Atmospheres that are sufficiently demeaning to women may be actionable as a hostile work environment even if the environment is not coercive or directed towards the plaintiff, Mille at 469-470 (1995); Beyda v. City of L.A., 65 Cal.App.4th 521; Pantoja v. Anton, 198 Cal.App.4th 87 (2011) where the court held evidence of harassment towards other women was admissible to show discriminatory intent or biased intent based upon gender even though the conduct occurred outside of her presence when she did not work for Defendant; Hurley v. Atlantic, 174 F.3d 95, 110 (3rd Cir. 1999) witnessing harassment of other women at work may show that the workplace was hostile; Weeks v. Baker, 63 Cal.4th 1128, 1160-1163 (1998); Bihun v. AT&T, 13 Cal.App.4th 976, 987-991 (1993). Impliedly or expressing conditioning employment on the submission to or tolerance of unwelcome sexual advances, or the creation of a work environment that is hostile or abusive on the basis of sex is sexual harassment, McGroy v. Applied, 212 Cal.App.4th 1510 (2013). “Harassment focuses on situations in which the social environment of the workplace becomes intolerable because the harassment (whether verbal, physical, or visual) communicates an offensive message to the harassed employee, Roby v. McKesson, 47 Cal.4th 686, 707 (2009).
Although this article is about sexual harassment, hostile work environments can also be based upon age, disability, gender, or race. If you have questions about what constitutes a hostile work environment you can sue for contact our law firm. We are experienced in California hostile work environment cases. Call 877-525-0700 for a confidential discussion about your workplace rights.