 |
Supervisors' Personal Liability for Sexual
Harassment Clarified: California Supreme Court Denies Review
Date: April 1997
Continuing
sexual harassment lawsuits have greatly impacted businesses and
increased financial exposure for companies.
The law regarding sexual harassment has also been changing, and
in many cases, been increasing in scope.
More recently, both companies and individual supervisors have
been sued for harassment. In
a new decision, Fiol v. Doellstedt, the California Court of Appeals
clarified whether, and in what circumstances, an individual supervisor
could be held personally liable for sexual harassment.
The California Supreme Court, by denying review of the case,
provided some welcome limits to the liability which management faces.
Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, LLP, represented the company and
the supervisor before the trial and Appellate Courts.
The
Facts
The plaintiff, Giovanni Fiol, had
been an employee of a major designer and manufacturer of video games.
After his employment was terminated, he sued for harassment
based on his sexual orientation.
Fiol
claimed that his supervisor, “Sean,” harassed him because of his
sexual orientation. On
three occasions, he claimed, he complained about the harassment to his
supervisor’s boss, “Jon.” However,
he said that even after Jon became aware of the harassment, Jon
ignored the situation and took no action.
Fiol subsequently sued the company, his supervisor (Sean), and
his supervisor’s boss (Jon). The Company and Jon were represented by Rosenfeld, Meyer
& Susman, LLP. The
supervisor, who allegedly engaged in the harassment, was represented
by separate counsel.
The
Trial Court
Before
the Trial Court, we filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings,
arguing that, because Jon had not actually engaged in harassment, he
could not be held personally liable for harassment.
We stressed that, while the Company might be liable for the
supervisor’s (i.e., Sean’s) actions, and while Sean himself might
be personally liable, Jon could not be liable for the actions of
another supervisor—nor could he be liable for merely failing to take
action. Therefore, Jon
should be dismissed from the case.
The Trial Court agreed. Fiol
then appealed.
Court
of Appeal & Supreme Court
The
Appellate Court recognized that California law imposes liability on a
company for harassment committed by a supervisor.
The court also stated that an individual supervisor who engages
in harassment can be held personally liable for his or her own
actions.
The
question in this case, however, was whether a second-tier supervisor,
who did not actually engage in harassment, could nevertheless be held
personally liable for harassment when he allegedly failed to take any
action to prevent harassment from continuing.
The Court of Appeal said no.
In
reaching this decision, the Appellate Court considered several
theories under which the second-tier supervisor might be held
personally liable. The
court acknowledged that the law was unclear in this area and that even
its own previous decisions seemed to imply that the second-tier
supervisor could be held liable.
However,
the court ultimately concluded that there were “sound policy
reasons” for not making Jon liable—that a supervisor should not
face the risk of personal liability for his or her management
decisions such as deciding whether to investigate a complaint of
harassment. Thus, Jon
could not be liable and, in a published opinion, the appeal was
dismissed. Fiol then
appealed to the California Supreme Court.
The
California Supreme Court is not obligated to hear all cases and, in
this case, it decided not to review the lower court’s decision.
Therefore, the favorable Court of Appeals opinion remains valid
law.
Principles
To Be Learned
The
result of the Appellate Court’s opinion was to clarify when an
individual supervisor may be held personally liable for harassment.
We now interpret California Law as follows:
-
When a supervisor engages in
illegal harassment of an employee, the company is strictly liable
for that harassment.
-
A supervisor who commits
harassment against an employee, is also personally liable for his
or her own actions.
-
A supervisor who does not
actually commit harassment, but who knows about the harassment and
fails to do anything about it, cannot be held personally liable
for the harassment. However,
the company still is liable.
The
published opinion is cited as Fiol v. Doellstedt, 50 Cal.App.4th 1318,
58 Cal.Rptr. 2d 308 (1996), rev. den. (1997).
If
you would like a copy of this opinion or would like further
information on prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace or
employer policies and practices in this area, please contact our Labor
Department at (310) 858-7700.
Our
Labor Department represents employers in wrongful termination, sexual
harassment, and employment discrimination cases in state and federal
courts. The department also represents employers in collective
bargaining negotiations, arbitrations and matters before state and
federal administrative agencies.
In addition, we provide general labor counseling on
unionization, personnel policies, grievances and wage and hour issues.
Rosenfeld,
Meyer & Susman was founded in 1957.
The Firm’s areas of expertise include: Labor and Employment
Law, Litigation, Corporate, Entertainment, Trusts and Estates,
Taxation, Family Law, Insurance Coverage and Defense, Real Estate and
Employee Benefits.
Return to top
|
