Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation

102 Romance is in the Air: The 2016 Office Romance Survey Results Are Here! (Feb. 16, 2016) < http://www.vault.com/blog/general-articles/romance-is-in-the-air-the-2016-office-romance-survey-results-are- here/> Work is for Lovers: Vault’s 2017 Office Romance Survey Results (Feb. 13, 2017) < http://www.vault.com/blog/workplace-issues/work-is-for-lovers-vaults-2017-office-romance-survey- results/#slideshowAnchor > Vault.com. 103 Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(1). 104 Flait v. North American Watch Corp. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 467, 475 [4 Cal.Rptr.2d 522, 527–528], rehg. den. and opn. mod. (Mar 5, 1992); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e). 105 Heyne v. Caruso (9th Cir. 1995) 69 F.3d 1475, 1478, fn. 1 (citing Nichols v. Frank (9th Cir. 1994) 42 F.3d 503, 516, overruled on other grounds); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a)(1)-(a)(2). 106 Farmers Ins. Group v. County of Santa Clara (1995) 11 Cal.4th 992, 1012 [47 Cal.Rptr.2d 478, 492, 906 P.2d 440] (quoting Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 607 [262 Cal.Rptr. 842, 851], review den. (Jan 18, 1990)); Mogilefsky v. Superior Court (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1414 [26 Cal.Rptr.2d 116, 118]. 107 Nichols v. Frank (9th Cir. 1994) 42 F.3d 503, 511-513, overruled on other grounds; 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). 108 Figueroa v. RSquared NY, Inc. (E.D. N.Y. Mar. 3. 2015) 89 F. Supp. 3d 484 . 109 Gov. Code, § 12950.1, subd. (b). 110 Gov. Code, § 12950.1, subd. (g)(2). 111 Gov. Code, § 12950.1, subd. (g)(2). 112 Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (h); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). 113 Guthrey v. State of California (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1108, 1125 [75 Cal.Rptr.2d 27, 39]; Addy v. Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 217 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 642, 649], rehg. den. (May 2, 1996); Chen v. County of Orange (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 926 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 786], mod. on den. of rehg. (Mar 14, 2002), review den. (May 15, 2002); Akers v. County of San Diego (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1455 [116 Cal.Rptr.2d 602, 612]; Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436]. 114 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1043 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 445]. 115 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1046-1047 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 448-449]. 116 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1046-1047 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 448-449]. 117 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1051 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 452]. 118 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1054 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 455]. 119 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1054 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 454]. 120 Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1054-1055 [32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436, 454-455]. 121 Gardenhire v. Housing Authority (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 236 [101 Cal.Rptr.2d 893], rehg. den. (Jan 04, 2001) & review den. (Mar 14, 2001) (Jury award of $1,425,000.00). 122 Sarro v. City of Sacramento (E.D. Cal. 1999) 78 F.Supp.2d 1057. 123 Shannon v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. (11th Cir. 2002) 292 F.3d 712. The court found that denial of overtime was an adverse action, reasoning that while not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an adverse action, conduct that alters an employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment does constitute adverse action. 124 Signer v. Tuffey (2d Cir. 2003) 66 Fed.Appx. 232. The court held that relocation of an office to the basement and reduction in duties is an adverse employment action. The court reasoned that adverse actions are considered material if they are of such quality or quantity that a reasonable employee would find the conditions of his or her employment altered for the worse. 125 Gunnell v. Utah Valley State College (10th Cir. 1998) 152 F.3d 1253.

Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 66