________ name of plaintiff] was a substantial factor in causing [him/her] harm.

[[__________ Name of plaintiff] does not have to prove [discrimination/harassment] in order to be protected from retaliation. If [he/she] [reasonably believed that [__________ name of defendant]’s conduct was unlawful/requested a [disability/religious] accommodation], [he/she] may prevail on a retaliation claim even if [he/she] does not present, or prevail on, a separate claim for [discrimination/harassment/[other]].]

 

Prior bad acts in the news – how would they be handled in court?

For several weeks the news has included allegations of misconduct and bad acts by leading people in Hollywood, elected representatives in Washington DC, and others. I believe that news of past bad acts and misconduct will continue.

The allegations and alleged circumstances are disturbing, very disturbing, to say the least.

Of course, there are facts, documents, testimony and other evidence that we don’t know, and that haven’t been explained. But the allegations are in the court of public opinion and social media, so everyone can reach their own opinions based on what is communicated.

In court every defendant has the right to defend himself or herself, and that is the way it must be. There is a general presumption of innocence, but that presumption is not always true in civil cases where the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted, such as if there is a fiduciary or trusting or confidential relationship.

In a lawsuit the issue can arise about how to handle prior bad acts or actions by the accused? Prior bad acts or actions, if proven to be true, can be very damming. The judge decides whether prior bad acts or actions of the accused can be admitted into evidence in a lawsuit about current new charges. This can be a difficult decision.

Proven prior bad acts or actions of the accused generally can be admitted into evidence to prove a pattern or practice of the accused or that the accused knew how to do something, but only if the prior bad acts or actions are sufficiently similar in type or nature to the type of wrongful act or conduct that is at issue in the current lawsuit.

But proven prior bad acts or conduct of the accused also can be held to be inadmissible as evidence in a court of law if their relevance or usefulness with respect to the current charges or allegations and possible guilt thereof is outweighed by the prejudice to the accused on the current new charges. Just because it is established that the accused committed a wrong of a similar type or nature in the past does not prove that the accused committed the current new alleged wrongful act, but it can establish that the accused had a pattern or practice of committing or that the accused knew how to commit the type of wrongful act or action that is at issue in the current lawsuit. It still must be established by admissible evidence that the accused committed the current charges or allegations – prior similar bad acts or actions alone will not suffice to establish guilt or liability on the current new alleged wrongful act. This can be a complicated issue.

That’s all for now. I’m David Tate, and I’m a California litigation attorney, and I also handle governance and risk management. You need to consult with an attorney or appropriate professional about your situation. This blog post or video or audio is not an advertisement or solicitation for services inside or outside of California. Thanks for listening, viewing or reading.

David Tate, Esq., Royse Law Firm, Menlo Park, California office, with offices in northern and southern California. http://rroyselaw.com

See also my blogs at http://californiaestatetrust.com and at http://auditcommitteeupdate.com

Royse Law Firm – Practice Area Overview – San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin

  • Corporate and Securities, Financing and Formation
  • Corporate Governance, D&O, Boards and Committees, Audit Committees, Etc.
  • Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  • International
  • Immigration
  • Mergers & Acquisitions
  • Labor and Employment
  • Litigation (I broke out the litigation because this is my primary area of practice)
  •             Business
  •             Intellectual Property – Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, Trade Secrets
  •             Trade Secrets, NDA, Accounting Issues, Fraud, Lost Income, Royalties, Etc.
  •             Privacy, Internet, Hacking, Speech, Etc.
  •             Labor and Employment
  •             Mergers & Acquisitions
  •             Real Estate
  •             Owner, Founder, Investor, Board & Committee, Shareholder, D&O, Etc.
  •             Insurance Coverage and Bad Faith
  •             Lender/Debtor
  •             Investigations
  •             Trust, Estate, Conservatorship, Elder Abuse, and Contentious Administrations
  • Real Estate
  • Tax (US and International) and Tax Litigation
  • Technology Companies and Transactions Including AgTech, HealthTech, Etc.
  • Wealth and Estate Planning, Trust and Estate Administration, and Disputes and Litigation

Audit Committee 5 Lines of Defense 10222017 David W. Tate, Esq. jpg