I AM ALWAYS LIABLE
Senior Member
What is the name of your state? California
ONE RACIAL REMARK SUFFICIENT FOR HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IF COMBINED WITH OTHER PERVASIVE CONDUCT
The Ventura division of the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that a single racial remark may make a hostile work environment actionable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Glenda Dee alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment at Vintage Petroleum. Paul Strickland, her supervisor's supervisor, required her to discuss very personal matters with him, used abusive language toward her, and said that he would "drag down" anyone who caused trouble for him.
When Dee got into an argument with Strickland about making up stories to hide information from her immediate supervisor, Strickland said: "Well, it is your Filipino understanding versus mine."
As a general rule, a single offensive, racial remark does not create a hostile environment. Two factors distinguished this case from the general rule:
1. The offensive remark came from a supervisor. Because the employer cloaks supervisors with authority, racially offensive conduct takes on greater significance.
2. Other conduct was sufficient to establish a hostile environment. A reasonable trier of fact could infer that the racial slur was not an isolated event, because it explained Strickland's motivation for his other conduct.
Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc., 2003 WL 253950 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2003).
===================================
GRANTING WORKPLACE FAVORS TO PARAMOURS DOES NOT VIOLATE FEHA
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento has ruled that a supervisor who grants favors to paramours has not engaged in sexual harassment or sex discrimination. Such conduct is based on the romantic relationship, not on sex.
Edna Miller and Frances Mackey worked for the Department of Corrections at Valley State Prison for Women. They claimed that their warden, Lewis Kuykendall, had sexual relationships with three other prison employees. They also alleged that he gave his paramours preferential treatment.
Although the Fair Employment and Housing Act bars discrimination and harassment based on sex, Miller and Mackey did not allege any adverse consequences that they had suffered because of their sex. They were denied the same treatment, not because of their sex, but because they were not the warden's paramours. Male employees received exactly the same treatment.
Further, the plaintiffs had not been subjected to sexual advances or other sufficiently abusive conduct to create a hostile environment. The alleged existence of the sexual relationships and the alleged favors that the subordinates received were not sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of their employment.
Mackey v. Department of Corrections, 105 Cal. App. 4th 945 (2003).
IAAL
ONE RACIAL REMARK SUFFICIENT FOR HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IF COMBINED WITH OTHER PERVASIVE CONDUCT
The Ventura division of the Second District Court of Appeal has ruled that a single racial remark may make a hostile work environment actionable under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Glenda Dee alleged that she was subjected to a hostile work environment at Vintage Petroleum. Paul Strickland, her supervisor's supervisor, required her to discuss very personal matters with him, used abusive language toward her, and said that he would "drag down" anyone who caused trouble for him.
When Dee got into an argument with Strickland about making up stories to hide information from her immediate supervisor, Strickland said: "Well, it is your Filipino understanding versus mine."
As a general rule, a single offensive, racial remark does not create a hostile environment. Two factors distinguished this case from the general rule:
1. The offensive remark came from a supervisor. Because the employer cloaks supervisors with authority, racially offensive conduct takes on greater significance.
2. Other conduct was sufficient to establish a hostile environment. A reasonable trier of fact could infer that the racial slur was not an isolated event, because it explained Strickland's motivation for his other conduct.
Dee v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc., 2003 WL 253950 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 6, 2003).
===================================
GRANTING WORKPLACE FAVORS TO PARAMOURS DOES NOT VIOLATE FEHA
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento has ruled that a supervisor who grants favors to paramours has not engaged in sexual harassment or sex discrimination. Such conduct is based on the romantic relationship, not on sex.
Edna Miller and Frances Mackey worked for the Department of Corrections at Valley State Prison for Women. They claimed that their warden, Lewis Kuykendall, had sexual relationships with three other prison employees. They also alleged that he gave his paramours preferential treatment.
Although the Fair Employment and Housing Act bars discrimination and harassment based on sex, Miller and Mackey did not allege any adverse consequences that they had suffered because of their sex. They were denied the same treatment, not because of their sex, but because they were not the warden's paramours. Male employees received exactly the same treatment.
Further, the plaintiffs had not been subjected to sexual advances or other sufficiently abusive conduct to create a hostile environment. The alleged existence of the sexual relationships and the alleged favors that the subordinates received were not sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of their employment.
Mackey v. Department of Corrections, 105 Cal. App. 4th 945 (2003).
IAAL
Last edited:
