Los Angeles Sexual Harassment Cases | 19 sexual harassing behaviors in the office

Straight Male Sexually Harassed A Long Beach Lesbian

Soon into Plaintiff’s employment, which began during approximately November of 2003, Defendant, RODOLFO, AN INDIVIDUAL, began engaging in a continuous, severe, and pervasive campaign of sexual harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff as follows, without many interruptions, or any long interruptions, in doing something harassing or retaliatory to Plaintiff. The harassing conduct included:

a. telling Plaintiff she had a cute walk;

b. telling Plaintiff she was pretty;

c. telling Plaintiff that Rodolfo “liked” Plaintiff;

d. talking about the way Plaintiff’s buttocks looked;

e. talking about having sex;

f. saying he wondered what it would be like to have sex with Plaintiff;

g. speaking about his penis;

h. saying he wanted to rent a room from Plaintiff so he could be close to her and stay with her;

I. speaking about what it looked like when Plaintiff bent over;

j. telling Plaintiff he liked her breasts;

k. telling Plaintiff that she looked better if she unzipped her sweat shirt so he could see her breasts;

l. rubbing his genitals up against Plaintiff’ buttocks;

j. following Plaintiff around trying to engage her in conversation including romantic, complimentary, sexual conversations;

k. telling Plaintiff he wanted her to give him the combination to the women’s room so he could come in and wipe her;

l. waiting by the women’s rest room for Plaintiff.

Rodolfo’s behavior, described in the above paragraph, was obvious and noticed by the company’s supervisors who were the supervisors of Plaintiff and Rodolfo even though Plaintiff was supplied by a temporary agency. Plaintiff’s annoyance with Rodolfo’s behavior was also noticed by these supervisors. These three supervisors were all aware of each type of harassment described in the above paragraph before the next similar act occurred.

One of Plaintiff’s supervisors told Plaintiff, “Your boy-friend is looking for you” in reference to Rodolfo. Plaintiff found it offensive that her supervisors were not stopping the harassment, but were making jokes about it such as that Rodolfo was her boy-friend when he was doing something offensive like looking for Plaintiff by the women’s room and waiting there for her.

When Plaintiff spoke to Supervisor #2 about Rodolfo following her and bugging her, Supervisor #2 laughed. Supervisor #2’s attitude about discrimination, equal opportunity, and sexual harassment also surfaced when he was speaking to Plaintiff. Supervisor #2 told Plaintiff that he would not put a male driver with Plaintiff because they would flirt with her. This was not necessarily in response to a request that Rodolfo be separated from Plaintiff. It was a sexist generalization Supervisor #2 was randomly making and expressing to Plaintiff to indicate women should be discriminated against in this field and were mainly a distraction. However, Plaintiff responded to Supervisor #2 that she was gay. Supervisor #2 flippantly said he would put Plaintiff with a lesbian. Supervisor #2’s ideas about all men flirting with Plaintiff because she was a woman, and putting her with a lesbian so the right person could flirt with Plaintiff and/or because only lesbians could be with lesbians were offensive to Plaintiff.

Supervisor #3 affirmatively remarked to Plaintiff that Rodolfo was waiting by her car so she could avoid him. In conversations, Plaintiff told Supervisor #3 that Rodolfo was talking about Plaintiff’s buttocks.

After Plaintiff was terminated, Another supervisor called Plaintiff. Plaintiff told Another supervisor that Rodolfo had been following her around and otherwise sexually harassing her. Instead of making plans to investigate the situation and give Plaintiff her job back, Another supervisor told Plaintiff that Plaintiff had been accused of having sex in the back of a truck with three men one of whom was supposed to be Rodolfo. In light of the fact that Another supervisor knew Rodolfo was following Plaintiff around, harassing her, and Plaintiff was gay, this was an absurd and outlandish accusation to make against Plaintiff which caused her severe emotional distress, and Plaintiff believes was motivated by Rodolfo whom the corporate Defendant’s management knew Plaintiff was complaining about him.

SEXUAL CASE RESULT: CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT WITH THE EMPLOYER

SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF SAN FERNANDO VALLEY COMPUTER STORE WORKER

Shortly after Plaintiff, T, an individual, began work at big computer store Defendant began a campaign of sexual harassment aimed at the Plaintiff which included the following conduct, and created a sexually hostile work environment that was discriminatory and degrading to women:

a. throwing straw wrappers down the Plaintiff’s shirt on or about June of 1995;

b. smacking the Plaintiff’s rear end at a health club on or about a few days past mid July of 1995;

c. on or about late July of 1995 telling the Plaintiff what kind of underwear said Defendant preferred and that he had a new pair of silk boxers;

d. on or about late July of 1995, telling the Plaintiff that he preferred to sleep naked;

e. on or about July 27, 1995 becoming visibly angry and jealous when the Plaintiff and her friend got a ride home from another male employee, Mr. Harasser on a day that the Plaintiff was not working, but came into the store to purchase film;

f. on or about July 27, 1995 aiming cameras at the Plaintiff when she walked into the parking lot on the day that she got a ride home from Mr. Harasser;

g. on or about July 27, 1995 repeatedly paging the Plaintiff, on her pager, as she walked into the parking lot on the day that she got a ride home from Mr. Harasser;

h. on or about July 27, 1995, expressing to the Plaintiff, while almost in tears, that the Plaintiff’s taking a ride with Mr. Harasser jeopardizes an alleged friendship that the Plaintiff had with said Defendant;

I. throughout the Plaintiff’s employment in the audit department, attempting to prevent the Plaintiff from communicating with Mr. Harasser because said Defendant was jealous that the Plaintiff had a friendship with another male;

j. at least twice asking the Plaintiff to come on trips with him, and saying that said Defendant would only allow the Plaintiff to get weekends off if she would go on these trips with him;

k. telling the Plaintiff to get rid of her boy-friend;

l. telling the Plaintiff that she could go out with said Defendant if she got rid of her boy-friend;

m. preventing the Plaintiff from taking lunch breaks with employees other than said Defendant;

n. writing the Plaintiff up when the Plaintiff failed to acquiesce in said Defendants advances, but not actually putting these write-ups in the Plaintiff’s employee file;

o. laughing and refusing to stop Joe Cool, another auditor who said Defendant supervised, from continuously joking with male customers that the Plaintiff would frisk them when it was the Plaintiff’s job to check receipts, and not to frisk customers;

p. laughing and refusing to stop Joe Cool from making lewd innuendoes towards the Plaintiff such as that Joe Cool enjoyed the view when the Plaintiff bent down, and Joe Cool asking the Plaintiff to bend down in a manner that was understood to be lewd and insinuate that he could see the Plaintiff’s cleavage if she did so;

q. bragging to the Plaintiff about “doing a lady in the back of a police car” when said Defendant was a policeman in an attempt to get a sexual rise out of the Plaintiff. Note, a fair number of the harassers in Karl Gerber’s sexual harassment cases have ended up being failed police officers, wannabe police officers, or persons rejected from being eligible to be a police officer;

r. asking the Plaintiff to cook dinner for him because she was a female;

s. making a point of telling the Plaintiff that said Defendant “hadn’t got it in a year.” At no time during the Plaintiff’s employment, did she request that said Defendant engage in this course of conduct. When said Defendant made these comments and engaged in this conduct, the Plaintiff always openly displayed a dislike for this type of behavior.

On or about Friday night, August 4, 1995, the Plaintiff and one of her girl-friends went to one of the San Fernando Valley’s newest and most popular dance clubs for persons within the Plaintiff’s age group. Incidentally, this club is located only a few miles from the computer store. It so happened on or about the night of August 4, 1995, Joe Cool, and Mr. Harasser had independently arranged to go to this club. The dance floor of this club was small, and in an attempt to be friendly, the Plaintiff, and her group of friends, danced in the same group of Mr. Harasser for a short period of time. This evidence was repeatedly mentioned by Defendant.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASE RESULT: A CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT