A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Employers often cover up sexual harassment

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Our ability to get a job and advance our careers is supposed to be based on our talents, education, prior experience, people skills and similar assets. No job in California should be based on the job holder’s ability to provide sexual favors to a co-worker or superior.

Unfortunately, some companies tolerate sexual harassment among its managers or workforce. They create an atmosphere where employees are subjected to demands for sex, sexual remarks or promises of promotion or other advantages in exchange for sexual contact.

And when victims of harassment complain, these businesses do not take their reports seriously. Not only do they fail to investigate or take action against the harasser, they may even retaliate against the accuser for “making waves.” It is common for victims of sexual harassment to endure retaliation from their employers, up to wrongful termination.

Where do victims go from here? First, they should know that the law is on their side. Sexual harassment is illegal in California. Victims have the right to take to court an employer who did not do their duty once it learned of the harassment.

When to sue often depends on the individual. It may make sense to leave the toxic environment and get a new job first, for the victim’s mental health if nothing else.

A pattern of committing or tolerating sexual harassment can lead to an employer with numerous current and former employees with claims. It may take a class action lawsuit to get some particularly irresponsible companies to finally take sexual harassment seriously.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.