Lawyers for Wrongful Termination Due to Sexual Harassment Serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties
At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we are committed to defending the rights of employees who have suffered wrongful job termination due to sexual harassment. Our experienced legal team serves clients throughout Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties. If you have been unjustly dismissed from your job after reporting or experiencing sexual harassment, we are here to help you fight for your rights.
Understanding Wrongful Termination Due to Sexual Harassment
Sexual harassment in the workplace is illegal under both California state law and federal law. Unfortunately, despite these protections, some employers retaliate against employees who report or resist sexual harassment by terminating them. This kind of retaliation can manifest as wrongful dismissal due to sexual harassment, where an employee is unlawfully fired because they stood up against inappropriate behavior.
At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we have extensive experience handling cases involving wrongful discharge due to sexual harassment. We understand the devastating impact that such unlawful terminations can have on an individual’s career, financial stability, and emotional well-being. Our team is dedicated to helping you seek justice and compensation for the wrongful firing due to sexual harassment you have endured.
What is Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment?
Quid pro quo sexual harassment is one of the most blatant and illegal forms of sexual harassment in the workplace. The term “quid pro quo” is Latin for “this for that,” and it occurs when an individual in a position of power, such as a supervisor or manager, demands sexual favors in exchange for job benefits or continued employment. These benefits may include promotions, salary increases, or even continued employment. If the employee refuses the advances, they may face negative consequences, including termination.
For example, an employee might experience quid pro quo harassment if their boss implies that they must engage in a sexual relationship to keep their job. If the employee refuses and is subsequently fired, this could be a clear case of unlawful termination due to sexual harassment.
Quid pro quo harassment is illegal under both state and federal law. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we have successfully represented clients who were victims of such harassment and then faced wrongful job termination due to sexual harassment. Our attorneys are well-versed in the complexities of these cases and are committed to holding employers accountable for their illegal actions.
Common Scenarios of Wrongful Termination Due to Sexual Harassment
There are various ways in which wrongful dismissal due to sexual harassment can occur. Some of the most common scenarios include:
Retaliation for Reporting Sexual Harassment: An employee reports sexual harassment to their HR department or a supervisor, only to be met with hostility or indifference. Shortly after making the report, the employee is wrongfully discharged due to sexual harassment, with the employer fabricating reasons for their termination to mask the true motive.
Refusal to Submit to Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment: As previously mentioned, if an employee refuses to comply with a supervisor’s sexual advances or demands, they may be subjected to unjust firing due to sexual harassment. The employer may claim that the termination is for performance reasons, but the true cause is the employee’s refusal to put out.
Hostile Work Environment Leading to Constructive Discharge: In some cases, an employee may face such severe and pervasive sexual harassment that they feel forced to resign. This is known as constructive discharge. If the employer created or allowed a hostile work environment and the employee felt they had no choice but to leave, this can be considered a form of wrongful termination.
Each of these scenarios involves violations of both state and federal employment laws, and victims of such actions have the right to seek legal redress. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we are dedicated to helping clients who have been wrongfully terminated due to sexual harassment pursue justice.
Why Choose Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C.?
When it comes to handling cases of wrongful firing due to sexual harassment, you need a law firm with experience, dedication, and a proven track record. Here’s why Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is the right choice for your case:
Substantial Experience Handling Sexual Harassment Cases: Our attorneys focus on employment law and have a deep understanding of the legal protections available to employees. We have successfully represented numerous clients in cases involving wrongful dismissal due to sexual harassment, securing favorable outcomes in even the most challenging cases.
Client-Centered Approach: We recognize that every case is unique, and we take the time to understand your specific circumstances. Our attorneys work closely with you to develop a personalized legal strategy that addresses your needs and goals.
Aggressive Advocacy: We are not afraid to take on employers who engage in illegal and unethical behavior. Our attorneys are skilled negotiators and litigators who will fight tirelessly to ensure that your rights are upheld and that you receive the compensation you deserve.
No Upfront Fees: We believe that everyone should have access to quality legal representation, regardless of their financial situation. That’s why we offer our services on a contingency fee basis—meaning you don’t pay unless we deliver results.
Your Legal Rights in California
California law offers strong protections against sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. If you have been a victim of unlawful termination due to sexual harassment, you may be entitled to compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and other damages.
Proving that your termination was wrongful requires careful documentation and a thorough understanding of the legal standards involved. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., our attorneys will gather evidence, interview witnesses, and build a compelling case to demonstrate that your firing was unjust and in violation of the law.
Contact Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. Today
If you have been the victim of unjust firing due to sexual harassment, don’t wait to take action. The sooner you consult with an attorney, the better your chances of achieving a successful outcome. At Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C., we offer a free initial consultation to discuss your case and explore your legal options. Serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern, and Ventura Counties, Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. is dedicated to helping employees stand up against wrongful dismissal due to sexual harassment. Contact us today to learn how we can assist you in pursuing justice and protecting your rights. Call us today at (818) 509-9975 or contact us online to schedule a complimentary case evaluation. We have experience in all aspects of employment law, including wrongful dismissal due to sexual harassment.
Areas Served
The litigation and trial attorneys of the Akopyan Law Firm, A.P.C. provide services throughout 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
Featured Wrongful Termination Due to Sexual Harassment Case
Heyne v. Caruso, 69 F.3d 1475 (9th Cir. 1995),
In the case of Heyne v. Caruso the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with issues of sexual harassment and wrongful termination.
Margaret Heyne, the plaintiff, was an employee at Caruso, a car dealership owned by the defendant, Frank Caruso. Heyne alleged that she was subjected to sexual harassment by her supervisor, including unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate comments. After she refused these advances and complained, she was fired. Heyne sued Caruso, claiming wrongful termination and sexual harassment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
A key issue in the case was whether evidence of other employees’ experiences with sexual harassment by the same supervisor should be admissible in court. The district court had excluded this evidence, but Heyne appealed, arguing that it was relevant to proving her claims of harassment and retaliatory firing.
The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Heyne, holding that evidence of other acts of harassment by the same supervisor was indeed relevant and should have been admitted. The court reasoned that such evidence could demonstrate the supervisor’s motive, intent, and pattern of behavior, making it highly pertinent to Heyne’s claims.
The Court explained as follows: The probative value of the employer’s sexual harassment of other female employees is especially high “because of the inherent difficulty of proving state of mind.” Cf. Mullen v. Princess Anne Volunteer Fire Co., 853 F.2d 1130, 1133 (4th Cir.1988) (holding that use of racial slurs by members of a fire company is admissible to prove the company’s motive in excluding black applicant from membership). However, we must exclude the evidence if the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs its probative value. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. Unfair prejudice is “the possibility that the evidence will excite the jury to make a decision on the basis of a factor unrelated to the issues properly before it.” Mullen, 853 F.2d at 1134.
There is no unfair prejudice, however, if the jury were to believe that an employer’s sexual harassment of other female employees made it more likely that an employer viewed his female workers as sexual objects, and that, in turn, convinced the jury that an employer was more likely to fire an employee in retaliation for her refusal of his sexual advances. There is a direct link between the issue before the jury—the employer’s motive behind firing the plaintiff—and the factor on which the jury’s decision is based—the employer’s harassment of other female employees.
The district court can limit the potential unfair prejudice that may result if the jury allows the employer’s sexual harassment of other female employees to influence its decision on whether the employer sexually propositioned the employee. The district court may provide safeguards, such as a limiting jury instruction to the effect that the sexual harassment testimony is to be considered only for the determination of the employer’s motive. See Phillips, 711 F.2d at 1532 (noting with approval the district court’s instruction to the fact-finder that the testimony of a female employee other than the plaintiff, alleging sexual harassment by the employer, was relevant only as to the employer’s reason for dismissing the plaintiff).
We find that the district court erred by excluding evidence of Caruso’s harassment of other female employees. The district court’s evidentiary ruling excluding such testimony significantly hampered Heyne in her efforts to challenge Caruso’s asserted motive. See Mullen, 853 F.2d at 1133; see also Estes, 856 F.2d at 1103 (stating that the trial court’s exclusion of the employer’s general treatment of Blacks was especially damaging in a race discrimination claim “in which plaintiffs must face the difficult task of persuading the fact-finder to disbelieve an employer’s account of its own motives.”). Heyne should have been permitted to introduce evidence of Caruso’s sexual harassment of other employees in order to rebut Caruso’s proffered reason for terminating her.