Choose Experience
Mr. Markus and Mr. Mosco vitch
are both recognized as Daily Journal Top Neutrals
Scott S. Markus, Esq. Eugene C. Moscovitch, Esq. To find out more about PMA, or to file a case, contact us at:
www.pma-adr. com OR 877.678.1010
Navigating — continued from Page 58 could be made by a female employee who heard that the boss was unfairly promot- ing certain other female employees with whom he was sleeping because the plain- tiff did not actually witness the sexual acts in question. Miller adamantly rejected any such argument, allowing plaintiff to recov- er for a hostile work environment even though the plaintiff was: (1) never propo- sitioned, and (2) never witnessed the sex- ual acts. The Court concluded that wide- spread sexual favoritism could convey a “demeaning message” to all female employees that they were viewed by man- agement as “sexual playthings” and would have to engage in sexual conduct with their supervisors in order to move ahead in the working environment. (Id. at 451, 464.)
Miller is instructive in another way.
The Court noted that a plaintiff’s work environment is affected not only by con- duct directed at the plaintiff herself, but also by the treatment of others. (36 Cal.4th at 469.) That treatment, more- over, need not be motivated by sexual desire or be of a sexual nature. (Id. at 461-462, 469.) Finally, Miller helps refute another
WORKPLACE RIGHTS
NO RECOVERY = NO FEE Call for FREE consultation
Generous referral fees paid per State Bar rules 310-273-3180
9255 Sunset Blvd., #411, Los Angeles, CA 90069
www.californialaborlawattorney.com
60— The Advocate Magazine APRIL 2011
Unpaid Overtime Wrongful Termination Discrimination Wage & Hour Class Actions Harassment Retaliation Disability Pregnancy Leave
defense argument – that plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because the most direct targets of that harassment did not complain about it. Miller destroys this argument: “Even if the targets of the [sex- ual jokes] ‘play along’ and in no way dis- play that they object, co-workers [of any gender] can claim that this conduct, which communicates a bias against pro- tected class members, creates a hostile work environment for them.” (36 Cal.4th at 464, citation omitted.) Defendants often cite Beyda v. City of
Los Angeles, 65 Cal.App.4th 511 [76 Cal.Rptr.2d 547], by quoting a portion of the opinion which notes that if the plain- tiff “neither witnesses the other incidents nor knows that they occurred, those incidents cannot affect his or her perception of the hostility of the work environment.” (Id. at 519, emphasis added.) But Beyda also stat- ed that “a reasonable person may be affected by knowledge that other workers
See Navigating, Page 62
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112