{"id":4773,"date":"2014-07-20T21:18:42","date_gmt":"2014-07-21T04:18:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cjnotebook.com\/?p=4773"},"modified":"2016-08-14T14:41:18","modified_gmt":"2016-08-14T21:41:18","slug":"sexual-harassment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cjnotebook.com\/?p=4773","title":{"rendered":"Sexual Harassment 101: Do’s and Don’t’s for Employees in the Workplace"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Greg<\/a>(Note: Attorney Greg Ramirez is a civil litigation attorney in Ventura, California. His practice focuses on business, class action matters, personal injury and wrongful death. \u00a0 Here, Mr. Ramirez writes about \u00a0Sexual Harassment 101 – What to do, How to Prepare and What to Expect.)<\/p>\n

By Attorney Greg Ramirez<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n

Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill – 1991<\/strong><\/h4>\n

The year was 1991. I was a young lawyer fresh out of law school barely one year. Still idealistic\u00a0and believing that, when people swore to tell the truth under penalty of perjury, they intended to do so.<\/p>\n

George Bush had just nominated a young, conservative African-American federal judge named\u00a0Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

It seemed as if the young federal judge would be an easy\u00a0nomination to approve as the successor to former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. However,\u00a0the nomination of Judge Thomas was about to become the backdrop for Senate hearings that would\u00a0rock the nation, and that almost prevented now Associate Justice Thomas from being appointed.<\/p>\n

\"Anita<\/a>
Anita Hill Testifies at a Senate Hearing<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

A young , bright 20-something African-American lawyer named Anita Hill stepped forward, and\u00a0revealed a history of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas that was directed at her while she worked\u00a0for him at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.<\/p>\n

Ironically, at the time, Clarence Thomas was\u00a0the regional head of the EEOC, the federal agency charged with enforcing the discrimination and sexual\u00a0harassment laws in this country.<\/p>\n

Human Drama and Shocking Details<\/h4>\n

It was stunning. It was shocking.<\/p>\n

It was human drama that played itself out on televisions\u00a0across this country over the course of several weeks \u2013 and is still being written and talked about today.<\/p>\n

A recent documentary entitled \u201cAnita: Speaking Truth to Power<\/strong>\u201d was released this year, and tells the\u00a0story of how Ms. Hill, a female law professor at the University of Oklahoma, had the courage to step up,\u00a0stand alone, and disclose the shocking details of what she had been subjected to, and stood tall during\u00a0the political maelstrom she was about to endure.<\/p>\n

As I watched and monitored the Senate hearings, along with the rest of the country, it became\u00a0apparent to me (and everyone else) that Anita Hill was telling the truth. Which meant that the man who\u00a0was about to become one of the highest judges in our land, was perjuring himself to save his nomination.<\/p>\n

For the first time in my life, I realized that judges were imperfect, just like the rest of us.<\/p>\n

More importantly, the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings provided a stage that communicated\u00a0to victims of sexual harassment worldwide that it was \u201cokay\u201d to speak out, and that it was \u201cokay\u201d to\u00a0shed the light on a subject that had formerly been considered taboo. It created a national awareness for\u00a0the first time in history that sexual harassment in the workplace was a societal problem that needed to\u00a0be addressed and dealt with.<\/p>\n

After Anita Hill Testified, Sexual Harassment Filings Soar – Not Much Has Changed<\/strong><\/h4>\n

\"EEOC<\/a>The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that, in the five years following the Anita Hill hearings, filings of sexual\u00a0harassment claims doubled from 6,127 in 1991 to 15,342 in 1996, and damage awards to victims of\u00a0sexual harassment under the federal laws quadrupled from 7.7 million to 27.8 million.<\/p>\n

Fast forward 13 years to July 2014\u2026. News Headline: \u201cAmerican Apparel recently announced\u00a0that it fired its founder and CEO, Dov Charney, over a flurry of sexual harassment scandals.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sexual Harassment 101<\/strong><\/h4>\n

\"Gavel\"<\/a>Most of us have either experienced, or been a witness to, sexual harassment in the workplace.<\/p>\n

Like pornography, you instinctively know it when you see it. However, even today many people\u00a0continue to ask: What is sexual harassment?<\/p>\n

Under California law, harassment can include, but not be limited to, verbal harassment (obscene\u00a0language, demeaning comments, slurs based on gender or sex, aggressive flirting), physical harassment\u00a0(unwanted touching, physical assault, or a supervisor\u2019s interference with normal work movement) visual\u00a0harassment (sexually graphic pictures, e-mails, text messages, posters) and repetitive, unwanted sexual\u00a0advances.<\/p>\n

Significantly, the conduct must be \u201csevere or pervasive\u201d, which means that the unwanted\u00a0conduct must alter the conditions of employment, or create a hostile or abusive work environment. In\u00a0other words, one incident of sexual banter or being asked out on a date by your supervisor does not\u00a0constitute \u201charassment\u201d under the law. However, please note that one incident of unwanted touching \u2013\u00a0such as a pat on the butt, a touching of your breast or thigh, etc. – does constitute sexual assault and\u00a0battery, for which you can bring a claim in court.<\/p>\n

The court or the jury in a trial is asked to determine whether the alleged misconduct meets the\u00a0\u201csevere or pervasive\u201d standard by considering the following factors, and then deciding whether a\u00a0\u201creasonable person\u201d would have found the conduct offensive and the nature of the conduct:<\/p>\n