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

Employer must act decisively on sexual harassment complaint

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Sexual harassment of an employee is prohibited by federal and state anti-discrimination laws. It can include unwelcome sexual advances, trying to trade job enhancement or promotions for sex or the creation of a hostile environment that makes the employee’s job generally unbearable. Sexual harassment in California and all other states will not exist by mere teasing or offhand comments made in isolated instances; instead, the violation requires a set pattern of pervasive taunting, harassing, insulting or other repetitive hostile behavior so as to create an intolerable and offensive environment for the victim .

If the discrimination results in an adverse employment action with respect to hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or any other material aspect of the employment relationship, it is also a violation of law. Sexual harassment at work can be perpetrated by a supervisor, co-worker or even a customer or third party. The key is that the employer will become liable for not taking reasonable and timely action to first investigate, and then eliminate, any violations that are factually supported.                                                                                                    

A recent settlement between the University of Colorado and a former female employee entails the school paying the amount of $80,000 in damages to the woman. The woman’s complaint is that she was fired after rejecting sexual advances from a supervisor. She complained that a male supervisor tried to get her to view him as a father figure and then made unwanted sexual advances toward her for a period of years.

That is a rather straightforward claim that requires the plaintiff to prove facts supporting the sexual harassment allegations. In such situations, both in California and other jurisdictions, it is important that the employer take swift action to investigate the matter after receiving the employee’s complaint. If the facts are found to be true, swift action must be taken to assure that the employee will not be further harassed. Where the employer fails to act or fails to investigate, then that will be a strong indication of a violation of the anti-discrimination laws.

Source: dailycamera.com, “CU settles sexual harassment lawsuit against former administrator for $80K“, Sarah Kuta, Jan. 18, 2016

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.