Former Employee of California Hair Care Company Sues for Harassment

Los Angeles, CA: Another well-known name has been hit with a harassment and discrimination lawsuit after the co-owner of a hair-care company based in California has been accused of sexual harassment. The charges are allegations only and have yet to be proven in a court of law. However, the harassment lawsuit follows in the wake of the #metoo movement that continues to gain momentum across North America.

The Daily Mail (02/05/18) reports the lawsuit was filed by a former employee of John Paul Mitchell Systems (JPMS), Tally Rossi. According to Court documents the plaintiff was employed as a media project manager with the enterprise. Rossi alleges she was coerced into a sexual relationship with the co-defendant, identified as Angus Mitchell, to which she consented as she feared for her job. Later, when Rossi attempted to get out of the relationship, she claims various examples of retaliation against her on the part of her employer, which eventually ended in her dismissal.

Plaintiff says she feared for her job

Rossi's harassment and discrimination lawsuit asserts that the trouble began in September 2015. The co-defendant had invited Rossi to share a glass of wine while Mitchell allegedly shared the details of what was described as a contentious divorce from his wife, Sian.

During this encounter, the plaintiff claims that Mitchell grabbed her and forcibly kissed her without her consent. The lawsuit alleges that Mitchell continued to pursue the plaintiff, convincing her to go out to dinner with him at some later date in spite of Rossi not being comfortable with the idea, the plaintiff says. Rossi asserts the co-defendant eventually pressured her into taking ecstasy and then "had sex with her," the complaint says.

The relationship - which was described as sexual - is alleged to have continued until January of 2016, when Rossi decided to end the relationship. As a result, Rossi claims she was subjected to various forms of retaliation by her employer, including instances of being "demoted and transferred," the complaint says.

"It was clear that plaintiff was being retaliated against for refusing to continue having a sexual relationship with defendant Mitchell," the complaint said. "Plaintiff was humiliated and felt bullied by defendants."

Plaintiff says she was paid to keep quiet

Rossi claims she spoke with Mitchell about the situation two months later, in March 2016, and shared with him the ill-treatment she was being subjected to in the workplace. The following day, the plaintiff and the defendant had one final sexual encounter before Mitchell allegedly begged Rossi "not to say anything" and proceeded to wire her the sum of $50,000 in cash, or so it is alleged. Rossi claims the payment was hush money, paid in exchange for her confidentiality.

The plaintiff, according to the lawsuit, shared the harassment and retaliation with the president of the firm a few days later. At that time Rossi was allegedly asked if "she wanted to leave immediately or at the end of the day."

Rossi took this as a constructive dismissal. The plaintiff proceeded to retain a harassment lawyer, and filed her harassment lawsuit in California Superior Court alleging harassment, retaliation and wrongful dismissal.

"Defendant Mitchell had a history of using defendant JPMS as a hunting ground to find women to date and have sex with," the complaint alleges. Mitchell is the son of JPMS co-founder Paul Mitchell.

The lawsuit claims discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex, failure to prevent harassment or discrimination, and constructive wrongful termination all in violation of California state law.

The lawsuit is Tally Rossi v. John Paul Mitchell Systems et al., Case No. BC692486, filed February 5 of this year in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

As More Icons Fall, #metoo Continues to Fuel Movement Against Sexual Harassment

Los Angeles, CA: Allegations of sexual harassment that is consuming the entertainment, media and government industries and given birth to the #metoo movement, has at its root the various allegations against former media mogul Harvey Weinstein. While none of the allegations against Weinstein and others have yet to be proven in court, the mere allegation of wrongdoing is enough to disintegrate a career overnight, and bring once-mighty dynasties to their knees.

Meanwhile allegations against Weinstein continue with the announcement of a sexual harassment lawsuit against Weinstein and the company that bears his name brought by an unnamed actress alleging rape.

The lawsuit was filed through the plaintiff’s harassment lawyer November 14 in Los Angeles Superior Court. The plaintiff, identified for purposes of the lawsuit as Jane Doe, accuses Weinstein of rape. The plaintiff also makes allegations against the various entities that make up The Weinstein Company, claiming the co-defendants were party to the crime by not doing enough to prevent Weinstein from engaging in his unsavory behavior.

The alleged activity of Weinstein and others speaks to a culture that is feared to still exist in the workplace, where individuals of power are alleged to foist themselves on underlings with the worst possible intentions, leaving in their wake shame and emotional distraught. And harassment doesn’t have to extend to the criminal act of rape to be considered sexual. Harassment lawsuits have since been filed against various perpetrators due to unwanted touching, suggestive comments and verbal abuse, both in the workplace and beyond.

Weinstein’s exposure was amplified through the publication of an explosive investigation by The New York Times (10/05/17) in October, which reveals some 70 actresses and other industry professionals claim to have fallen victim to Weinstein’s behavior, which has been characterized as predatory. Other entertainment icons – household names with heretofore trusted reputations – have fallen like so many dominoes following allegations of harassment.

According to Law360 (11/14/17), Weinstein’s most recent accuser alleges she was lured to a hotel room under the pretense of a business meeting, only to be assaulted by the powerful movie mogul, or so it has been alleged.

“Plaintiff has suffered physical injury, severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, mental and emotional distress and anxiety, and economic harm,” the complaint said. “At all relevant times, defendants acted with conscious disregard for plaintiff’s rights and feelings.”

There were two allegations of harassment detailed in the harassment lawsuit. The first is alleged to have occurred in 2015 in Weinstein’s hotel room, where the accused is alleged to have asked permission to self-gratify himself in front of the plaintiff. The plaintiff refused permission and attempted to leave, but Weinstein is alleged to have grabbed her by the wrist and forced her to stay while he carried out the act in front of her.

The following spring, in 2016, the plaintiff was again summoned to the accused’s hotel room for a business meeting. This time, Weinstein is said to have forced himself upon the plaintiff against her wishes.

The suit includes claims of sexual battery, gender violence and negligence.

The takeaway message here, considering the downfalls of powerful players in entertainment, media and government falling amidst mushrooming allegations of inappropriate behavior, is that harassment in any form is never okay.

The courts remain a viable option to not only seek justice and recompense from a perpetrator, but to continue sending the message to others that sexual harassment, or harassment in any form is not to be tolerated. Perpetrators should be brought to justice, and victims should be duly compensated.

A harassment lawsuit is an appropriate pathway to do that.

The case against Weinstein is Jane Doe v. The Weinstein Co. et al., Case No. BC683411, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

Co-defendant’s Former Marriage a Part of Harassment and Discrimination Lawsuit

Los Angeles, CA: A somewhat complex harassment and discrimination lawsuit underway in California pits a gifted academic from Taiwan against the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and a trainer at the university who is alleged to have contributed to the plaintiff’s early exit from the school.

The harassment lawsuit was brought, in part under the California Fair Employment Housing Act. The allegation of harassment, focused upon the plaintiff’s Taiwanese heritage, has been a part of the lawsuit from the beginning. However, percolating throughout is the co-defendant’s previous marriage, and the potential continued hard feelings against her former husband – born in Singapore – that may have contributed to the harassment and discrimination allegedly suffered by the plaintiff.

To that end a judge in the California Superior Court ruled, on October 10, that the former UCLA cytogenetics research fellow can introduce evidence of the trainer’s divorce towards a potential racial animus claim in an upcoming trial.

According to Law360 (10/10/17), Dr. Daniel Chen is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. Having already earned degrees from Stanford University, UCLA and the UC Irvine School of Medicine, Chen was accepted into a UCLA post-doctoral fellowship in 2014 that provides two years of training in order to become board certified in cytogenetics by the American Board of Medical Genetics and Genomics.

Court records show that Chen’s first principle trainer in the fellowship was Jennifer Pelkey, the co-defendant in the discrimination and harassment lawsuit. Chen claims that almost from the start, Pelkey began harassing him and referenced Chen in evaluations as incapable. She is also alleged to have called him out in front of colleagues.

According to Law360, Chen shared the treatment he was receiving from Pelkey with UCLA and was assigned to a different trainer. However, it is alleged that Pelkey continued her criticism of Chen after the fact, questioning Chen’s capacity to do his job and complained about Chen engaging in conversations with other doctors and staff of Chinese decent, in Mandarin.

According to Court documents Chen was ousted from the program halfway through his training. His demise, Court documents hold, was based upon the pretext surrounding allegations of inadequate performance.

Co-defendant Pelkey’s relationship history with her former husband, identified as Richard Ho was the subject of two of 10 motions in limine that UCLA filed in the run-up to a trial expected to begin soon.

Pelkey’s marriage to Ho ended in the mid-1990s. Defense attorneys noted Pelkey’s marriage and subsequent divorce were not relevant to the case and put forward a motion aimed at denying the opportunity for Chen to introduce evidence of Pelkey’s marital history.

Law360 reports that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Terry Green denied the motion, noting that he couldn’t say as a matter of law that co-defendant Pelkey didn’t harbor lasting ill feelings stemming from her marriage, and divorce.

“I think human nature tells us the emotional scars and the ill will, live with us in part,” Judge Green said. “Whether or not the facts show to a jury’s satisfaction that ill will translates into racial animus is something you folks can argue.”

Chen sued UCLA and Pelkey in 2015 (Daniel Chen M.D. PhD. v. Regents of the University of California et al., Case No. BC598154, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles), bringing claims of discrimination based on national origin and ancestry, retaliation and harassment under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Four out of a possible ten motions in limine were granted in their entirety, with the partial granting of three and an outright denial of the remainder, which spanned issues over discriminatory comments made to other employees and Chen’s own marriage. 

Jury selection in the harassment lawsuit is to commence October 16.

Rite Aid Appeals $8.7 Million Award in Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuit

Los Angeles, CA: A defendant continuing to fight a damages award totaling $8.7 million in a California wrongful termination and harassment case appeared before a California appellate panel last month asking the Court to discard the award based on their claim that the trial judge prejudicially excluded evidence demonstrating legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds for terminating the plaintiff from his job.

Rite Aid Corp. also opined that not only is alleged discrimination and harassment against the plaintiff on the part of senior managers baseless, but notes compiled by Rite Aid’s Human Resources (HR) manager showing the plaintiff was himself a purveyor of an abrasive management style were not allowed as evidence at trial.

Rite Aid asserts had those notes been deemed admissible, it would paint a very different picture of the plaintiff, Robert Leggins.

Attorneys for the plaintiff do not share that view.

The case is Robert Leggins v. Rite Aid Corp., Case No, B267434, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Second Appellate District. Plaintiff Leggins had been employed by Thrifty PayLess Inc. since 1985, according to Court documents, where he served at one time as a store manager. Rite Aid purchased Thrifty Payless Inc. in 1996.

Leggins, in his lawsuit, noted how he had been injured in a robbery at his store in 2007, after which he required several surgical procedures. In spite of his injuries, Leggins asserts he was made by senior managers to undertake hard, manual labor. Leggins also contends he was mocked and harassed over his injury.

At some later time when he made a request to a new district manager for a transfer to a smaller store in a better neighborhood in order to lessen the stress and strain on his injured neck, Leggins purports the district manager responded with an assertion that people of color are given to complaining.

Leggins asserted he endured continued insults, harassment and discrimination over his injury – and his race – and further complained that reports of such conduct he made to persons higher up in the corporate chain were met with no response.

After he closed his store early on New Years’ Day in 2013, Leggins asserts he was fired. Rite Aid indicated the early closing was contrary to store policy, although Leggins countered he had been given permission for the early closing some two months prior. The plaintiff also asserted he had closed the store early on the holiday for some years, without any comment or reprisal from his superiors.

Leggings launched a discrimination and harassment lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, and after a six-day trial in 2015 the jury in the case awarded the plaintiff $3.7 million for lost wages and other losses, together with $5 million in punitive damages.

The jury found in the plaintiff’s favor on his claims of harassment over his injury, but did not find that Rite Aid managers had discriminated against him over his race.

According to Court documents, Rite Aid immediately, and on two occasions filed post-trial petitions to reduce, or vacate the verdict. That was in September, 2015 – about two months after the jury delivered its verdict.

Rite Aid subsequently appealed the verdict to the Court of Appeal of the State of California for the Second Appellate District, noting in their motions last month that the trial judge erred in not allowing evidence that would have shown Leggins as someone who could be abrasive and harassing towards others. Rite Aid noted that information compiled by an HR manager included complaints that Leggins “created conflict” amongst fellow workers, among other claims.

Rite Aid asserts that the HR notes on Leggins should have been presented at trial.

Leggins’ legal representatives disagreed with the defendant’s suggestions of a miscarriage of justice.

He was originally awarded a total of $8,769,128 in damages.

San Francisco Startup Hit with Harassment Lawsuit

San Francisco, CA: A startup company with offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco is facing a harassment lawsuit amidst allegations of rampant sexual behavior in the workplace, including the provision of a designated room for which the sole purpose was to provide consenting employees a private location for intercourse in its San Francisco office, or so it has been alleged.

According to KCBS All News 740 AM / 106.9 FM in San Francisco (05/17/17) the principles of UploadVR maintained a so-called ‘boy’s club’ atmosphere at the workplace that amounted to a hostile environment for women. The former executive, who brought the complaint filed in May, asserts there was a room set aside in the office complex that was equipped with a bed and designated the ‘kink room,’ or so it is alleged. The plaintiff further alleges that items such as condom wrappers and underwear were sometimes left behind in the room following various assignations amongst employees.

“The atmosphere…was marked by rampant sexual behavior and focus, creating an unbearable environment for Plaintiff and other female employees,” the complaint says, according to the report by KCBS.

“In the office, Defendants would frequently talk about how much sex they were going to have at each party, and how many girls they were going to have sex with. UploadVR even set up a room to encourage sexual intercourse at the workplace. The room was referred to as the “kink room” and contained a bed. Male employees used that room to have sexual intercourse, which was disruptive and inappropriate. Often, underwear and condom wrappers would be found in the room.”

The plaintiff, identified as Elizabeth Scott, states in her complaint that she was hired on May 4, 2016 as the Director of Digital and Social Media for UploadVR, a startup dedicated to the virtual reality industry. While employed at the facility, the plaintiff asserts she, together with other female staff, were surrounded by crude conversation of a sexual nature on the part of male staff. The plaintiff also alleges that various hurtful, unkind and suggestive comments were directed towards her by one of the defendants, and that she felt harassed.

Co-founders Will Mason and Taylor Freeman were named amongst a total of 25 defendants in the harassment lawsuit, which also alleges suggestive and inappropriate language was used within inter-office emails, and various other examples of sexual and inappropriate behavior at conventions and other professional events to which the plaintiff attended, off-site.

“Male employees, including Mason and Freeman, would even speak sexually about women that worked in the office, right in front of them. For example, male employees stated how they were sexually aroused by female employees and how it was hard to concentrate and be productive when all they could think about was having sex with them.”

Other allegations included discrimination against women in the office, with women provided with menial tasks and with pay rates on a lower scale than their male counterparts in spite of sharing similar roles and responsibilities.

KCBS reported that Mason and Freeman were recently named to Forbes’ ’30 Under 30’ list of entrepreneurs to watch.

UploadVR characterizes the harassment lawsuit as being without merit.

The harassment case is Elizabeth Scott v. Upload Inc., UploadVR Inc., Upload Productions Inc., Taylor Freeman, Will Mason and DOES 1-25, Case No. CGC-17-558730, filed May 8 of this year in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

California Woman Launches Harassment Lawsuit against Dolby

Los Angeles, CA: A former employee of Dolby Laboratories Inc. in California has filed a harassment lawsuit against her former employer and various individuals alleging harassment, and an unfair and fractious work environment. Plaintiff Sushama Gokhale alleges violations against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and various laws maintained by the state of California.

Gokhale’s harassment lawsuit makes eight claims for relief including wrongful termination, failure to prevent discrimination and harassment, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Undetermined damages are sought for past and future lost wages, mental pain, anguish, and emotional distress.

The harassment lawsuit is Gokhale v. Dolby Laboratories Inc. et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-03845, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.

According to court documents the plaintiff joined Dolby in 2006 and enjoyed stellar work reviews. And yet, pay raises were described as ‘meager’ and she was never promoted. To that end Gokhale claims that women were not promoted as often as their male counterparts. Women, the lawsuit claims, were also marginalized, given less opportunity for advancement within the firm and were excluded from executive and other high level management positions, or so it is alleged.

Gokhale, who claims to have filed numerous complaints only to suffer retaliation and harassment that eventually led to her dismissal, also claims that certain superiors named in the lawsuit regularly employed profanity in the workplace, including numerous tirades and “unprovoked and unjustified” bouts of anger.

Verbally-abusive put-downs were conducted, it has been alleged, in front of other staff members. One of the defendants, the harassment lawsuit says, “targeted plaintiff and other women with systemic and pervasive harassment, put-downs, embarrassment, and displays of intense and unwarranted anger,” the suit claims, adding the defendant was “loud, hostile, dismissive, and verbally and physically intimidating towards plaintiff and her female counterparts.”

Gokhale claims to have been “publicly cursed” within earshot of several other employees. A male engagement manager with Dolby is accused of using gender-laden expletives in reference to females in the department.

In her harassment lawsuit Gokhale observed that once she began reporting the abuse – and the abusive workplace culture – to the human resources department, it is alleged that Gokhale’s superiors retaliated by withholding resources Gokhale needed to perform her job. Gokhale also claims she was verbally and emotionally bullied.

While one of her complaints to HR was still an active investigation, Gokhale was fired, the plaintiff’s lawsuit claims, “for not cooperating with the reorganization of her group.”

Gokhale served as the director of global compliance for intellectual property at Dolby, until she was let go.

Plaintiff Wrongfully Accused of Racism Files California Harassment Lawsuit

Los Angeles, CA: A former cycling instructor has launched a California harassment and wrongful dismissal lawsuit against her former employer and a former colleague at the facility, as well as the parent company of SoulCycle, Equinox Holdings. The plaintiff asserts her former colleague – who is an African American – wrongfully branded the plaintiff as a racist and a Donald Trump supporter, neither of which are true according to Lindsay Buckley, who is white and filed her harassment lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Co-defendant Angela Davis is accused of orchestrating a campaign of harassment in order to have Buckley ousted from the facility, or so it is alleged.

According to court documents, the trouble began when Buckley delivered motivational remarks to one of her indoor cycling classes in the days following the election of Donald Trump last November. During her talk, Buckley admitted she implored her charges to find “something great in their lives,” without making reference to Trump.

That remark got back to Davis, who allegedly understood Buckley’s remarks to be pro-Trump and concluded – wrongfully, according to the plaintiff – that Buckley was a racist. The plaintiff’s complaint asserts that Davis set out on a campaign to sully her reputation and have her fired.

“Days after the presidential election, Davis, who is African American, started making comments about Ms. Buckley to others, including one of her coworkers, falsely implying that she was a racist Trump supporter because she was a blonde, Caucasian woman from Orange County who used the word ‘great’ in class,” the harassment lawsuit said.

Lodging a complaint with managers only served to inflame the situation even further, the California harassment lawsuit goes on. “Davis continued her false allegations of racism and, in retaliation for plaintiff’s racial harassment complaint against her, she mounted a racially motivated smear campaign to get rid of plaintiff,” the lawsuit said.

Things began to come to a head in January when Buckley was accused – falsely, the plaintiff says – of using a racial epithet during one of her classes. Upon investigation, supervisors at the SoulCycle facility determined Buckley had not been found to have uttered the slur and also determined it would have been out of character for her to have done so.

“Davis apparently did not like the company’s response; upon information and belief, Davis actively solicited customers, friends and coworkers to falsely accuse plaintiff of making racially offensive comments in class (and being a racist), including asking at least one customers to lie to the company about what plaintiff said in class,” the complaint said.

Buckley was eventually suspended from her position in January for a period of five days, in part for playing ‘urban’ music in class that allegedly contained racial epithets and explicit lyrics. Buckley counters that her accuser had been known to do the very same thing without reproach.

Buckley was eventually fired from her job. She was also pregnant at the time, asserting she informed management of her condition in the days leading up to her termination. The plaintiff asserts violations of the Pregnancy Disability Leave Law of California, as well as claims for harassment, retaliation and defamation, among other claims in the harassment lawsuit she is bringing with her harassment lawyer.

The harassment case is Lindsay Buckley v. SoulCycle Inc. et al., in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. The case number was not available.

Former Personal Chef to Rap Star Sues for Harassment

Los Angeles, CA: The one-time personal chef for rap performer Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs has filed a California harassment lawsuit against her former employer, alleging sexual harassment as well as accusations that she was overworked and underpaid while in Mr. Comb’s employ.

The plaintiff in the harassment lawsuit is Cindy Rueda, who served as personal chef for Combs and worked at his home in Los Angeles beginning in January, 2015. In court documents, Rueda asserts she initially began working weekends from 9am until midnight or 2am at a flat rate of $150 per day. The following September, the plaintiff’s status was changed to full time. Her hours, according to the complaint, were 9am until midnight or 2:30am as a full-time employee.

Rueda claims she was classified as exempt from qualification for overtime. Documents did not spell out whether, or not her rate of pay changed when the plaintiff was moved from part-time, to full-time status in the employ of Mr. Combs.

Harassment charges included exposure to “inappropriate conduct and harassing confrontations” with Combs and his associates while on duty. On one occasion, the plaintiff asserts she was required to serve a post-coital meal to Combs and his house guests. At the time, Rueda asserts her employer asked her if she “was attracted to him or liked his naked body.”

On another occasion, according to allegations of sexual harassment made in Rueda’s harassment lawsuit, a male houseguest of Combs’ approached the plaintiff and asked her “to look at, and admire his genitals after [the guest] had engaged in sexual activity with another house guest,” or so the harassment lawsuit alleges.

Meanwhile, the pay dispute continued. In October and December of 2015 Rueda was required to travel with Combs and his entourage for eight days, and 14 days respectively with regular pay. There was no overtime pay offered or paid, Rueda alleges. The plaintiff asserts she complained to Combs’ estate director following the first round of travel in October, but received no response. Upon bringing the issue up a second time following the December trip, Rueda was allegedly told to track her hours. Although Rueda was granted vacation time, there was no overtime pay forthcoming. Rueda asserts she complained to the estate director a total of three times, without any satisfactory conclusion.

In the end, Rueda claims she was terminated without cause based on a false accusation of theft, or so the harassment lawsuit asserts.

A representative of Mr. Combs has called the harassment lawsuit a “frivolous lawsuit by a disgruntled ex-employee who was fired for cause.”

The harassment lawsuit includes more than a dozen claims against Combs and associated companies, including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, defamation and denial of overtime despite often working more than 12 hours in a day. The plaintiff seeks compensation for pain and suffering, lost earnings, unpaid overtime, double time, missed meal and rest periods, and unspecified damages.

The harassment lawsuit is Cindy Rueda v. CE Opco LLC et el., Case No. BC660653, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.

Rollback of Obama Transgender Guidance Does Not Affect California

Sacramento, CA: Any California student identifying with a gender opposite to their birth gender and troubled by the Trump Administration decree issued back in February rescinding federal guidance that allowed transgendered students the use of student washrooms aligned with their gender identity, needn’t be worried about the potential for increased harassment.

The federal decree, rolling back guidance issued by the former Obama Administration, puts the onus back on individual states to decide the issue. Specifically, California had long maintained a policy where school restrooms are open and available to students according to their gender identity – and the federal decree doesn’t change that.

“We have a state law requiring access to bathrooms and locker rooms for those students in accordance with their gender identity,” said Bill Ainsworth, of the California Department of Education, in comments published by The Associated Press (AP 02/23/17).

Historically, transgendered adults and students have long been the subject of needless harassment, resulting in many a harassment lawsuit. But worse still, has been the emotional turmoil transgenders have endured. The Obama Administration attempted to inject some balance – and some safe harbor – into what has often been a divisive and caustic debate amongst the various camps by providing federal guidance that benefitted the student community.

By providing guidance, the feds hoped to update a conversation which, for many had remained rooted along traditional lines. With the stroke of a pen, that guidance was yanked away in February.

However, putting the onus on the individual states is exactly where California already is, and has been since 2013 when state legislation was brought in to legitimize the value and importance of gender identity – as well as to uphold the right, and provide the freedom for transgendered students to use the facility that relates to their gender identity.
That was four years ago, with California being the first state of the Union to do so. Any student subjected to harassment in the state of California by using a school washroom conforming to their gender identity, have safeguards in place at the state level – and none of that changes with the decision by the Trump Administration to rescind.

That doesn’t suggest all states will take it upon themselves to develop updated policy that reflects today’s realities. To that end, one of the reasons why the feds rolled back federal guidance was due to a spate of lawsuits from conservative states attempting to protect and preserve traditional values, and pushing back against federal oversight in such an arena.

Of the 13 states that launched lawsuits, Texas held the most sway when a federal judge, this past August, temporarily blocked the federal imposition of transgender equality within school washroom facilities. It has also been reported that school districts have the freedom to circumvent state laws in that regard.

For residents of many states, it will be an uphill battle to get anywhere close to where California is, and has been for some time.

In California, there are both state laws and independent guidance and encouragement by school districts that provides, and encourages the freedom for a student to use the facility that fits with their gender identity, without apology or harassment.

To that end should harassment ever become an issue, a call to a harassment lawyer to pursue legal action is a viable option given the protections available to any individual subjected to harassment of any kind, including sexual harassment.

Nancy Haque, co-executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, opined to AP that the Trump rollback of the Obama guidance sends a message to transgendered teens “that something is wrong, which is harmful.”

California students – unlike students in other jurisdictions – don’t have that to worry about.

Sexual Harassment Allegations Made Within Pay Discrimination Complaint

Fresno, CA: A disturbing harassment story has been emerging from a successful jewelry retail chain that has locations in California. So far there have been no reports of sexual harassment allegations stemming from Sterling Jewelers at Edwards, or Kay Jewelers located in Visalia and Fresno. It is also not known if any current or former employees in California are part of the arbitration class.

However, that doesn’t appear to be the case elsewhere in the country – or so it has been alleged – as various media reports have focused on allegations of harassment made by hundreds of former and current employees, according to a report from ABC News (03/01/17). The allegations have come forward within a pay discrimination case brought against the firm. Sterling Jewelers (Sterling) is identified as the multi-billion dollar parent of company of Kay Jewelers and Jared-the Galleria of Jewelry.

Sterling is based in Ohio, but has retail locations throughout the country including California. The discrimination complaint, currently being heard by a private arbitrator, has been approved as a class arbitration and is brought on behalf of 69,000 current and former employees.

A key plaintiff in the complaint is Heather Ballou. The former store manager at Kay Jewelers began her tenure with the firm as a sales associate at a location in Pensacola, Florida. Ballou, amongst her allegations, asserts that she was propositioned for sex during one of Sterling’s annual management retreats, in return for a promotion back to her home city.

“I am not proud to say but I did it,” Ballou told ABC News. “I mean, I wanted to get home.”

Ballou asserts in her complaint that Sterling observes a culture that can be likened to a crude “boy’s club,” or so it is alleged. Various sworn statements, according to ABC News, allege that managerial retreats were reduced to “booze fests” where spouses were not allowed, at which managers “prowled around the [resort] like dogs…and there was no one to protect female managers from them,” according to documents filed with the arbitrator.

The allegations of harassment, sexual harassment and other allegations grew out of a pay equity complaint that alleges discrimination in promotions and pay. It is alleged that employees were forbidden from discussing pay levels amongst themselves, or sharing their rates of pay with others. ABC News reported on the situation involving one female employee who was paid a yearly salary of between $42,000 and $43,000 when she witnessed a male employee at another Kay Jewelers retail outlet in the same state complain that he was being paid only $70,000.

Yet another sworn statement alleges that “female sales associates were hired at about $1 an hour less than male sales associates.”

For its part, the defendants issued a statement to ABC News suggesting that allegations of sexual harassment pose a “distorted and inaccurate picture of our company,” adding that the original complaint filed in 2008 is about promotions and pay, not harassment.

“Since the case was filed in 2008, it has never included legal claims of sexual harassment or hostile work environment discrimination,” the statement read.

As for claims relating to professional advancement, Sterling noted the claims are “not substantiated by the facts and certainly do not reflect our culture.”

The complaint is not a lawsuit per se, but rather a private claim seeking resolution through a private arbitrator.