Best Sexual Harassment Lawyers in San Bernardino

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a deeply troubling issue that can affect every aspect of a victim’s life. When such behavior occurs, it is crucial to have knowledgeable and skilled legal representation. Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is recognized as the best sexual harassment lawyer in San Bernardino, California, offering expert legal services to those who need them most. Our firm is dedicated to ensuring that victims of sexual harassment receive the justice they deserve, providing compassionate support and aggressive advocacy.

At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we understand that each case of sexual harassment is unique, and we approach every situation with the attention and care it deserves. We are proud to be known as the best sexual harassment law firm in San Bernardino, offering comprehensive legal representation to those facing harassment in their workplaces.

Verbal Harassment

Verbal harassment is one of the most common forms of sexual harassment in the workplace. It can include unwelcome comments, jokes, or remarks that are sexual in nature. This type of harassment can create a hostile work environment and make it difficult for victims to perform their job duties comfortably.

Examples of verbal harassment include inappropriate comments about an employee’s appearance, sexual innuendos, or repeated, unwelcome advances. These behaviors are often dismissed or downplayed by employers, but they are serious violations of an employee’s rights.

As a San Bernardino sexual harassment law firm, Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is well-versed in handling cases of verbal harassment. We work closely with our clients to document these incidents and build a strong case to hold the responsible parties accountable. Our goal is to ensure that victims of verbal harassment receive the support they need and that such behavior is stopped in the workplace.

Physical Harassment

Physical harassment is another severe form of sexual misconduct that can occur in the workplace. This type of harassment involves unwanted physical contact or advances, which can range from inappropriate touching to more aggressive acts like assault. Physical harassment not only violates an individual’s rights but can also lead to significant emotional and psychological trauma.

Examples of physical harassment include unwanted touching, groping, or even sexual assault. In some cases, physical harassment may be accompanied by threats or intimidation, further exacerbating the harm done to the victim.

Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is recognized as the best sexual harassment attorney in San Bernardino for our ability to handle complex cases of physical harassment. We understand the sensitivity of these cases and approach them with the utmost care and professionalism. Our team is dedicated to pursuing justice for our clients, ensuring that those responsible for physical harassment are held accountable for their actions.

Other Forms of Harassment

In addition to verbal and physical harassment, there are other forms of sexual harassment that can occur in the workplace. These can include visual harassment, such as the display of sexually explicit materials, or quid pro quo harassment, where job benefits are conditioned on the performance of sexual favors. These types of harassment can create a toxic work environment, making it difficult for victims to feel safe or valued in their workplace.

Visual harassment may involve the display of offensive images, posters, or screensavers, or even unwanted gestures that are sexual in nature. Quid pro quo harassment, on the other hand, typically involves a superior demanding sexual favors in exchange for promotions, raises, or even continued employment.

As the best sexual harassment lawyer in San Bernardino, Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is committed to addressing all forms of harassment in the workplace. We work tirelessly to protect our clients’ rights and ensure that they can work in an environment free from discrimination and harassment.

Legal Protections Against Sexual Harassment

Understanding the legal framework surrounding sexual abuse is crucial for anyone seeking to take legal action. Both federal and California state laws provide strong protections against sexual misconduct in the workplace, and it is important to be aware of these laws to ensure that your rights are upheld.

Federal Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the primary federal law that prohibits sexual violation in the workplace. This law, enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), forbids employers from discriminating based on sex, which includes sexual harassment. Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees and provides a framework for victims to file complaints and seek legal recourse.

Under Title VII, sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination. Victims can file a complaint with the EEOC, which will investigate the claim and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to take action. If the EEOC finds that a violation has occurred, it may take steps to resolve the issue through mediation or litigation.

As a San Bernardino sexual harassment lawyer, Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. assists clients in navigating the complexities of federal law, ensuring that they understand their rights and the steps necessary to seek justice. We are committed to providing comprehensive legal support to those facing workplace harassment.

California State Law: Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

In addition to federal protections, California state law offers additional safeguards against sexual harassment through the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). FEHA provides broader coverage than federal law, applying to employers with five or more employees and mandating sexual coercion prevention training for both employees and supervisors.

FEHA allows victims of sexual harassment to file complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The DFEH is responsible for investigating these claims and can take legal action on behalf of the victim if necessary. Under FEHA, victims may be entitled to various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages, as well as reinstatement or other equitable relief.

As the best sexual harassment law firm in San Bernardino, Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is dedicated to ensuring that our clients receive the full protections afforded under California law. We are experienced in handling FEHA claims and work tirelessly to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients.

Why Choose Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C.?

When facing quid pro quo harassment in the workplace, it is essential to have strong legal representation that understands the complexities of the law and is dedicated to fighting for your rights. Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is known as the best sexual harassment attorney in San Bernardino because of our commitment to providing personalized, client-focused legal services.

We recognize the emotional and psychological toll that sexual harassment can take on an individual, and we approach each case with compassion and professionalism. Our team is dedicated to ensuring that our clients receive the justice they deserve and that those responsible for harassment are held accountable.

Whether you are dealing with verbal harassment, physical harassment, or any other form of sexual misconduct in the workplace, Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. has the experience and dedication to guide you through the legal process. Our reputation as the best sexual harassment lawyer near me is built on our unwavering commitment to our clients and our proven track record of success.

If you or someone you know is experiencing sexual abuse at work, it is crucial to seek legal assistance as soon as possible. Contact Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. today to schedule a consultation with a San Bernardino sexual harassment lawyer who will stand by your side and fight for your rights.

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 San Bernardino

If you have been sexually harassed in the workplace, call us today at (909) 966-5204 or contact us online to schedule a free case evaluation. Our battle tested sexual harassment lawyers in San Bernardino stand ready to help in cases involving sexual harassment in the workplace.

Featured Sexual Harassment Case

Proksel v. Gattis, 41 Cal. App. 4th 1626, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 322 (1996)

A former employee brought an action against her former employer for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, sex discrimination and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The Superior Court of San Diego County, No. 655533, Patricia Yim Cowett and Robert J. O’Neill, JJ., entered judgment for employer, and employee appealed. The Court of Appeal, Benke, Acting P.J., held that evidence of romantic relationship between employee’s supervisor and her co-worker was insufficient by itself to establish claim of sexual discrimination or sexual harassment under Fair Employment and Housing Act or public policy of state. The Court’s opinion stated in relevant part as follows:

Proksel contends that the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication as to her statutory and common law claims of sexual discrimination and sexual harassment. Those claims were based on the Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov.Code, § 12900) and the public policy of the state. (See Rojo v. Kliger (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65, 88, 276 Cal.Rptr. 130, 801 P.2d 373.) We find no error.

Significantly, other than the favoritism she believes Gattis demonstrated toward Burton, Proksel does not point to any other act of sexual discrimination or harassment. She does not contend that Gattis led Burton or any other employee to believe that they could obtain favorable treatment from him if they became romantically involved with him. (See Toscano v. Nimmo (D.Del.1983) 570 F.Supp. 1197, 1200.) She has not presented any facts which show that the manner in which the affair between Gattis and Burton was conducted was so indiscreet as to create **324 a hostile work environment. (See Drinkwater v. Union Carbide Corp. (3d Cir.1990) 904 F.2d 853, 862; Broderick v. Ruder (D.D.C.1988) 685 F.Supp. 1269, 1277.) Moreover she has not presented evidence of other pervasive conduct by Gattis which *1630 created a hostile work environment. (See Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hosp. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 610–612, 262 Cal.Rptr. 842.)⁵ We take pains to set forth these well recognized theories of recovery because evidence of a romantic relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate might well be relevant in establishing liability on one of these theories and our holding in this case should not be interpreted as precluding admission of such evidence to prove these theories. (See Drinkwater v. Union Carbide Corp., supra, 904 F.2d at p. 861.)

Where, as here, there is no conduct other than favoritism toward a paramour, the overwhelming weight of authority holds that no claim of sexual harassment or discrimination exists. (Drinkwater v. Union Carbide Corp., supra, 904 F.2d at p. 862; Ellert v. University of Texas (5th Cir.1995) 52 F.3d 543, 546; DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical Center (2d Cir.1986) 807 F.2d 304, 306–307; Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co., Inc. (1990) 117 N.J. 539, 558, 569 A.2d 793; O’Patka v. Menasha Corp. (E.D.Wis.1995) 878 F.Supp. 1202, 1206; Ayers v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., (S.D.Fla.1993) 826 F.Supp. 443, 445; Piech v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (N.D.Ill.1994) 841 F.Supp. 825, 829; Candelore v. Clark County Sanitation Dist. (D.Nev.1990) 752 F.Supp. 956, 960, aff’d, 975 F.2d 588 (9th Cir.1992).) As the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated: “Not all types of sexual favoritism violate Title VII. It is the Commission’s position that Title VII does not prohibit isolated instances of preferential treatment based upon consensual romantic relationships. An isolated instance of favoritism toward a ‘paramour’ (or a spouse, or a friend) may be unfair, but it does not discriminate against women or men in violation of Title VII, since both are disadvantaged for reasons other than their genders.” (EEOC Notice No. 915–048 (Jan. 12, 1990), fn. omitted, emphasis added.)

The principal contrary authority is King v. Palmer (D.C.Cir.1985) 778 F.2d 878, 880, which assumed without deciding, that a romantic relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate was sufficient to make out a prima facie case of sexual discrimination. Because King v. Palmer did not directly reach the merits of the paramour theory and because its statement about the issue has been almost unanimously rejected, it is not persuasive.

3 Rather we agree with the weight of authority that it would be both impracticable and unwarranted for the courts to assume a generalized police *1631 power over intimate consensual relationships between co-employees. (See DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical, supra, 807 F.2d at p. 308.) Accordingly we hold that a romantic relationship between a supervisor and an employee does not, without more, give rise to a sexual discrimination or sexual harassment claim either under the FEHA or the public policy of the state. Because Proksel has shown nothing more than such a relationship, her sexual discrimination and harassment claims were properly dismissed.