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

What makes a good sexual harassment plaintiff?

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

It is impossible to know for sure how many people in California are dealing with sexual harassment at work at any given time. In 2014, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing received 4,312 harassment claims, but this is likely no more than a small percentage of the actual sexual harassment going on. Many victims choose to quit rather than tolerate or confront the harasser.

Of those who opt to pursue litigation, the vast majority end up settling their claims out of court — this is the result more than 90 percent of the time, according to CNET. The rest may go to trial.

One reason many victims of harassment are reluctant to exercise their legal rights is that they are nervous about going through the time, effort and public exposure of trial. They may worry about whether they will make for a good plaintiff, one that the jury will side with.

What makes a plaintiff in a sexual harassment suit most likely to convince jurors that his or her employer did what he or she says it did? According to one employment attorney, he or she should be likeable and relatable for jurors. If he or she is also claiming employment discrimination, the plaintiff must have a good work record, to show that the only reason he or she did not advance in the company was because of his or her gender.

Finally, a thick skin will probably be necessary. The employer’s attorneys will likely try to disparage the plaintiff’s work ethic, character and personality.

Of course, the most important thing is to have a strong case. Your employment law attorney will know how to present your case to the court.

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.