|
|
![]() |
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CALIFORNIA SEXUAL HARASSMENT |
Sexual harassment is a form of gender discrimination. There are two
theories under which an employee may recover for sexual harassment. The
first, “quid pro quo” harassment, occurs when any employee offers any
job benefit, or threatens any job detriment, in exchange for sexual
favors. In lay terms, this means that any time an employee promises,
either expressly or impliedly, that career advancement may be linked to
dating or sex, the law has been violated. However, unless the harasser
is a supervisory employee, the Company would not be liable unless it
knew of the harassment, or should have known. As a practical matter, you
may show that the Company knew or should have known of the harassment by
demonstrating that it was so pervasive, i.e., frequent, that the company
had to know. You may also establish the company’s knowledge by showing
that the harasser had committed similar offenses previously. Certainly,
if you or any other employee had previously complained to any
supervisor, the company would be held responsible.
|