Finding the Facts - Disciplinary and Harassment Investigation

 Reasonably calculated to end the harassment, and

 Deterring future harassment-by the same offender or others. 162

B. T YPE OF C ORRECTIVE A CTION

The type of corrective action taken depends on the following factors:



The seriousness of the offense;

 The district’s ability to stop the harassment;

 The likelihood that the remedy will end the harassment;

 The remedy’s ability to persuade potential harassers to refrain from unlawful conduct. 163

Case Study

Nakai v. Friendship House Association of American Indians, Inc. 164 The case involved claims by Orlando Nakai (Orlando), who was employed by Friendship House Association of American Indians, Inc. (Friendship House), a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program. Nakai’s wife, Karen Nakai (Karen), was also an employee of Friendship House. The program’s CEO, Helen Waukazoo (Helen) was Orlando’s mother-in-law. Karen and Orlando began having marital difficulties. In May 2016, Karen called Helen to inform her that Orlando was armed with a gun, was dangerous, had relapsed on drugs, and was angry with program employees. The next day, Helen put Orlando on paid administrative leave. Karen obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Orlando and provided Helen with a copy. Helen then terminated Orlando’s employment based on the information that Karen provided to her. The appellate court affirmed summary judgment on the ground that Friendship House was not required, by the FEHA, to conduct an investigation of Orlando’s threats prior to terminating him. The FEHA creates an employer obligation to investigate claims of harassment made by a potential victim of harassment. FEHA provides that “[h]arassment of an employee . . . shall be unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of this conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.” While an employer has an obligation to timely investigate a potential victim’s harassment claims, nothing in the law creates an employer obligation to the alleged perpetrator of the harassment. Because Orlando’s complaints incorrectly assumed that the FEHA investigation obligations applied to him as a perpetrator of the threats of violence, the complaints were not cognizable under the FEHA.

Disciplinary and Harassment Investigations ©2019 (e) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 79