Best Sexual Harassment Lawyers in Riverside California
Sexual harassment in the workplace is a deeply troubling issue that can severely impact your professional and personal life. When facing such a situation, finding the right legal representation is essential to ensure that your rights are protected, and justice is served. Each lawyer at the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., strives to be the best sexual harassment lawyer in Riverside. Our substantial experience in this field of law, as well as our commitment to client advocacy distinguish us as the top choice for individuals seeking to address and resolve instances of workplace sexual harassment.
Our reputation as one of the best sexual harassment law firms in Riverside is built on our extensive experience, compassionate approach, and successful track record. We are dedicated to providing thorough and effective legal representation for victims of sexual harassment, ensuring that their voices are heard, and their rights are defended.
Understanding Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment in the workplace is a form of discrimination that undermines an individual’s dignity and creates an adverse work environment. It can take various forms, each requiring a specific legal strategy to address effectively. Recognizing and understanding these forms is crucial for both victims and legal representatives.
Quid Pro Quo Harassment
Quid pro quo harassment occurs when employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotions, or other job-related benefits, are contingent upon an employee’s acceptance or rejection of unwelcome sexual advances or conduct. For example, if a supervisor suggests that a raise or promotion is dependent on a sexual favor, this constitutes quid pro quo harassment. Such cases are particularly sensitive and require a nuanced approach to ensure that the victim’s rights are protected and that appropriate legal remedies are pursued.
As your best sexual harassment lawyer near me, we are well-versed in handling cases of quid pro quo harassment. Our Riverside sexual abuse lawyer team is skilled in gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and building a compelling case to hold the responsible parties accountable and secure the compensation you deserve.
Hostile Work Environment
Hostile work environment harassment occurs when unwelcome sexual conduct creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work atmosphere. This can include inappropriate jokes, lewd comments, or unwanted physical contact that interferes with an employee’s ability to perform their job. A hostile work environment can be detrimental to an employee’s mental health and job performance, making it essential to address these issues promptly.
At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we understand the complexities of hostile work environment cases. As the best sexual bullying attorney in Riverside, we are dedicated to providing comprehensive legal support to victims, including documenting instances of harassment, collecting testimonies, and advocating for your rights in both administrative and legal proceedings.
Sexual Favoritism
Sexual favoritism occurs when an employee receives preferential treatment in exchange for complying with unwanted sexual advances. This can lead to an unfair work environment where promotions, raises, and other benefits are distributed based on sexual compliance rather than merit. Sexual favoritism undermines workplace fairness and can negatively impact morale among employees.
Our firm has extensive experience in handling cases involving sexual favoritism. As the best sexual misconduct law firm in Riverside, we approach these cases with the utmost sensitivity and strategic planning to ensure that victims receive fair treatment and justice.
Sexual Harassment by Third Parties
Sexual harassment is not limited to interactions between employees; it can also occur between employees and third parties. When harassment comes from individuals outside the organization, it can create a challenging situation for the victim and the employer.
Our Riverside sexual abuse lawyer team is equipped to handle cases involving third-party harassment, working to hold both the individual harasser and the employer accountable for maintaining a safe work environment. We are committed to addressing these issues effectively and ensuring that appropriate legal actions are taken.
Legal Protections Against Sexual Harassment
Both federal and state laws provide robust protections against sexual harassment in the workplace. Understanding these legal frameworks is essential for victims seeking justice.
Federal Protections
Under federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the primary legislation addressing sexual harassment. Enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating based on sex, which includes unwanted sexual advances.
The EEOC offers guidance on the types of conduct that constitute sexual harassment and the process for filing a claim. Victims are encouraged to consult the EEOC’s resources to understand their rights and the steps involved in seeking redress.
California State Protections
In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) extends protections beyond those offered by federal law. FEHA prohibits sexual harassment in any workplace with five or more employees and provides additional safeguards for employees. This state law mandates that employers conduct training on sexual harassment prevention and response, creating a proactive approach to addressing these issues.
FEHA also allows victims to file complaints with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), which can investigate claims and seek resolution through mediation or legal proceedings. California law also provides remedies such as compensatory and punitive damages, as well as reinstatement or promotion if appropriate.
Why Choose Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C.
Choosing the right legal representation is crucial when dealing with sexual abuse. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we are proud to be recognized as the best sexual harassment lawyer in Riverside. Our team of experienced attorneys is dedicated to providing the highest level of legal advocacy and support for victims of sexual harassment.
Our commitment to client-centered representation means that we take the time to understand your unique situation, provide personalized legal strategies, and work tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome for your case. As the best sexual misconduct attorney near me, we are here to guide you through every step of the legal process, from initial consultations to resolution.
If you or someone you know is experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace, don’t hesitate to reach out to the best sexual harassment law firm in Riverside. Contact Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. today to schedule a consultation with a Riverside sexual assault lawyer who will advocate for your rights and ensure that justice is served.
Areas Served
The sexual harassment lawyers of the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. serve all of Southern California including but not limited to Adelanto, Agoura Hills, Alhambra, Aliso Viejo, Altadena, Anaheim, Apple Valley, Arcadia, Arleta, Atwater Village, Azuza, Bakersfield, Baldwin Park, Banning, Beaumont, Bell, Bell Gardens, Bellflower, Beverly Hills, Blythe, Boyle Heights, Brea, Brentwood, Buena Park, Burbank, Calabasas, Calimesa, Camarillo, Canoga Park, Canyon Lake, Carson, Cathedral City, Cerritos, Chatsworth, Chino Hills, Chino, Claremont, Coachella, Colton, Compton, Costa Mesa, Corona, Covina, Culver City, Cypress, Dana Point, Desert Hot Springs, Diamond Bar, Downey, Duarte, Eagle Rock, East Hollywood, East Los Angeles, Eastvale, Echo Park, El Monte, El Segundo, El Sereno, Encino, Fontana, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Gardena, Garden Grove, Glassell Park, Glendale, Glendora, Granada Hills, Hacienda Heights, Hawthorne, Hemet, Hesperia, Highland Park, Highland, Hollywood, Hollywood Hills, Huntington Beach, Huntington Park, Indian Wells, Indio, Inglewood, Irvine, Jurupa Valley, La Canada Flintridge, La-Crescenta Montrose, La Habra, La Mirada, La Palma, La Puente, La Quinta, La Verne, Laguna Beach, Laguna Hills, Laguna Niguel, Laguna Woods, Lakewood, Lake Balboa, Lake Elsinore, Lake Forest, Lancaster, Lawndale, Lincoln Heights, Loma Linda, Long Beach, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles, Los Feliz, Lynwood, Manhattan Beach, Mar Vista, Maywood, Menifee, Mission Hills, Mission Viejo, Monrovia, Montclair, Montebello, Monterey Park, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Newbury Park, Newhall, Newport Beach, Norco, North Hills, North Hollywood, Northridge, Norwalk, Ontario, Orange, Oxnard, Pacific Palisades, Pacoima, Palos Verdes, Palmdale, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Panorama City, Paramount, Pasadena, Perris, Pico Rivera, Placentia, Pomona, Porter Ranch, Rancho Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Rancho Santa Margarita, Redondo Beach, Reseda, Rialto, Riverside, Rosemead, Rowland Heights, San Bernardino, San Clemente, San Dimas, San Gabriel, San Fernando, San Jacinto, San Juan Capistrano, San Pedro, Santa Ana, Santa Clarita, Santa Monica, Sawtelle, Seal Beach, Shadow Hills, Sherman Oaks, Silver Lake, Simi Valley, South El Monte, South Gate, South Pasadena, South Whittier, Stanton, Studio City, Sun Valley, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Temecula, Temple City, Thousand Oaks, Toluca Lake, Torrance, Tujunga, Tustin, Twentynine Palms, Upland, Valencia, Valley Glen, Valley Village, Van Nuys, Ventura, Victorville, Walnut, West Covina, West Hills, West Hollywood, West Puente Valley, Westchester, Westminster, Westwood, Whittier, Wildomar, Winnetka, Woodland Hills, Yorba Linda
Best Sexual Harassment Law Firm in Riverside, California
If you have been sexually harassed in the workplace, call us today at (951) 394-7421 or contact us online to schedule a free case evaluation. Our battle tested sexual harassment lawyers in Riverside stand ready to help in cases involving sexual harassment in the workplace.
Featured Sexual Harassment Case
M.F. v. Pac. Pearl Hotel Mgmt. LLC, (2017) 16 Cal. App. 5th 693
A hotel employee sued for violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), after the employee was raped by a nonemployee while working on the employer’s premises. The Superior Court, San Diego County, dismissed the case. On appeal, the Court of Appeal, held that: (1) if an employer knows a particular person’s abusive conduct places employees at unreasonable risk of sexual harassment, the employer cannot escape responsibility to protect a likely future employee victim merely because the person has not previously abused that particular employee, and (2) the provision of FEHA making it unlawful for an employer to fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment, when the employer knew or should have known of the harassment, is not limited to particular factual circumstances but rather provides for liability whenever an employer knows or should know of sexual harassment by a nonemployee and fails to take immediate and appropriate remedial action within its control.
In relevant part, the opinion states as follows: “The FEHA provides: “An employer may … be responsible for the acts of nonemployees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees …, where the employer, or its agents or supervisors, knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing cases involving the acts of nonemployees, the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility that the employer may have with respect to the conduct of those nonemployees shall be considered.” (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1).) The FEHA also makes it unlawful “[f]or an employer … to fail to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent … harassment from occurring.” (§ 12940, subd. (k).) A plaintiff cannot state a claim for failure to prevent harassment unless the plaintiff first states a claim for harassment. (See Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1166, 217 Cal.Rptr.3d 258; Trujillo v. North County Transit Dist. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 280, 288–289, 73 Cal.Rptr.2d 596.) Pacific contends the complaint fails to state viable claims under these provisions of the FEHA because M.F. has not and cannot allege facts showing Pacific knew the trespasser posed a risk to housekeeping employees before he appeared on the hotel property and began harassing them. However, the fact Pacific may not have had any responsibility to housekeeping employees under the FEHA before the trespasser appeared on the hotel property does not preclude Pacific from having such responsibilities after the trespasser appeared, particularly after the trespasser began confronting and aggressively propositioning housekeeping employees for sexual favors. “Once an employer is informed of the sexual harassment, the employer must take adequate remedial measures. The measures need to include immediate corrective action that is reasonably calculated to (1) end the current harassment and (2) to deter future harassment. [Citation.] The employer’s obligation to take prompt corrective action requires (1) that temporary steps be taken to deal with the situation while the employer determines whether the complaint is justified and (2) that permanent remedial steps be implemented by the employer to prevent future harassment.” (Bradley v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1612, 1630, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 222.)
Likewise, the fact the trespasser’s initial harassment was not directed at M.F. does not preclude Pacific from having responsibilities under the FEHA toward her. If an employer knows a particular person’s abusive conduct places employees at unreasonable risk of sexual harassment, the employer cannot escape responsibility to protect a likely future employee victim merely because the person has not previously abused that particular employee. (See Ferris v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (2d Cir. 2001) 277 F.3d 128, 136.) “The more egregious the abuse and the more serious the threat of which the employer has notice, the more the employer will be required under a standard of reasonable care to take steps for the protection of likely future victims.” (Id. at p. 137.)
Pacific also contends the complaint fails to state viable claims because section 12940, subdivision (j)(1), is inapplicable to the factual circumstances of this case. However, the language of section 12940, subdivision (j)(1), does not limit its application to a particular fact pattern. Rather, the language of the statute provides for liability whenever an employer (1) knows or should know of sexual harassment by a nonemployee and (2) fails to take immediate and appropriate remedial action (3) within its control.
The statute’s legislative history also does not support this contention. As Pacific correctly points out, the statute’s legislative history indicates the Legislature enacted the statute to reject the analysis in Salazar v. Diversified Paratransit, Inc. (2003) 103 Cal.App.4th 131, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 475 (Salazar) and to clarify the FEHA protects employees from nonemployee sexual harassment. (Carter v. California Dept. of Veterans Affairs (2006) 38 Cal.4th 914, 921, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 223, 135 P.3d 637.) But, nothing in the legislative history indicates the Legislature intended to limit the statute’s application to the specific factual circumstances presented in the Salazar case. The Legislative Counsel’s Digest, which is entitled to great weight because it is the official summary of the bill’s legal effect relied upon by the Legislature during the legislative process (Madrigal v. California Victim Comp. & Government Claims Bd. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1108, 1117, 212 Cal.Rptr.3d 60), contains no hint of such a limitation. Rather, the Legislative Counsel’s Digest states, “This bill would revise [existing law] to include sexual harassment by nonemployees if the employer knows or should have known of the incident and fails to take corrective action. [¶] The bill would state the Legislature’s intent to construe and clarify existing law and reject the interpretation given to existing law by [the Salazar case].” (Legis. Counsel’s Dig., Assem. Bill No. 76 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) 5 Stats. 2003, Summary Dig., p. 329.)
The committee reports and analyses relied upon by Pacific also do not indicate an intent to limit the statute’s application to the factual circumstances presented in the Salazar case. Rather, the reports and analyses indicate an intent to limit the statute’s application to sexual harassment, and to not apply it to harassment on other prohibited bases. (Assem. Conc. Sen. Amends. to Assem. Bill No. 76 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 28, 2003, p. 1 [“The Senate amendments are technical and clarifying and … expressly limit the bill to the sexual harassment issue presented by the Salazar case”]; id. at p. 3 [“This bill speaks solely to the sexual harassment issue presented by the Salazar case and no longer addresses the question of harassment on other *703 prohibited bases”(italics added)]; Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Assem. Bill No. 76 (2003–2004 Reg. Sess.) as amended Aug. 28, 2003, p. 2 [“The [Senate] amendment limits the application of this bill to instances of sexual harassment, rather than to all harassment”].)
Finally, Pacific contends that even if it had some responsibility to M.F. under the FEHA, it fulfilled its responsibilities by providing a reasonable and adequate response. However, whether an employer sufficiently complied with its mandate to “take immediate and appropriate corrective action” (§ 12940, subd. (j)(1)) is a question of fact. (Bradley v. Cal. Dept. of Corrections and Rehabilitation, supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1630, 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 222.) Questions of fact generally require the consideration and weighing of evidence, which makes them unsuitable for resolution on demurrer. (See Klein v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1376, 137 Cal.Rptr.3d 293.) This case presents no exception to the general rule.