|
|
Clifford v. American Drug Stores8/22/2005
nces, an employer must prove that it had appropriate anti-harassment policies in place, which it communicated to its employees along with implementing procedures, and that the reasonable use of its procedures would have prevented at least some of the harm suffered by the employee. (McGinnis, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 1045.)
Since Sav-On has not caused the exhibits to be transmitted to this court, we assume that it has abandoned any contention that its written harassment policy was appropriate or effective. (See Brown v. Copp (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 1, 8.)
And the oral testimony fails to provide substantial evidence to support Sav-On's contention that it had a comprehensive anti-harassment policy in place when Doose was sexually harassing Clifford. Several witnesses testified with regard to their varied and sometimes conflicting understanding of Sav-On's harassment policy. Kathy Baier, Sav-On's human resources director, testified that a poster with directions on registering a complaint is placed in each store. The procedure is to speak to the general manager first, and if the result is unsatisfactory, to speak to the market manager, then the district manager, the regional pharmacy manager, or the human resources manager. If the results are still not satisfactory, the employee is to speak to the vice president of human resources in Scottsdale. The poster lists the various phone numbers.
Mlenar testified that his understanding of the sexual harassment policy in 1997, was that the managers investigated claims, or caused an investigation to be done, and then reported it.
Clifford's understanding of the sexual harassment policy was that the general manager should first notify the district manager, then loss prevention, human resources, or Wanda White.
Perez testified that it would have been appropriate to report acts of sexual harassment to him, and that all employees have an obligation to report sexual harassment.
Former district manager Thompson, now operations manager for the southwest area, did not think that harassment would be within the jurisdiction of a loss prevention agent, but would expect the agent to report it if he heard about any sexual harassment.
Wanda White testified that a loss prevention employee should report to human resources anything that might be considered sexual harassment.
Thus, Sav-On submitted substantial evidence that its policy permitted employees to report sexual harassment to a loss prevention person or to a general manager, district manager, or human resources, and that loss prevention and management employees were required to report information about sexual harassment to human resources. Sav-On submitted no substantial evidence, however, that its reporting requirements, if reasonably followed by an employee, might have prevented further harassment. Indeed, the evidence supports the reasonable inference
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
|