By Anthony J. Oncidi
Anthony J. Oncidi is a partner in and the Chair of the Labor and Employment Department of Proskauer Rose LLP in Los Angeles, where he exclusively represents employers and management in all areas of employment and labor law. His telephone number is (310) 284-5690 and his email address is aoncidi@proskauer.com. (Tony has authored this column without interruption for every issue of this publication since 1990.)
Meeks v. AutoZone, Inc., 24 Cal. App. 5th 855 (2018)
Natasha Meeks, who worked as a store manager for AutoZone, claimed that another store manager, Juan Fajardo, had been sexually harrassing her. Meeks testified that Fajardo would comment on her body and clothes; ask her to go out with him; suggest that they have sex; send her text messages with sexual content, including images and video; forcibly attempt to kiss her; and suggest he could facilitate her advancement and promotion through his position as one of the "favorites" of the district manager. Fajardo also threatened to get Meeks fired if she reported his conduct. Although Meeks reported Fajardo to the district manager, she failed to take action. It was not until ten months later that the human resources department investigated the matter, which resulted in Fajardo's termination.
Meeks sued AutoZone and Fajardo for sexual harassment/hostile work environment, failure to prevent harassment, retaliation, and sexual battery. The trial court granted summary adjudication against Meeks on the retaliation claim; Meeks dismissed the sexual battery claim; and the jury returned defense verdicts on the remaining claims. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal of the retaliation claim because there was no evidence that AutoZone retaliated against her (in fact, she remained employed by AutoZone at the time of trial), but the court reversed the judgment on the remaining claims based on the trial court's exclusion of certain evidence. Among other things, the trial court erroneously excluded detailed testimony from Meeks regarding sexually explicit text messages and a pornographic video that Fajardo sent to her, testimony regarding Meeks's knowledge of another employee who had reported harassment, and "me too" evidence of Fajardo's alleged sexual harassment of other employees. (Note that in 2014, a federal court jury in San Diego awarded another AutoZone manager, Rosario Juarez, $185 million in a case involving pregnancy-related harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.)
Abed v. Western Dental Servs., Inc., 23 Cal. App. 5th 859 (2018)
Western Dental posted a job opening for a dental assistant in its Napa, California office while Ada Abed was working there as a student extern. Although originally assured that the externship was a four- to six-week "working interview" and that her work was "above average," Abed was later told, after her pregnancy became known, that there were no open positions for a dental assistant in Napa (although another extern was later hired for the position). The trial court dismissed Abed's pregnancy discrimination claim because she never actually applied for a position, but the court of appeal reversed, holding that there were triable issues of fact as to whether Western Dental intentionally discriminated against Abed by falsely telling her that no job was available.
Wassmann v. South Orange Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 24 Cal. App. 5th 825 (2018)
Carol Wassmann challenged her dismissal from employment as a tenured librarian at Irvine Valley College in a five-day administrative proceeding brought pursuant to the Education Code. The administrative law judge (ALJ) determined there was cause to terminate Wassmann's employment, and the trial court upheld the judge's decision. Wassmann then filed a civil lawsuit against the District and...
