Articles Tagged with Los Angeles sexual harassment attorney

Sexual harassment training was supposed to be mandatory for virtually all employees in California as of Jan. 1, 2020. That was thanks to Senate Bill 1343, which was passed in September 2018. However, that date has been pushed back to Jan. 1, 2021 because of SB 778, which state lawmakers quietly passed in August. SB 778 pushed back the implementation of SB 1343 by a full year.Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyers

You’d be forgiven for being mistaken and not realizing employers had another full year before they are mandated to be in compliance. CapRadio was. In a correction, the media outlet wrote, “(SB 778) came with no announcements or notification from the lawmaker’s office.”

That said, our Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyers would encourage companies to that haven’t already begun the process may want to explore how to do so this year so there aren’t any surprises with compliance issues in 2021. The more your workers understand about sexual harassment and your company policies for dealing with it, the more likely it can be appropriately handled from the start (which means better morale for your workers and less chance of litigation for you). It will also allow you to be prepared well ahead of time so your company isn’t scrambling last-minute to comply. Continue reading

In what is believed to be the highest damage award ever in a California employment lawsuit, a billionaire defendant/Hollywood executive/hologram entrepreneur/heir to Coca-Cola to pay a former employee $50 million in damages after jurors found him liable for battery, sexual battery and sexual harassment.Los Angeles sexual harassment lawyer

The ruling is the third verdict this year in which the defendant, Alki David, has been accused of repeated acts of sexual harassment and sexual violence against former employees. Two other cases are pending.

The Los Angeles Times reported that the latest verdict brings the total amount of compensation David must pay to previous employees to $74 million. In the most recent case, plaintiff was a production assistant who worked for defendant. He reportedly thrust his pelvis into her face, simulated oral sex, moaned and then zipped up his pants before thanking her as he walked away. Continue reading

Companies can be held legally responsible for sexual harassment and even sexual assault of an employee in an employment lawsuit if business managers/supervisors/HR representatives failed to take action regarding previous complaints of harassment/gender discrimination.sexual harassment lawyer

A large auto manufacturer is facing a federal trial over allegations that it did nothing to aid an employee who was sexually harassed and later sexually assaulted on company property.

The worker filed the employment lawsuit last year and it’s now slated for trial in 2020. The employee alleged that her manager harassed and attacked her, all while assuring her that no one in human resources would intervene if she filed complaints – which, she says, ultimately proved true. Continue reading

The future of California sexual harassment lawsuits hangs in the balance, as the public is closely monitoring word of Governor Jerry Brown’s decision whether to sign the controversial AB 3080. The bill would result in direct impact to workplace harassment and gender discrimination claims by impeding an employer’s ability to limit disclosure and discussion of such agreements with mandatory arbitration agreements signed as a condition of employment.

As our L.A. sexual harassment attorneys recognize, the bill if passed would amend a portion of California Labor Code (specifically adding a Section 432.4) outlawing forced arbitration agreements barring job-seekers (employees or independent contractors) from speaking out publicly or pursuing civil court remedy agL.A. sexual harassment attorneyainst employers who fail to protect them from sexual harassment or gender discrimination. (The bill doesn’t specifically use the term “arbitration agreements,” but those policies are what is targeted and would be affected.)

Some have argued that what’s in the bill is already largely covered within provisions already existing in the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which is the state’s anti-retaliation law shielding employees from retaliation if they have a reasonable belief of victimization from unlawful employment practices. Others say the bill, if passed, will be widely open to judicial challenge. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Perry v. Thomas (and again in 2011 with AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion) that the Federal Arbitration Act requires arbitration contracts generally be on equal footing with other types of contracts and that state law can’t interfere with federal policy.  Continue reading