San Francisco Employment Law Firm Blog

The leading opinion on the issue of employers' obligation to remedy workplace sexual harassment of a victim by his co-workers, is the ninth circuit case Ellison v. Brady (1991). In that case, the court carefully analyzed the approach that a number of other courts take toward determining whether the employer complied with the obligations with regard to harassment imposed by law. The court made several important conclusions. First, the court reiterated that employers are liable for failing to remedy or prevent a hostile work environment of which management-level employees knew or should have reasonable known.

Then, the court attended to the issue of what action an employer should take against the harasser to avoid liability. The EEOC guidelines recommend that an employer's remedy should be immediate and appropriate without adversely affecting and terms and conditions of the complainant's employment. The ninth circuit, agreeing with a number of other courts, held that the remedies against harassment should be reasonably calculated to end the harassment. Not all harassment warrants dismissal. Rather, remedies should be assessed proportionately to the seriousness of the offense. Employers should impose sufficient penalties to assure a workplace free from sexual harassment. The reasonableness of an employer's remedy will depend on its ability to stop harassment and the kind of remedy used.

In Ellison the harasser was transferred to a different work locations for six months, after which he was returned to work to the original location. The harasser was not subjected to any other significant discipline, even though the victim complained repeatedly about the relatively egregious comments and sexual innuendos by the harasser. Further, the employer actualy transferred the complainant to the less desirable location. The court concluded that by failure to take effective remedial measures against the harasser combined with taking adverse action against the victim by transferring her to a less desirable work location, the employer did not meet it's obligation with regard to harassment prevention and was therefore liable.

Another clear pattern is present in subsequent court decision on harassment. An employer who continues using the same remedial action toward a repeated offender is violating the law, because it should be obvious to the employer that if a more gentle remedy does not change the harasser behavior, the same remedy is not effective, and a more stringent disciplinary action must take place. Thus, writing up the harasser over and over is not a sufficient remedial measure. After one or two write-ups, an employer is well advised to take a more serious action, including suspension, administrative leave or even termination of employment, especially if the evidence of harassment is clear and corroborated by other employees.

An employee who feels harassed, discriminated or otherwise treated unfairly at his workplace may learn the term "constructive discharge" from his co-workers or from doing his own research, and will assume that quitting a job where he feels harassed or stressed out will automatically create a constructive discharge claim, entitling him to relief in court.

In reality, the standard for proving constructive discharge claim is much higher than a typical worker understands it to be. In Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994), the California Supreme Court held that constructive discharge occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign, which is legally regarded as firing an employee. To be deemed a constructive discharge, the court noted, an employer must create or permit working conditions so intolerable or aggravated that a reasonable person in the employee's position would fee compelled to resign. These employment conditions must be sufficiently extraordinary and egregious to overcome the normal motivation of a competent, diligent, and reasonable employee to remain on the job, to earn a livelihood and to serve the employer. The circumstances giving rise to constructive discharge must be unusually aggravated or amount to a "continuous pattern" before the situation will be deemed intolerable. Single, trivial or isolated acts are insufficient to support a constructive discharge claim. Thus, the court continued, a poor performance rating or a demotion, even when accompanied by reduction in pay, does not by itself trigger a constructive discharge.

As the above language indicates, the employee must consider his options carefully before quitting his job in reliance on having a potential constructive discharge claim in court. It is highly recommend to consult an attorney before quitting the job to evaluate your work conditions and consider legal action along with other viable alternatives, short of quitting and suing.

One of the challenging in proving the workplace retaliation claim against an employee is showing a nexus - a connection between the employee's protected activity and the adverse employment action taken by the employer against the same employee. The employer will almost always deny retaliation and will always argue that the employee was terminated for reasons that have nothing to do with his disability or his complaints about discrimination/harassment. It is therefore crucial that the claimant has a solid evidence to establish that he complained and that those complaints were actually received by the employer.

This means that if you feel that you are subjected to discrimination and/or harassment, you complain to your supervisor or to the HR department in writing, so that later - the employer cannot deny the very fact that you actually complained. Whether it's an e-mail, a handwritten note or a formal letter - written evidence of complaining about possibly unlawful conduct is much harder to refute than the "he said / she said" situations.