NOTE: Because this article deals with the subject of sexual harassment, this article contains mature language. If you are under the age of 18 you should back away from this page. If you are likely to be offended by graphic descriptions of sexual harassment that actually transpired, you should also use your back arrow. We apologize for using such graphic language, but think it is important to persons researching sexual harassment to understand the different types of sexual allegations that have succeeded in sexual harassment cases in California.
Defendant, JORGE engaged in a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexual harassment towards the Plaintiff that began on or about July of 2007 as follows, that he knew was not consented to, without many interruptions, or any long interruptions, in doing something harassing to Plaintiff until Plaintiff's employment ended. The harassing conduct included:
Plaintiff was also exposed to a sexually hostile work environment she knew the corporate Defendants would not stop. The environment included Jorge sexually harassing a female surgery technician. Plaintiff was also aware that Jorge's harassment of the surgery technician included him offering to pay her bills if she would "be his bitch," another employee quitting because of his harassment which included him trying to grab that employee's buttocks and kiss her, and a consultant also being sexually harassed by Jorge.
Beginning in 2006, before Plaintiff was harassed by Jorge, the Latina female surgery technician told the Operations Manager considerable things about his propensity to harass. She had told the operations manager that Jorge was saying her butt was flat, he doesn't understand no means no, and she wanted to be left alone. The Latina surgery technician had complained approximately three times before the Plaintiff was kissed.
Plaintiff complained to the Operations Manager about Jorge's harassment of Plaintiff. The operations manager said that Jorge should be fired, but he was not fired. The same day Jorge kissed Plaintiff, he kissed the Latina surgery technician in the morning (Plaintiff was kissed in the afternoon). Plaintiff is also informed and believes that the operations manager watched a video surveillance tape in which Jorge kissed both Plaintiff and the Latina surgery technician.
Following the kissing incident, Plaintiff told the Operations Manager approximately five times that she felt like quitting. She said she was not happy that nothing was done about Jorge. Plaintiff is also informed and believes that Jorge told the Operations Manager erroneous things about Plaintiff such as she thought about dating him. Plaintiff let the Operations Manager know that Jorge was acting worse after the kiss, and she complained.
On or about the day Plaintiff quit, the Latina surgery technician went to the Operations Manager and said things with Jorge had gotten worse. She said the issues with the Operations Manager were way out of proportion and she was afraid he would hit her, and hurt her. She asked for protection.Sexual Harassment Case Result: $226,000 jury verdict prior to an assessment of attorney fees. Present value of sexual harassment jury verdict, without attorney fees, in 2014 dollars is $248,914.35
On October 26, 1998 Plaintiff began employment as a bus driver. During December of 1999 supervisor began a bizarre course of sexually harassing Plaintiff. Plaintiff made the mistake of initially being friendly towards supervisor and talking to him. On approximately four occasions he would give her rides from the bus yard to the bus she was supposed to start driving. Plaintiff confided to supervisor that she thought her husband had an affair with her sister. This made supervisor feel Plaintiff was weak, and it gave him the impetus to start praying on her.
The supervisor's behavior became more aggressive and Plaintiff began declining to take the rides to her bus. supervisor would then proceed to follow Plaintiff in his car as she walked. He also gave her food that he claimed that his sister had made. Plaintiff declined to eat this food.
During December of 1999 supervisor started coming onto Plaintiff's bus. When on her bus he would tell her that he loved her, wanted to go South (said more than 20 times), and make love to her. supervisor would usually stay on Plaintiff's bus for four or so hours.
In January of 2000 supervisor began telling Plaintiff that he loved her and she was in his heart. He would tell her that he would make love to her like nobody else. He also started saying he wanted to "go South" which meant he was going to go down on her.
In August, the month before supervisor gave Plaintiff these gifts, he asked Plaintiff what types of braziers and panties she liked.
The supervisor also made a habit of parking in front of Plaintiff's house and then reporting to her what her children were wearing. Plaintiff's child told Plaintiff that supervisor asked her name and other such things. Plaintiff particularly recalls supervisor doing this during August. Plaintiff drove by her house on six occasions and saw supervisor there.
Around September of 2000, the supervisor boarded Plaintiff's bus and handed her a bag from a department store. Plaintiff asked what he was giving her, and he told her it was a gift and left the bus. Plaintiff put the bag up on the dash board of the bus. As the bus rounded a corner, the bag fell over and 9 pairs of underwear (some scanty) spilled out down into the bus. All of the passengers saw this and Plaintiff was extremely embarrassed. A passenger was one of the witnesses to this event and gave deposition testimony about this. He identified the underwear Karl Gerber, client's lawyer, was given in evidence as being the underwear that fell out of the bag after supervisor gave it to Plaintiff.
On one occasion supervisor approached Plaintiff, tried to grab her and kiss her and hug her. He ripped the button off her shirt and she told him he was crazy.
On another occasion Plaintiff was driving the bus, moved her head, and tried to touch her. He succeeded in hugging her. She said don't touch me and got very upset. At that point he opened the bus door and jumped out. On other occasions he rubbed Plaintiff's hair and touched her while she drove.
Strange things happened to Plaintiff during September of 2001 which she believes were the doing of supervisor. These things included shots being fired at her bus. Within the same time frame, Plaintiff's car had its gas cap open when she came to pick it up in the employer's parking lot, and her dashboard told her to "check engine."
Supervisor showered Plaintiff with gifts including a dozen roses on her birthday in July of 2000.
During September or October of 2000 supervisor's behavior progressed to telling Plaintiff exceedingly ugly things while drunk. He would tell her that she was stupid because she did not appreciate his conduct.
In November of 2000, supervisor gave Plaintiff a gold chain. supervisor also gave Plaintiff another gold chain, two rings, and earrings.
In November of 2000, Plaintiff relieved a bus driver. He told Plaintiff there was a surprise on the bus she was taking over. Plaintiff did not have any idea what Jones was talking about. However, on a layover she took her break and shut the doors to the bus. supervisor came up behind Plaintiff, grabbed her, a button popped off her blouse, and supervisor squeezed Plaintiff's breast to the point it hurt her (she had just had something removed from her breast). supervisor refused to take his hands off Plaintiff, and he attempted to kiss her. supervisor had been hiding behind a space for wheel chairs. Plaintiff was eventually able to be released from supervisor's grip. He ran out of the bus into a bathroom. When she left the bathroom supervisor was waiting there for her. Plaintiff then went back onto the bus to resume her route. supervisor followed her back onto the bus. supervisor told Plaintiff that if she let him make love to her one time she would want more from him. She told him not to talk to her, and asked him to leave the bus. supervisor proceeded to stay on the bus another two and a half hours.
Around Christmas of 2000, the supervisor gave Plaintiff $500.00 in cash. A common pattern in sexual harassment cases is the harasser gives the person being sexually harassed unwanted gifts. Accepting these gifts is dangerous because it might look like consent to the sexual harassment. In one case, years after it settled and the harasser released the sexually harassed woman of all liability, he attempted to sue for gifts he gave ten years earlier!
To say that supervisor was harassing Plaintiff on the phone is an understatement. He produced his cellular phone bills from October 23, 2000 to December 22, 2000. The records indicated 238 one minute calls to Plaintiff thereby indicating that no conversation transpired. Over this two month period of time, in which supervisor claims he was no longer dating Plaintiff (in truth he never did) because she was dating another employee, he called as many as 15 times a day at all hours of the day. Plaintiff produced her phone bills which indicate one minute calls to supervisor telling him to stop harassing her, or to verify who it was who had just crank called her.
Sexual harassment by a supervisor can motivate other employees to attempt sexual harassment. In this case, another employee on September 24, 2001 tried to touch the our client in the bathroom which caused Plaintiff to run out of the bathroom. Plaintiff reported this incident, and the fact that this female driver was invading her physical space, to management.
Other drivers also gave Plaintiff their phone number and asked her out. She believes that supervisor made up false rumors about Plaintiff being easy, and encouraged these drivers to do so.SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: $75,000 Settlement which adjusted for inflation is $101,224.15 in 2014
On or about August of 1999, an automobile dealership service writer began a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexually harassing the Plaintiff until she was terminated on or about January 31, 2000. The campaign of sexual harassment included:
On several occasions the Plaintiff told said Defendant that he should watch what he said when he would make the sort of vulgar, sexually suggestive remarks to Plaintiff described in the above Paragraph. Additionally, the Plaintiff let said Defendant know that she did not appreciate the comments.SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: Confidential settlement and acknowledgments by the car dealership something was wrong.
Approximately two weeks into Plaintiff's employment, Defendant, F began engaging in a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexually harassing Plaintiff #1 as follows, without many interruptions, or any long interruptions, in doing something harassing or retaliatory to Plaintiff. The harassing conduct included:
As soon as the comments began Plaintiff told said Defendant to "leave her alone." Defendant, F, refused to leave Plaintiff alone by not saying or doing the sexually harassing things to her that are described. Because said Defendant was not leaving her alone, Plaintiff told him she would have to speak to the area supervisor about said Defendant.
On or about very late September or early October, during approximately Plaintiff's last week of employment with the corporate Defendant, she called corporate management in the Long Beach Area, and Plaintiff thought held a position equivalent to a regional or area manager. Plaintiff told Corporate management that F was bugging her and would not leave her alone. Plaintiff mentioned this bugging centered around F wanting to date her. At this time, Plaintiff is informed and believes that Plaintiff #2 informed Corporate management that F was being very sexually aggressive towards both Plaintiff and Plaintiff #2.
Corporate management came to Plaintiff's store several days after Plaintiff called him. Corporate management did not bother to talk to Plaintiff, or get anymore details on how she was being harassed. However, Corporate management found out Plaintiff #2 was severely harassed, and moved her out of that station.
Nobody responded to Plaintiff's complaints about F. Nobody told Plaintiff F would be disciplined. He was not moved away from Plaintiff. He was still the manager of the station she was working at. Plaintiff was not aware of any prompt or remedial measures being taken about her complaints that she had been sexually harassed. Plaintiff considered F offensive and dangerous to work with due to his sexual harassment of Plaintiff, and coerced and/or forced sex with Plaintiff #2 so she quit her employment on or about October 6, 2002. This was several days after Corporate management came to the store.SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: A 2014 cash value of Plaintiff’s #1's sexual harassment settlement for $187,633.40 and a $394,030.15 settlement for Plaintiff #2's sexual harassment. The corporate Defendant obviously realized significant sexual harassment took place. Opposing defense counsel, realizing Karl Gerber was a good attorney, recommended him to other lawyers and potential clients after the case was over.
On or about late November of 2000, Plaintiffs began working on the premises of a movie studio where R supervised them.
On or about a week into Plaintiff #1's employment, on approximately December 6, 2000, R began engaging in a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexually harassing Plaintiff #1 as follows:
Plaintiff #1 made it clear that she did not appreciate any of the conduct described in the above paragraph. At that point, said Defendant began retaliating against Plaintiff as follows:
Plaintiff alleges that the actions taken towards her that are described in this paragraph were also done to her due to her perceived/actual national origin/ancestry.
Plaintiff #1 complained to her manager, Maria, at the temporary agency that sent her to the movie studio to work with R. She further said she would have to quit due to R's harassment. The staffing agency did nothing to reassign Plaintiff #1, or take prompt and remedial measures to stop the sexual harassment.
Soon into Plaintiff #2's employment at Movie studio, Defendant, R began engaging in a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexually harassing her. The conduct included:
R also retaliated against Plaintiff #2 when he realized she did not welcome his sexual advances. The retaliation included insulting Plaintiff on a daily basis. He would call her and the other Plaintiff "his bitches." He would also say that he had her like a whore.
Many sexual harassment lawyers would have considered this a hard case. Each fo the women who were sexually harassed only spoke Spanish. Sexual harasser R was nowhere to be found. It was not even clear exactly who he worked for as is often the case in movie studios employment cases because persons from many different companies are hired to come and work on the premises of movie studios. Notwithstanding all of these difficulties, Karl Gerber, obtained settlements for the sexually harassed temporary workers where the movie studio paid over $100,000 in 2014 dollars for the sexual harassment.
On or about August of 2009, Plaintiff came to the individual Defendant's branch. Soon into her employment at his branch, but mainly in September through early October, Defendant, D, began engaging in a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexual harassment towards the Plaintiff as follows, that he knew was not consented to, without many interruptions, or any long interruptions. The harassing conduct included:
On numerous occasions, Plaintiff let the individual Defendant know she was not interested in being sexually harassed by him. Plaintiff told the individual Defendant not to call her Chiniti, people would wonder why he called her that, and that he should not be saying things to her like let's go clubbing because he was the manager.
On or about October 7, 2009, Plaintiff left after working a half day and has not been back to work since. October 8, 2009, Plaintiff called the corporate Defendant's human resource consultant, Mini Mind, but Plaintiff did not feel comfortable speaking to her because she believed Ms. Mini Mind was friends with the individual Defendant. Approximately three days later, Plaintiff called Out of State Incompetent Human Resources in Chicago, and said she was not comfortable speaking to Ms. Mini Mind and felt she was unprofessional. In the conversation, the concept of Plaintiff being transferred came up, and that the corporate Defendant was taking the position Plaintiff could not be transferred. Plaintiff spoke to Mr. Out of State Incompetent Human Resources five or six times by November 16th or 17th 2009. Through Out of State Incompetent Human Resources, Plaintiff made a formal sexual harassment complaint. By December 24, 2009, Plaintiff was not aware that anybody had met with Out of State Incompetent Human Resources, or that her complaint had been investigated. Plaintiff alleges that she asked Ms. Mini Mind and Out of State Incompetent Human Resources whether a transfer could occur, and a transfer was repeatedly refused.
By November 13, 2009, Plaintiff's doctor did not think she was mentally fit to work at the corporate Defendant with the individual Defendant. Soon thereafter, the corporate Defendant was aware of these facts, but refused to provide Plaintiff a work environment away from Ayala.
Prior to January 6, 2010, the corporate Defendant was put on notice by a management level employee that when the corporate Defendant was going to investigate the sexual harassment claim, the individual Defendant was trying to control the investigation. He told employees things like "You're either on my side or not." He threatened employees with their jobs and threatened to tell management bad things about the employees if they admitted that they knew that the individual Defendant was sexually harassing Plaintiff, and otherwise mistreating females at work. He asked employees what they intended to say, and then after they spoke to the investigator, he asked them what they said.
The corporate Defendant has been repeatedly advised by Plaintiff's doctor, including recently, that she cannot go back to work with the individual Defendant. The corporate Defendant refuses to transfer Plaintiff to another branch, or remove the individual Defendant. The corporate Defendant has been on notice from witnesses since before January 6, 2010 that the individual did sexually harass Plaintiff, did attempt to coerce witness testimony in the investigation so they would lie, but has refused to take any remedial measures against the harasser to remove him from the branch, as an employee, or otherwise allow Plaintiff to come back to work without having to work with him. In addition, numerous levels of the corporate Defendant's management have come to know Plaintiff complained about harassment, wanted to be transferred, her doctor does not advise her going back to work at the branch with the individual Defendant, and the individual Defendant attempted and/or succeeded in coercing witnesses to lie in the sexual harassment investigation.SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: Confidential settlement right before trial.
Beginning in approximately January of 2001, Defendant, H, AN INDIVIDUAL, began engaging in a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexual harassment and discrimination towards the Plaintiff as follows, without many interruptions, or any long interruptions, in doing something harassing or retaliatory to Plaintiff. The harassing conduct included:
Management at the corporate Defendant created a sexually hostile work environment. Besides what is described in the above paragraph, Frotteurist, another manager, would tell Plaintiff explicit stories about management going to prostitutes, how rooms in Taiwan look like smorgasbords of women to have sex with, he would talk about escapades with strippers, and give graphic details about management's affairs with strippers.
In early 2002, Plaintiff first complained about sexual harassment to an employee to whom such complaints should be made. Plaintiff told Real that H was a pig because he was groping her, saying you can come in my office as long as you wear the green skirt, and asking her what kind of panties she wore.
In Mid 2002, Plaintiff complained to Frotteurist that H was a pig and was groping her. Frotteurist's comment was H did the same thing when he and Frotteurist went to strip clubs together and the stripers knew to avoid Frotteurist because he would always try to touch them.
During October or November of 2002, Plaintiff talked to the secretary for the President and CEO of the corporate Defendant. She told her H was a pig rubbing up against her and brushing her from behind. She also mentioned that he was looking down her shirt and whispering disgusting things in her ear. Plaintiff said that she thought the harassment was the sort of thing a court would prohibit.SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: Karl Gerber brought paperwork against the company and their attorney that got the judge so mad at the employer and their lawyer they were fined so badly they were never heard from again.
Soon into Plaintiff's employment, Defendant, GERALDO began engaging in a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexual harassment towards the Plaintiff as follows, that he knew was not consented to, without many interruptions, or any long interruptions, in doing something harassing to Plaintiff until Plaintiff's employment ended. The harassing conduct included repeatedly:
On or about December of 1997, Defendant began engaging in a campaign of sexually harassing the Plaintiff while he worked with the Plaintiff at SUSHI RESTAURANT. This campaign included the following acts, without the Plaintiff's permission:
On or about May of 1997, Defendant began engaging in a campaign of sexually harassing the Plaintiff. This campaign included the following acts, without the Plaintiff's permission, which said Defendant knew that the Plaintiff did not want said Defendant to do:
On or about August 22, 1997, the Plaintiff reported to head doctor and managing officer, that the harasser had been touching the Plaintiff including the Plaintiff's "private parts." Doctor told the Plaintiff that he would report the Plaintiff's concern to the harasser’s supervisor.
From on or about August 25, 1997 onward, the harasser, another employee, and the doctor began a campaign of retaliating against the Plaintiff. This campaign included these three individuals being rude to the Plaintiff, overscrutinizing the Plaintiff's work, and trying to find a reason to terminate the Plaintiff. By on or about September 5, 1997 the harasser and Plaintiff supervisor unjustifiably accused the Plaintiff of work related misconduct in an attempt to retaliate against the Plaintiff for complaining of sexual harassment.SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: A CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT WITH AN ANGRY EMPLOYER
Plaintiff was a cashier at a thrift store. T was a store manager. T worked without supervisor. Her district manager came to the store infrequently. The only time 55 year old T was married was for a year and a half in the early 70's, and that appeared to have been part of a scheme to get into the United States.Between October of 2003 and June of 2004, T harassed Plaintiff by doing the following types of things to Plaintiff:
October 3, 2003, Plaintiff went to Dumb Dumb to complain. Plaintiff contends Dumb Dumb said T didn't mean anything bad by what she was doing. Plaintiff asked Dumb Dumb why T was acting this way being that T had attended numerous meetings about sexual harassment. Dumb Dumb claimed she would send somebody to speak to T, but Plaintiff was never informed what the results of that was. Defendant later contended the Dumb Dumb conversation never occurred so they could not claim anybody was sent to speak to T.
After complaining to Dumb Dumb, the harassment continued including a buttocks slap. June 16, 2004, a loss prevention investigator, became aware of Plaintiff's sexual harassment complaint. He reported the situation to the Human Resources Director. The human resource director did not investigate. There is a dispute about whether he spoke to Dumb Dumb at that point, but in actuality he was dumber. T began managing two stores by October 25, 2004. There is a dispute about whether it was a promotion. Regardless, Plaintiff still had to deal with her.
November 11, 2004, at an ethics meeting T grabbed Plaintiff's hand and demanded she sit by her. T's account of the November 11, 2004 ethics meeting had T admitting she grabbed Plaintiff’s hand. At the time of the meeting, T had already been spoken to by Everett about T's behavior being in danger of being misconstrued as sexual harassment. T testified there were a lot of people at this meeting. Although Plaintiff had complained about T, T allegedly told her to have a seat next to her. Plaintiff later got up. T could not explain why she recalls more than a year and a half later offering T a seat at this meet, and T later getting up. T has been to many meetings since, but offering Plaintiff a chair, and Plaintiff later getting up, stands out in T's mind. T does not recall all of the employees she sat next to at the other meetings thereafter.
January 27, 2005 Plaintiff quit because she had enough. The company was obviously not taking her complaints seriously, was not even speaking to T about them in an effective manner, and T was not stopping. Plaintiff resigned.SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: A $121,000 SETTLEMENT AT 2014 CASH VALUE SOON AFTER KARL GERBER DEPOSED THE EMPLOYER’S WITNESSES
Almost immediately after Defendant hired the Plaintiff to work at Security, Inc, Defendant, M IN M, AN INDIVIDUAL, began engaging in a campaign of sexually harassing the Plaintiff. This campaign included the following acts, without the Plaintiff's permission, throughout the Plaintiff's employment at Defendant, SECURITY, INC. when Defendant, M IN M, AN INDIVIDUAL knew that the Plaintiff did not want said Defendant to do the following:
SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: Arbitrator found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded over $110,000 for emotional distress in 2014 dollars if the sexually harassed woman would produce evidence of medical treatment from the VA and a significantly smaller amount if she did not do so within a certain amount of time.TO SPEAK TO THE LAW FIRM WHO HAS HANDLED ALL OF THESE SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES, AND RECEIVE REPRESENTATION FROM KARL GERBER, QUOTED BY NEWSPAPERS AS AN EXPERT ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT, CALL 1-877-525-0700