Skip to main content

New Laws For 2014: Sexual Harassment Definition Clarified (CA)



Each state has a host of new employment and labor related laws that take effect in 2014.  This series focuses on several new laws from around the country that are of particular interest.


SB 292 amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act Government Code Section 12940, and clarified that sexually harassing conduct does not need to be motivated by sexual desire.  Under the new law, hostile treatment can amount to unlawful sexual harassment regardless of whether the treatment was motivated by any sexual desire. 

The bill, authored by Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, was proposed in response to Kelley v. Conoco Companies, a 2011 case from the Court of Appeal, First District, California.  In that case, Kelley, a male ironworker at Conoco, claimed he was subjected to a barrage of graphic, vulgar, and sexually demeaning comments and gestures at work as a result of his complaints about his supervisor.  After the union suspended him and Conoco decided not to rehire him, Kelley sued for sexual harassment, retaliation, and related claims.  The trial court granted Conoco's motion for summary judgment against Kelley.  On appeal, the Court affirmed and held that Kelley could not prove sexual harassment because he could not prove the comments directed towards him were motivated by sexual desire.


With the change, plaintiffs can demonstrate harassing conduct by showing one of the following:

• Sexual intent or desire by harasser to plaintiff.
• General hostility by harasser towards particular sex of which plaintiff is member.
• Through comparative evidence about how harasser treated members of both sexes in workplace


Under this new law, a plaintiff like Kelley would not have to prove sexual desire in order to proceed with a sexual harassment claim. 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more