When an employee reports sexual harassment, the complaint itself should not become the beginning of a second workplace problem. That is at the center of a lawsuit filed by Makarem & Associates against Bon Appetit Management Company. According to the complaint, our client worked as a dishwasher at a Bon Appetit workplace in Santa Clara County and was subjected to months of unwanted conduct by a coworker. She says she repeatedly told him to stop, reported the conduct to management and Human Resources, and ultimately submitted multiple written complaints asking the company to protect her.
Instead, the lawsuit alleges that Bon Appetit required our client to return to work alongside the coworker she had reported, accused her of wrongdoing during the company’s response to her complaint, failed to respond to later requests for help, and eventually reduced her work hours.
Months of Unwanted Conduct at Work
Our client began working for Bon Appetit as a dishwasher in June 2024. According to the complaint, shortly after she started, a coworker began engaging in repeated unwanted physical conduct toward her. The lawsuit alleges that the behavior continued on a daily basis for months and included unwanted touching and other conduct that made our client uncomfortable at work. She repeatedly told the coworker to stop and leave her alone, but the complaint alleges that he ignored her objections.
The situation allegedly escalated in October 2024, when the coworker subjected our client to unwanted sexual touching while she was working. The complaint alleges that he approached her again shortly afterward and attempted additional inappropriate contact, which she physically stopped. For our client, the issue was no longer simply an uncomfortable interaction with a coworker. According to the lawsuit, she had experienced a months-long pattern that culminated in conduct serious enough that she immediately reported what had happened.
She Reported the Conduct the Same Day
Our client did what employees are often told to do when harassment occurs: she reported it. According to the complaint, she verbally complained to a manager on the same day as the alleged incident and also submitted a formal written employee statement to Human Resources describing the harassment and unwanted contact. Bon Appetit then placed her on paid leave while it purportedly investigated her complaint. At that point, our client had used both management and HR reporting channels. The question became what the company would do with that information. According to the lawsuit, the answer was not what she expected.
The Investigation Allegedly Ended Without Separating the Employees
Approximately a month later, the complaint alleges that our client was called into a meeting and told that the investigation was closed. She was allegedly informed that the coworker she had reported would not be terminated, transferred, or otherwise disciplined and that she would be expected to return to work alongside him. The lawsuit alleges something more troubling happened during that same meeting: rather than focusing solely on her complaint, Bon Appetit accused our client of “bullying” the coworker she had reported and required her to sign the company’s code of conduct. Our client returned to work several days later. According to the complaint, that meant continuing to work in close proximity to the person whose conduct she had reported. The lawsuit alleges that doing so caused her ongoing fear, anxiety, and emotional distress.
Reporting Harassment Should Not Turn the Employee Into the Problem
One of the most significant allegations in this case is what allegedly happened after our client complained.
Employees sometimes worry that reporting harassment will change how management sees them. A complaint may suddenly be treated as a workplace conflict between two employees rather than as a report requiring meaningful investigation and corrective action. According to this lawsuit, that is essentially what happened here. The complaint alleges that Bon Appetit not only failed to adequately remedy the situation but turned some of its attention toward our client’s conduct, accused her of bullying the person she had reported, and required her to return to the same workplace environment. The lawsuit characterizes those actions as part of both the alleged discrimination and retaliation our client experienced.
She Continued Asking HR for Help
Our client did not stop complaining after returning to work. In January 2025, according to the complaint, she sent Human Resources another letter describing the pattern of harassment, the earlier incident, the company’s investigation, and the emotional distress she continued to experience. She specifically asked Bon Appetit to transfer the coworker so that she would not have to continue working around him. The lawsuit alleges that Bon Appetit never responded. Months later, in June 2025, our client sent HR another written complaint. She again raised the company’s failure to protect her and reiterated her concerns about what had happened after her original report.
By then, the complaint alleges that another problem had emerged.
Her Hours Were Allegedly Reduced After She Complained
According to the lawsuit, Bon Appetit reduced our client’s work hours after she began reporting the harassment.
The complaint alleges that the reduction caused her economic harm and that our client herself raised the issue in her June 2025 letter to Human Resources, telling the company that her hours had been cut since she complained.
That allegation is central to the retaliation claim.
California law protects employees who oppose or report conduct prohibited by the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The lawsuit alleges that our client’s verbal and written complaints constituted protected activity and that the company’s response included ignoring her requests for intervention, forcing her to continue working alongside the coworker, accusing her of bullying him, and reducing her hours.
Retaliation does not always look like an immediate termination. A reduction in hours, loss of income, or other negative change in working conditions following a complaint can also become significant.
What an Employer Does After a Complaint Matters
This case is not only about the conduct our client says she experienced from a coworker. It is also about Bon Appetit’s alleged response once the company knew what she was reporting.
The complaint alleges that the company failed to conduct a prompt, thorough, and good-faith investigation, failed to take appropriate corrective action, required our client to keep working with the person she had reported, and retaliated against her for continuing to complain.
That distinction matters.
Employers cannot necessarily prevent every inappropriate act from occurring in the workplace. But once an employer receives a harassment complaint, how it investigates, responds, protects the employee, and prevents further harm can become a central issue.
An employee should not have to choose between continuing to work in an environment she believes is unsafe and losing hours or income because she asked for help.
The Personal Cost of an Employer’s Response
The complaint alleges that the combined effect of the harassment, Bon Appetit’s failure to adequately address it, and the alleged retaliation caused our client significant emotional distress.
According to the lawsuit, she experienced anxiety, depression, humiliation, sleeplessness, and other psychological harm that ultimately led her to seek treatment.
Those allegations illustrate why the period after a harassment complaint can matter just as much as the events that led to the complaint in the first place.
A workplace response can either help an employee feel protected and heard or, as alleged here, leave the employee feeling that reporting the problem only made her situation worse.
What California Employees Can Take From This Case
Employees who experience harassment should consider documenting both the underlying conduct and what happens after they report it.
Keep copies of written complaints, emails, HR forms, and follow-up requests. If management tells you the investigation has ended, document what you were told about the outcome and any changes to your work situation afterward. It can also be useful to keep records of changes to your schedule, hours, assignments, compensation, or treatment at work following a complaint.
Most importantly, continuing to complain after an employer fails to address a problem does not make an employee the problem. California law protects employees who report and oppose unlawful workplace conduct.
Where the Case Stands
Makarem & Associates filed the lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Bon Appetit. The complaint asserts claims for sexual harassment and hostile work environment, sex discrimination, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.
The lawsuit seeks damages including lost wages and other compensation, damages for emotional harm, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other available relief.
This article is based on allegations made in a publicly filed legal complaint. The allegations described have not yet been proven in court, and the defendant is entitled to respond and defend itself. Our client’s name and personal identifying details have been omitted for privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Call Us: (800)610-9646
Email Us: [email protected]
