Name that Section - Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts

harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, the district should immediately do whatever is necessary and appropriate to resolve the situation.

Appropriate remedies include making the victim whole by restoring lost employment/educational benefits or opportunities, mandating training for all employees, and taking whatever action is necessary to prevent the misconduct from reoccurring. Disciplinary action against the harasser, ranging from reprimand to discharge for employees, and from warning to the expulsion for students is always required. Generally, the corrective action should reflect the severity of the misconduct. The district should make follow-up inquiries to ensure the harassment has not resumed and the victim has not suffered retaliation. If the district’s remedial efforts fail to end the misconduct, the district should impose additional, more severe, measures until the harassment ends. The reasonableness of a district’s remedy will depend on its ability to stop the harassment and dissuade potential harassers from unlawful conduct. Example: For first time, minor offenses, an employer may discipline the harasser and try to prevent further harassment by giving the harasser a verbal warning in a counseling session, expressing strong disapproval, demanding that the unwelcome conduct cease, and threatening more severe disciplinary action if the conduct does not cease. If the harassment continues despite the stern warning, the district must then pursue disciplinary action more severe than counseling to ensure that the behavior ends.

Remedial action should not include moving the complainant in an effort to separate the complainant from the alleged harasser and hostile environment. Doing so could be perceived as retaliation for complaining about harassment.

LCW Practice Advisor

Case Studies on Employer’s Duty to Prevent and Remedy:

Fuller v. City of Oakland 247 The City of Oakland was liable for a decision not to take remedial action because the harasser had stopped his inappropriate conduct. The court held that by doing nothing but hoping the harasser did not repeat his misconduct, the City effectively ratified the harassment. Instead, the City should have taken some kind of remedial action, whether it was to discipline the harasser or do something else to deter future harassment by any of its employees. Birschtein v. New United Manufacturing, Inc. 248 A co-worker made repeated sexual comments to Michelle Birschtein. A supervisor put an end to the comments, but the co-worker then began to stare at Birschtein several times a day. Birschtein complained to her employer but the employer took no action to stop the co-worker’s conduct. Birschtein brought suit against her employer for sexual harassment. The trial court granted summary judgment for New United on the basis that staring did not constitute

Name that Section: Frequently Used Education Code and Title 5 Sections for Community College Districts ©2018 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 83