|
|
Clifford v. American Drug Stores8/22/2005
al harassment and retaliation of other employees, State Farm supports the conclusion that Sav-On's tortious conduct was probative of the deliberateness and culpability of the acts that caused the harm suffered by Clifford in connection with her claim for punitive damages. (State Farm, supra, 538 U.S. at pp. 421-422.)
Sav-On also contends that evidence of the sexual harassment and retaliation imposed upon others was not relevant to Clifford's hostile work environment claim.
Government Code section 12940 provides, in relevant part:
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice . . .
"(a) For an employer, because of . . . sex, . . . to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.
"[ ] . . . [ ]
"(h) For any employer, . . . or person to . . . discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under this part or because the person has filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in any proceeding under this part.
"[ ] . . . [ ]
"(j)(1) For an employer . . . or any other person, because of . . . sex . . . to harass an employee. . . . Harassment of an employee . . . shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. . . . An entity shall take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment from occurring. Loss of tangible job benefits shall not be necessary in order to establish harassment."
Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination, and may take the form of unwelcome sexual advances or a hostile work environment. (Accardi, supra, 17 Cal.App.4th at p. 348.) Evidence of harassment of other employees may be admissible if relevant to prove that the sexual harassment was "`sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment.' [Citation.]" (Beyda v. City of Los Angeles (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 511, 516-519.) Such evidence requires the proper foundation, however, in the form of the plaintiff's perception or awareness of the sexual harassment of the others. (Id. at pp. 515, 519-521.)
Sav-On contends that because Clifford was aware only of the retaliation against other employees, and learned of the sexual harassment only after it had ceased, the proper foundation could not be laid. We need not reach Sav-On's contention, because Clifford alleged all three types of unlawful employment practices, as well as both types of discrimination, consisting of sexual harassment in the form of unwelcome sexual advances and a hostile work environment. Sav-On contends only that the evidence was not relevant to prove a hostile work environment or to prove any issue related to punitive damages. Sav-On does not claim that the evidence was irrelevant to issues or claims other t
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|