No Claim By Employee Who Was Friends With Alleged Harasser
Atalla v. Rite Aid Corp., 2023 WL 2521909 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Hanin Atalla and Erik Lund had a social relationship and became "close friends" before Atalla began working at Rite Aid where Lund worked as a district manager/district leader. Atalla and her husband socialized with Lund and his wife, and Atalla and Lund exchanged hundreds of texts; joked with one another in those texts; texted about personal matters; and sent multimedia messages to one another. They also frequently met for lunch and went out for coffee together. Late one Friday night after meeting with his "wine group," Lund sent Atalla a "Live Photo" of himself masturbating, followed shortly thereafter by a photo of his penis. Lund texted that he was "so drunk right now" and that he had "meant to send to wifey." Lund texted an apology to Atalla the next day to which she did not respond. Within a few days, Atalla's counsel sent a letter to Rite Aid asserting a claim of sexual harassment; following an investigation, Lund's employment was terminated. Although Rite Aid assured Atalla that she was welcome to return to work (and notified her of Lund's termination), she refused to come back. The trial court granted summary judgment to Rite Aid, and the Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the evidence did not support an inference that "the text exchange culminating in the inappropriate photos was work-related in that Lund was acting in his capacity as a supervisor, and the conduct was in turn properly imputable to Rite Aid." The Court also held there was no constructive termination of Atalla's employment because "Rite Aid immediately took action, terminated Lund, and invited plaintiff back to work" (quoting the trial court's order).
Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Was Properly Dismissed
Lopez v. La Casa de Las Madres, 2023 WL 2534998 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)
Gabriela Lopez worked as shelter manager for a non-profit organization that provides services to women and children who are victims of domestic violence. In September 2016, Lopez gave birth to a child; by December 17, 2016, Lopez had received the full four months of pregnancy-disability leave required by statute, including the concurrently running 12 weeks of baby-bonding leave. Lopez then submitted a work-status report from Kaiser which stated that Lopez should not return to work before January 14, 2017. Lopez later submitted another form signed by a "social worker at Kaiser specializing in mental health" stating that Lopez was suffering from a disability that necessitated two modifications to her work duties for an "unknown" period: (1) time off to allow Lopez to continue mental health treatment (group and individual therapy); and (2) flexible/shortened workdays if Lopez "finds the nature of the work or stress of the work overwhelming and triggering of severe anxiety/depressive symptoms." La Casa notified Lopez that it was unable to accommodate the limitations proposed by her social worker and instead offered to briefly extend her leave and upon her return to work to temporarily assign her to a data entry specialist position. After Lopez failed to timely submit further information about her alleged disability, La Casa sent her a letter stating that La Casa considered Lopez to have "elected to discontinue her employment."
Following a bench trial, the trial court found that Lopez failed to carry her burden of proving that she had a condition related to pregnancy; could perform the essential functions of the job; and was denied a reasonable accommodation. The trial court also determined that Lopez had failed to prove La Casa had discriminated against her based on a disability because she did not prove that she was otherwise qualified to perform the shelter manager job, given her need to avoid stressful duties. The Court of Appeal affirmed...
