Makarem & Associates

When Reporting Costs You Playing Time: Retaliation in College and Professional Athletics

2026-10-21T19:12:35Z

Athletes are often expected to trust their coaches, trainers, athletic departments, and team leadership. Those relationships can involve enormous power. Coaches may influence who starts, who travels, who receives playing time, who remains on scholarship, and who gets recommended for future opportunities. In professional sports, coaches and team officials may also affect contracts, roster decisions, endorsements, and an athlete’s reputation within the industry. That imbalance can make reporting sexual harassment or misconduct especially difficult. An athlete who reports inappropriate comments, unwanted touching, sexual advances, or other misconduct may worry that speaking up will jeopardize the very opportunities they have spent years working to earn. Even when an athlete is willing to report what happened, the fear of retaliation can be powerful. A coach may not openly say, “You are being punished because you complained.” Instead, the retaliation may appear through reduced playing time, exclusion from practices, removal from the travel roster, a sudden change in treatment, threats concerning scholarships, or criticism that begins only after a complaint is made. Athlete retaliation sexual harassment cases can be particularly difficult because many decisions in sports are inherently subjective. Coaches regularly make judgments about performance, attitude, team chemistry, and playing time. But those legitimate coaching decisions should not be used as a cover for punishing an athlete who reports harassment, discrimination, or other misconduct. Recognizing the difference often requires looking at timing, changes in treatment, statements made by coaches or administrators, and how similarly situated athletes were treated. Recognizing Retaliation in Athletics Retaliation generally occurs when someone suffers negative treatment because they reported misconduct, opposed unlawful behavior, participated in an investigation, or otherwise engaged in protected activity. Examples of potential retaliation may include:

Reduced playing time shortly after an athlete makes a complaint.

Removal from the starting lineup without a clear performance-related explanation.

Exclusion from practices, meetings, team events, or travel.

Removal from the team or pressure to transfer.

Threats concerning an athletic scholarship.

Loss or reduction of scholarship support.

Unfavorable scheduling, training, or conditioning assignments.

Increased scrutiny or discipline after a report.

Negative evaluations that are inconsistent with the athlete’s prior record.

Coaches refusing to provide recommendations or speak with scouts.

Teammates being encouraged to isolate or criticize the athlete.

Threats that reporting misconduct will “ruin” the athlete’s career.

Statements suggesting that the athlete is disloyal for bringing concerns outside the team.

Not every unfavorable decision is retaliation. Coaches are allowed to make legitimate decisions based on performance, conduct, team needs, injuries, or other appropriate considerations. The question is whether the negative treatment occurred because the athlete complained about or reported misconduct. Timing can be important. For example, imagine that an athlete regularly starts games and receives positive feedback throughout the season. The athlete then reports sexual harassment by a coach or staff member. Within days, the athlete is benched, excluded from team meetings, and told that their “attitude has become a problem,” despite no prior complaints about their conduct. That sequence may raise questions about coach retaliation. A single change may not establish retaliation by itself, but a pattern of changes occurring after a complaint can become significant. Athletes should also pay attention to changes that might initially seem minor. Retaliation can develop gradually. An athlete may first notice fewer repetitions during practice, less communication from coaching staff, or exclusion from informal team activities. Over time, those changes can escalate into lost playing time, reduced opportunities, or removal from the program. Quid Pro Quo in Athletica Quid pro quo generally refers to situations in which someone with authority conditions an opportunity or benefit on submission to sexual conduct or punishes someone for refusing it. The phrase essentially describes an improper exchange: comply with the sexual request and receive a benefit, or refuse and suffer a consequence. Athletic environments can create opportunities for this type of abuse because coaches and other authority figures may control valuable benefits. A coach's authority can make sexual advances especially coercive. For example, a coach might suggest that an athlete would receive more playing time if they developed a “closer” personal relationship with the coach. Another athlete might reject sexual comments or advances and then find themselves removed from the starting lineup. In other situations, an athlete may be told directly or indirectly that continued scholarship support depends on keeping a coach happy. An athlete may also experience retaliation after rejecting sexual advances even if no formal complaint was made. If a coach begins treating an athlete unfavorably after the athlete refuses sexual conduct, the sequence of events may be relevant. Athletic scholarship retaliation can be particularly serious because a scholarship may determine whether a student can afford to remain at a university. Threatening an athlete’s financial aid can create tremendous pressure to remain silent. An athlete who believes a scholarship has been threatened or reduced after reporting harassment should preserve any written communications relating to the scholarship decision. Emails, text messages, evaluation documents, scholarship notices, and communications with administrators may help establish when decisions were made and why. The same principle applies to professional athletics. Although there may be no scholarship involved, coaches, managers, team executives, agents, or other decision-makers may influence roster positions, contracts, playing opportunities, and an athlete’s reputation. Retaliation may therefore affect not only the athlete’s current team but also future employment prospects. How an Attorney Can Help Retaliation cases often depend heavily on evidence. An attorney can help an athlete evaluate whether a negative decision appears to be based on legitimate athletic considerations or whether the surrounding circumstances suggest the decision was connected to a harassment complaint. One of the first steps may be establishing a timeline to identify when the harassment occurred, when the athlete reported it, who received the complaint, what happened immediately afterward, and when playing time or other opportunities changed. Athletes should consider preserving communications such as text messages, emails, direct messages, and team group chats. Messages from coaches, trainers, athletic directors, or teammates may help show how the athlete was treated before and after the report. Performance records may also be relevant. Statistics, game footage, evaluations, practice records, awards, rankings, and prior communications from coaches may help establish the athlete’s performance history. If a coach later claims the athlete was benched solely because of poor performance, contemporaneous records may help evaluate whether that explanation is consistent with the athlete’s actual history. Scholarship documents may also be important in college athletics. Athletes should retain scholarship agreements, renewal notices, financial aid communications, team handbooks, conduct policies, and any documents describing complaint procedures. Witnesses can be critical as well. Teammates, assistant coaches, trainers, academic staff, or others may have observed how an athlete was treated before and after making a report. They may also have heard comments suggesting that coaches or administrators were angry about the complaint. An attorney may also investigate whether other athletes experienced similar treatment. Evidence that multiple athletes were discouraged from reporting misconduct, lost playing time after complaining, or were threatened with negative consequences can provide important context. Legal protections can vary depending on the circumstances. A college athlete, student employee, professional athlete, coach, trainer, or other athletic department employee may have different rights under employment, education, anti-discrimination, contractual, or other laws. The type of institution involved and the nature of the athlete’s relationship with the organization may also affect which protections apply. Because of those differences, legal advice can help an athlete understand what reporting options, administrative procedures, or potential claims may be available. An attorney can also help address retaliation while it is happening. In some circumstances, early intervention may help preserve evidence, document objections to retaliatory treatment, and create a clear record before additional decisions are made. Conclusion Athletes should not have to choose between reporting sexual misconduct and continuing to compete. A coach's authority over playing time, scholarships, team membership, or future opportunities can make retaliation particularly damaging. When an athlete speaks up about harassment and suddenly experiences negative treatment, the circumstances deserve careful attention. Reduced playing time, removal from practices, scholarship threats, exclusion from team activities, or damage to an athlete’s future prospects may constitute more than ordinary coaching decisions when they are imposed because the athlete reported misconduct or refused unwanted sexual behavior. Cases involving athlete retaliation sexual harassment, coach retaliation, or athletic scholarship retaliation often turn on the details. Timing, documentation, prior performance, communications, witness testimony, and changes in treatment may all help reveal whether an athletic decision was legitimate or retaliatory. Athletes who believe they are being punished for reporting sexual harassment or misconduct should consider preserving texts, emails, scholarship documents, evaluations, performance records, and other communications relating to both the complaint and the treatment that followed. Reporting harassment should not cost an athlete their scholarship, their place on the team, or the career they worked to build. An attorney can help evaluate what happened, identify potential legal protections, and determine what options may be available when retaliation threatens an athlete’s education, livelihood, or future in the sport. [button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact form[/button] Call us: 800-610-9646 Email: intake@law-rm.com

She Reported Sexual Harassment — Then Faced A Hostile Workplace: Understanding Retaliation

2026-10-20T21:24:21Z

Employees are frequently told that if something inappropriate happens at work, they should report it. Tell a manager. Contact Human Resources. Use the company hotline. Put the complaint in writing. But what happens when the employee reports harassment and the workplace does not become safer? What happens when the employee continues to be scheduled with the alleged harasser, asks to be transferred, and eventually finds herself being disciplined or terminated instead? Those questions are at the center of our client’s lawsuit against Chipotle. According to the filed complaint, our client worked at a Los Angeles-area Chipotle restaurant in 2024. She alleges that soon after she began working there, her direct supervisor started subjecting her to repeated unwanted sexual comments, questions, advances, and physical contact. The complaint alleges that our client repeatedly told him to stop. When he allegedly did not, she turned to management for help.

Reporting Harassment Should Be the Beginning of the Response

According to the complaint, our client reported the supervisor’s conduct to the restaurant’s General Manager multiple times. The General Manager allegedly told her that the concerns would be reported to Human Resources. Our client says she waited for something to happen. According to the lawsuit, she never received meaningful follow-up from Human Resources or management. She complained again. This time, our client allegedly asked for a practical solution: she wanted to stop being scheduled with the supervisor or to be transferred to another location. That is an important part of the allegations because workplace complaints are not always about punishing someone. Often, the employee’s most immediate concern is simply being able to come to work without encountering the person whose conduct she reported. According to the complaint, however, our client continued to be scheduled on shifts with the supervisor.

When the Employee Has to Solve the Problem Herself

The lawsuit alleges that because the scheduling continued, our client began finding coworkers to cover shifts so she could avoid interacting with the supervisor. Think about what that means from an employee’s perspective. She had allegedly reported the harassment. She had asked for help. She had asked not to work alongside the supervisor. Yet rather than management ensuring that the two employees were separated, she allegedly had to arrange shift coverage herself. According to the complaint, our client tried again to contact management about the situation. At one point, she requested Human Resources’ phone number from a covering manager but allegedly was not given the number. When the General Manager returned from leave, our client again explained that she did not feel safe working with the supervisor. The complaint alleges that the General Manager suggested a transfer to another location, but the transfer would not occur immediately. For an employee who believes she is being sexually harassed, another week can feel like a very long time.

Fear of Returning to Work

According to the complaint, our client became afraid of another encounter with the supervisor and did not return to work while waiting for the transfer. This is where the sequence of events becomes especially important. The lawsuit alleges that management knew why our client was not reporting for those shifts. She had allegedly complained multiple times about the supervisor, asked not to work with him, requested a transfer, and explained that she did not feel safe. Nevertheless, according to the complaint, the absences were classified as “no call no show.” That characterization transformed the situation. Instead of the employment record reflecting an employee who had repeatedly complained about harassment and was waiting to be separated from the alleged harasser, the record allegedly reflected an employee failing to report for scheduled shifts. The distinction between those two versions of events is one of the key themes in the case.

Complaining About Harassment Is Protected Activity

Our client’s complaint alleges that she engaged in protected activity by reporting sexual harassment to management. The lawsuit further alleges that rather than addressing the problem, the company failed to investigate and ultimately terminated her. The complaint includes claims for harassment based on sex, discrimination based on sex, failure to investigate, prevent, or remediate harassment and discrimination, retaliation under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, whistleblower retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The lawsuit specifically alleges that management knew about the harassment because our client complained to the General Manager multiple times. According to the complaint, the company nevertheless failed to take appropriate steps to stop the conduct or prevent it from recurring. Again, these are allegations, and the defendants are entitled to present their own version of events. But the case demonstrates why employees should pay attention not only to the harassment itself, but also to what happens after they report it.

Retaliation Can Take Different Forms

Termination is one of the clearest forms of alleged retaliation, but it is not the only one.

Employees may notice changes after making a workplace complaint.

A schedule may suddenly change. Hours may be reduced. Responsibilities may disappear. Performance criticism may begin. A previously approved request may be denied. A transfer may be blocked. An employee may receive write-ups for conduct that previously went unremarked upon. None of these actions automatically proves retaliation. But timing and context can matter. An employee who believes she is experiencing retaliation should consider documenting what changed, when it changed, who made the decision, and what explanation was provided.

Why Written Complaints Can Matter

Employees often report harassment verbally because speaking to a manager feels faster and more natural. But when possible, written documentation can help preserve what was actually reported. An email to management can show the date of the complaint and describe the employee’s concerns. A follow-up email can confirm what was discussed in a meeting. A written request for a transfer or schedule change can demonstrate what the employee asked the employer to do. Employees should also consider preserving responses from management or Human Resources. In our client’s case, the allegations involve multiple complaints, requests for scheduling changes, an anticipated transfer, attendance issues, and an eventual termination. A clear timeline can be particularly important when events unfold quickly.

The Employee Who Complains Should Not Become the Problem

One of the most difficult experiences for an employee is reporting misconduct and then feeling as though she has become the problem.

Instead of focusing on the alleged harassment, discussions may shift to the employee’s attendance, attitude, schedule, or willingness to continue working under the same conditions.

Our client’s complaint alleges this type of progression.

She says she repeatedly told her supervisor to stop. She reported the behavior to management. She requested not to work with the alleged harasser. She asked for a transfer. She ultimately did not return to shifts because she was afraid of another encounter. Then, according to the lawsuit, those absences were treated as “no call, no show,” and she was forced to quit. The allegations raise a basic question that applies in many workplace retaliation cases: what did the employer do after the employee asked for help?

What California Employees Can Take Away From This Case

If you report harassment, keep track of what happens afterward. Document when you made the complaint, who received it, and what you were told. If you request a transfer, schedule change, or separation from the alleged harasser, preserve that request. If management promises to follow up, note whether that actually happens. And if your treatment suddenly changes after your complaint, document those changes as well. Reporting harassment should not require an employee to sacrifice her career. Our client’s lawsuit alleges that she repeatedly sought help before ultimately losing her job. Her case highlights why employers’ responses to harassment complaints matter and why employees should preserve evidence not only of the original conduct, but also of everything that happens afterward. If you have experienced sexual harassment at work or believe your employer retaliated against you after you complained, Makarem & Associates can help you understand your rights and evaluate the circumstances of your case. This article is based on allegations made in a publicly filed legal complaint. The allegations described have not been proven in court, and the defendants are entitled to respond and defend themselves. Our client’s name has been withheld out of respect for her privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contact Our Team Today! [button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Form[/button] Call: 800-610-9646 Email Us: Intake@law-rm.com

When Racial Discrimination Goes Unchecked: Fighting Back Against Workplace Harassment and Retaliation at Energy Link

2026-10-14T19:04:08Z

At Makarem & Associates, we believe that every employee deserves to work in an environment free from racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Unfortunately, some employees find themselves subjected to discriminatory comments, unequal treatment, and workplace hostility simply because of their race. Even more troubling, employees who report this misconduct may find that their complaints go unanswered or that speaking up puts their careers at risk.

This is the situation at the center of our client's lawsuit against Energy Link Industrial Services, Inc., where allegations of repeated racial harassment, employer inaction, and retaliation raise serious concerns about workplace discrimination. Our client's experience serves as an important reminder that racial discrimination is not always limited to hiring decisions or unequal pay. It can become deeply embedded in workplace culture, particularly when supervisors engage in discriminatory conduct, and employers fail to intervene.

A Workplace Culture of Racial Harassment and Discrimination

Our client began working for Energy Link Industrial Services in 2018 and earned a promotion approximately six months later. What should have been an opportunity for professional growth instead became an environment allegedly marked by ongoing racial discrimination and harassment. According to the complaint, two supervisors repeatedly subjected our client to offensive racial comments, stereotypes, and inappropriate jokes. These included statements suggesting that Black employees were lazy or unwilling to work, derogatory remarks about our client's skin color, and the use of racial slurs. The complaint also describes inappropriate sexual comments directed at our client, further contributing to an allegedly hostile and degrading work environment. These were not isolated remarks or misunderstandings. Rather, the complaint alleges a continuing pattern of discriminatory behavior by individuals who held positions of authority over our client.

Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employees are protected from discrimination and harassment based on race, color, and other protected characteristics. Racial slurs, degrading stereotypes, and repeated discriminatory remarks can contribute to an unlawful hostile work environment, particularly when supervisors participate in or tolerate the misconduct. Our client's allegations demonstrate how racial harassment can undermine an employee's dignity and ability to feel respected in the workplace, even when that employee has demonstrated their qualifications and commitment to their job.

Reporting Racial Discrimination Should Not Lead to Retaliation

One of the most troubling aspects of our client's case is what allegedly happened after he attempted to address the discrimination. Beginning in 2021, our client repeatedly reported the racial harassment to management and Human Resources, but according to the complaint, Energy Link failed to take meaningful corrective action. In October 2023, he submitted a written complaint describing the discriminatory workplace environment and subsequently met with Human Resources to discuss his experiences. Although an investigation was reportedly initiated, our client was never informed of its outcome or whether disciplinary action had been taken. Instead, the complaint alleges that the situation worsened.

Shortly after submitting his written complaint, our client was demoted from his position, resulting in a significant reduction in pay. Coworkers allegedly began ridiculing him for reporting the harassment, labeling him a "snitch" and accusing him of attempting to shut down the company. He was also allegedly assigned menial tasks, further contributing to the hostile environment. After our client pursued legal action concerning the misconduct, the company's owner allegedly questioned whether something could be done to stop the dispute. Months later, our client's employment was terminated for reasons he alleges were pretextual. California law prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report racial discrimination or oppose unlawful workplace practices. Retaliation can take many forms, including demotions, reduced compensation, unfavorable assignments, increased hostility, and termination. Our client's case illustrates how an employee's decision to challenge discrimination can allegedly result in additional mistreatment rather than the protection they sought.

What California Employees Should Know About Their Rights

Employees experiencing racial discrimination should understand that they have legal protections, even when their employer refuses to acknowledge the problem. Under FEHA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on race and must take reasonable steps to prevent unlawful harassment and discrimination in the workplace. When employees report discriminatory conduct, employers have a responsibility to respond appropriately rather than allowing the misconduct to continue unchecked.

If you are experiencing racial harassment, documenting the incidents can be an important first step. Preserve relevant emails, text messages, written complaints, performance evaluations, and communications with Human Resources. Keeping a record of discriminatory comments, the individuals involved, and any changes to your employment following a complaint may help establish a pattern of misconduct or retaliation. Employees may also file complaints with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), which investigates allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment. Depending on the circumstances, employees may have grounds to pursue legal claims for racial discrimination, hostile work environment harassment, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, or wrongful termination. Importantly, employees do not have to wait until they lose their jobs to seek legal guidance.

An experienced California employment discrimination attorney can evaluate the circumstances, explain available legal remedies, and help employees determine how to protect their rights. No employee should feel compelled to tolerate racial slurs, degrading stereotypes, or discriminatory treatment out of fear of losing their livelihood.

Holding Employers Accountable for Workplace Racial Discrimination

Racial discrimination has no place in the workplace, and employers cannot disregard complaints of harassment simply because the misconduct involves supervisors or longstanding workplace practices. Our client's lawsuit against Energy Link Industrial Services highlights the serious consequences that can arise when allegations of racial harassment are not adequately addressed, and employees allegedly face retaliation for speaking up.

At Makarem & Associates, we are committed to advocating for employees who have experienced racial discrimination, hostile work environments, retaliation, and wrongful termination. If you have been subjected to racial harassment or believe your employer has retaliated against you for reporting discrimination, you may have legal options. Contact Makarem & Associates for a free consultation to discuss your experience, understand your rights, and learn how our attorneys may be able to help you pursue justice.

This article is based on allegations contained in a complaint filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, on February 24, 2025. The allegations described have not been established as facts by a court, and the defendants are entitled to respond and defend themselves. Our client's name and identifying personal details have been withheld out of respect for his privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Contact Our Team Today!

[button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Form[/button]

Call: 800-610-9646

Email us: intake@law-rm.com

Workplace Power to Demand Sex: Understanding Sexual Coercion and Harassment at Work

2026-10-13T16:13:06Z

Workplace sexual harassment is sometimes described in ways that make it sound relatively easy to identify: an inappropriate comment, an offensive joke, an unwanted invitation, or a coworker who refuses to respect boundaries. But some of the most serious workplace harassment allegations involve something more complicated. A supervisor may have authority over an employee’s assignments, promotions, job security, reputation, or future opportunities. When that workplace power is used to pressure an employee into unwanted sexual conduct, the employee may feel trapped between protecting herself and protecting her career. That is the central issue raised in our client’s lawsuit against PlanetArt and one of its supervisors. According to the filed complaint, our client began working for the company in 2021 and later received a promotion. The lawsuit alleges that a supervisor with authority over employees began making sexual advances toward her and eventually subjected her to repeated unwanted sexual conduct. The allegations are particularly serious because, according to the complaint, the supervisor repeatedly connected his sexual demands to his influence over our client’s employment.

When a Supervisor Refuses to Accept “No”

According to the complaint, the supervisor began making sexual advances toward our client in approximately 2022. Our client alleges that the conduct included repeated requests for sexual activity and unwanted physical contact. She says she refused his advances and reminded him that she was married. But according to the lawsuit, the refusals did not stop the conduct. Instead, the supervisor allegedly became frustrated and told her that she owed him sexual favors because he had done things for her. The complaint alleges that he referenced buying her lunch, coffee, or gifts and claimed that he had protected her job. He allegedly told her that she only received things from him and did not give anything in return. That type of allegation illustrates why workplace coercion can be very different from an ordinary unwanted advance. The issue is not simply whether one employee is interested in another. The issue is whether a supervisor uses workplace authority, influence, or fear of professional consequences to pressure an employee into unwanted conduct.

“I Helped Your Career” Is Not Consent

The complaint alleges that the supervisor repeatedly emphasized his influence within the company. According to the lawsuit, he claimed that he helped our client obtain a promotion by putting in a good word for her with a senior executive. He allegedly emphasized that he had significant influence because of his relationship with that executive and told our client that he could get her fired. The complaint further alleges that he threatened to withdraw his workplace protection if she did not comply with his sexual demands. These allegations highlight an important principle: professional assistance does not create a sexual obligation. A supervisor does not gain the right to demand sexual conduct because he recommended an employee for a promotion. Buying an employee lunch does not create consent. Giving an employee a favorable assignment does not create consent. Helping an employee at work does not entitle a supervisor to anything sexual in return. Employees should not be placed in a position where they believe their livelihood depends on complying with a supervisor’s sexual demands.

Fear of Losing a Job Can Shape an Employee’s Response

One difficult aspect of workplace sexual misconduct is that employees do not always respond in the way outsiders expect. Someone experiencing coercion may freeze. She may try to avoid conflict. She may continue working with the person. She may delay reporting what happened. She may comply with demands because she believes refusing could cost her job. According to the complaint, our client feared losing her employment and alleges that she sometimes froze or reluctantly complied because of that fear. That context matters. A workplace hierarchy can create a profound imbalance of power. A supervisor may control schedules, performance evaluations, promotions, assignments, discipline, or access to senior management. Even when the supervisor does not have unilateral power to fire someone, the employee may reasonably perceive that person as having substantial influence over her career. The complaint alleges that this imbalance was repeatedly reinforced by the supervisor’s statements about his ability to protect our client’s job or harm her career.

The Alleged Conduct Continued Over Time

The lawsuit describes the alleged misconduct as repeated rather than isolated. According to the complaint, our client sometimes arrived early at the office to participate in meetings with colleagues in different time zones. She alleges that the supervisor began arriving early as well so he could be alone with her and continue the unwanted conduct. The complaint alleges that the behavior continued for a lengthy period. This is another important aspect of workplace harassment cases. A single event can be serious, but repeated misconduct can create a work environment in which an employee begins changing her behavior simply to avoid the alleged harasser. An employee may change her schedule, avoid certain rooms, stop attending events, ask coworkers to accompany her, or become anxious about being alone with a supervisor. Eventually, continuing to work in that environment may feel impossible.

When Leaving the Job Is Not Really a Free Choice

According to the complaint, our client ultimately resigned from PlanetArt in 2024. The lawsuit alleges that the working conditions had become so intolerable that she believed she had no reasonable alternative but to leave. This type of allegation is often referred to as constructive discharge or constructive termination. The basic idea is that a resignation may not always reflect an employee’s genuine desire to leave. In some circumstances, an employee may resign because the workplace conditions have allegedly become unbearable. Our client’s complaint alleges that repeated sexual harassment and assault by a supervisor ultimately led her to leave her job. That distinction matters because the employer may say, “She resigned,” while the employee’s position may be, “I left because continuing to work there had become intolerable.”

What Happens After the Employer Learns About the Allegations?

The complaint also focuses on what allegedly happened after the misconduct was reported. According to the lawsuit, our client’s husband reported the alleged sexual harassment and assault to PlanetArt’s Human Resources Department after our client had left the company. The complaint alleges that our client was not interviewed and was not informed of the results of any investigation. She also alleges that she was not offered her position back. The lawsuit contends that the employer failed to adequately investigate, discipline, supervise, or otherwise respond to the alleged conduct. The complaint includes claims for sexual assault, sexual battery, sexual harassment and hostile work environment, sex discrimination, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, constructive wrongful discharge, and retaliation. These are allegations, and the defendants are entitled to dispute them. But the case illustrates why an employer’s response to reported misconduct can become an important part of a workplace harassment lawsuit.

Documentation Can Be Important

Employees experiencing harassment or coercion may feel overwhelmed, embarrassed, frightened, or uncertain about what to do next. When possible, documentation can help. Employees may want to preserve emails, text messages, workplace chat messages, calendar entries, performance reviews, and other communications. Writing down what happened soon after an incident can also help preserve details such as dates, locations, witnesses, and specific statements. If a report is made to Human Resources or management, employees may also consider keeping copies of the report and any response they receive. Documentation does not make the experience easier, but it can help preserve information that may become important later.

Workplace Authority Should Never Become Sexual Leverage

The central lesson from our client’s case is that workplace authority should never be used as sexual leverage. A promotion is not a sexual transaction. Favorable treatment is not consent. Job protection does not create a personal debt. And an employee should never be made to believe that keeping her job depends on satisfying a supervisor’s sexual demands. When sexual misconduct is tied to threats, promotions, workplace influence, or fear of termination, the employee may face pressures that are difficult for someone outside the situation to appreciate. Our client’s lawsuit alleges exactly that kind of workplace dynamic. If you have experienced sexual harassment, sexual coercion, sexual assault, or unwanted conduct from a supervisor or coworker, Makarem & Associates can help you understand your rights and evaluate the circumstances of your case. This article is based on allegations made in a publicly filed legal complaint. The allegations described have not been proven in court, and the defendants are entitled to respond and defend themselves. Our client’s name has been withheld out of respect for her privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. [button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Form[/button] Call us: 800-610-9646 Email us: intake@law-rm.com

Dental Assistant Alleges Sexual Harassment, Disability Discrimination, and Retaliation at a Dental Office

2026-10-09T17:55:39Z

For many employees, harassment and discrimination do not happen as isolated events. Problems can overlap: an employee may face inappropriate conduct from a supervisor, experience retaliation after speaking up or requesting workplace protections, and later find that a medical condition or disability becomes another source of mistreatment.

That is what our client alleges happened while working as a dental assistant for a dental office.

Makarem & Associates recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of our client against her former employer alleging sexual harassment, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, and constructive discharge.

According to the complaint, our client began working as a dental assistant and later worked at a second dental office. She alleges that what followed was a pattern of inappropriate workplace conduct that ultimately made her working conditions intolerable.

Unwanted Conduct in the Workplace

According to the complaint, our client worked in close physical proximity to a supervisor throughout the workday. She alleges that he repeatedly subjected her to unwanted and inappropriate physical contact, including after she asked him to stop. She also alleges that he regularly discussed inappropriate sexual subjects at work, made unwelcome sexual innuendos and comments about women’s bodies, and engaged in other sexually inappropriate conduct in her presence.

The alleged conduct was not limited to interactions with one person. The complaint alleges that our client also witnessed inappropriate conduct involving female coworkers and was herself subjected to degrading comments about her body by coworkers.

Over time, our client says the environment left her feeling intimidated, uncomfortable, and unsafe. She allegedly tried to keep her distance from the supervisor whenever possible. The complaint alleges that the harassment altered the conditions of her employment and created a hostile, intimidating, and abusive workplace.

Speaking Up Without an HR Department

Employees sometimes assume there is little they can do about harassment when their employer does not have a traditional human resources department. Our client’s allegations illustrate why that should not prevent workers from objecting to inappropriate conduct.

According to the complaint, the employer did not maintain an HR department. Even so, our client allegedly made her objections known in several ways. She moved away when subjected to unwanted physical contact, objected to inappropriate conduct, told a coworker that sexual conversations at work made her uncomfortable, and repeatedly asked that the unwanted contact stop. She alleges that her objections were dismissed or mocked.

The complaint further alleges that another employee expressly characterized the supervisor’s conduct as sexual harassment in front of management. Despite that warning and our client’s own objections, the lawsuit alleges that no immediate and appropriate corrective action was taken and the harassment continued.

For California employees, an employer’s lack of a dedicated HR department does not eliminate workplace protections against unlawful harassment and discrimination.

A Workplace Injury Was Followed by Reduced Hours

Our client’s allegations involve more than sexual harassment.

During her employment, she suffered an injury after falling at work. According to the complaint, she reported the injury and provided written instructions from a medical provider restricting her to light-duty work.

She alleges that her work situation then changed.

According to the lawsuit, her hours were reduced, she was told that business was slow and she was not needed, some of her shifts were assigned to another employee, and another dental assistant was hired. When our client questioned why her schedule had changed, she alleges that she was falsely accused of taking patients’ private information home.

The complaint alleges that these actions were retaliation for protected activity, including reporting her workplace injury, providing work restrictions, asking that those restrictions be honored, and opposing the alleged harassment.

When Hearing Aids Became a Workplace Issue

The lawsuit also raises an important issue about disability accommodations.

Later in her employment, our client was prescribed hearing aids for a hearing impairment. According to the complaint, her employer knew about the impairment because management observed her wearing the hearing aids at work.

Rather than allowing her to continue using them, our client alleges that she was told she did not need hearing aids, was mocked for wearing them, and was directed to remove them. She says she asked to continue wearing the hearing aids and explained why she needed them, but her requests were dismissed.

The complaint alleges that the hearing aids allowed our client to perform the essential duties of her position and imposed no cost or operational burden on the employer. Nevertheless, she claims the employer prohibited her from using them and offered no alternative accommodation.

Accommodation Requires a Conversation

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act provides protections for employees with qualifying disabilities, including requirements concerning reasonable accommodation and the interactive process.

The interactive process is important because accommodation is not supposed to be based simply on what an employer thinks an employee needs. It generally requires communication about the employee’s limitations and potential effective accommodations.

According to our client’s complaint, that conversation never occurred.

She alleges that management never met with her to discuss her hearing impairment, never asked what accommodation she needed, never sought information from her medical providers, and never proposed an alternative accommodation. Instead, she alleges that the accommodation she was already using, her hearing aids, was prohibited.

The lawsuit therefore asserts separate claims for failure to reasonably accommodate a disability and failure to engage in the interactive process.

When Working Conditions Become Intolerable

Our client ultimately resigned.

But the lawsuit alleges that this was not an ordinary voluntary resignation. According to the complaint, the combination of alleged sexual harassment, retaliation, and disability discrimination created working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in our client’s position would have felt there was no reasonable alternative but to leave.

That allegation forms the basis of the lawsuit’s constructive discharge claim.

Constructive discharge can arise when an employee resigns because the employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted intolerable working conditions. Here, the complaint alleges that the harassment, subsequent retaliation, and treatment related to our client’s hearing impairment collectively forced her to resign.

What California Employees Can Learn From This Case

Our client’s circumstances are specific to her, but the issues raised in the lawsuit illustrate several important principles for California workers.

You can object to harassment even when there is no HR department. Employees do not lose their workplace protections simply because they work for a smaller company without a formal human resources team.

Harassment does not have to involve a single dramatic incident. Repeated unwanted touching, sexual comments, innuendos, degrading remarks, and other inappropriate conduct can collectively affect an employee’s working environment.

Requests for disability accommodation should be taken seriously. When an employer knows that an employee may need an accommodation, California law may require the employer to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to identify an effective reasonable accommodation. The complaint specifically invokes that requirement under Government Code section 12940(n).

Retaliation can take different forms. It does not necessarily mean immediate termination. The lawsuit alleges actions including reduced hours, reassigned shifts, accusations against the employee, and ultimately working conditions that allegedly forced her resignation.

Documenting objections and accommodation requests can matter. Employees experiencing workplace problems may want to preserve written restrictions, accommodation requests, schedules, messages, and notes reflecting when they raised concerns and what happened afterward.

Where the Case Stands

Makarem & Associates has filed a lawsuit on our client’s behalf against her former employer. The complaint asserts eight causes of action: sexual harassment, sex discrimination, disability discrimination, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, retaliation, and constructive discharge in violation of public policy.

The lawsuit seeks damages for alleged lost wages and other losses, emotional distress, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and other available relief.

If you are experiencing sexual harassment, disability discrimination, retaliation, or problems obtaining a reasonable accommodation at work in California, you may have legal options. Makarem & Associates represents employees in workplace disputes throughout California and can help you understand the protections that may apply to your situation.

[button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Form![/button]

Call us: 800-610-9646

Email us: intake@law-rm.com

When the Owner Is Accused of Sexual Harassment In The Restaurant Industry

2026-10-08T18:21:33Z

Why Owner Harassment Creates a Reporting Trap Employees are often told to report sexual harassment to a supervisor or business owner. That advice becomes difficult when the person accused is the owner who controls schedules, discipline, pay, and continued employment. In a small restaurant, there may be no independent human resources department and no higher manager with clear authority to intervene. A written policy means little if employees believe every complaint will return to the alleged harasser. The complaint in a recent restaurant harassment complaint presents allegations of repeated owner-on-employee harassment and an unsuccessful effort to obtain help from another supervisor. The pleading is one party's account, not a court finding. The defendants may dispute its allegations. As an educational example, however, it highlights the difference between isolated offensive conduct and an alleged pattern involving sexual comments, physical contact, private messages, and retaliation for rejection. Restaurant employees are entitled to the same protections as workers in other industries. Customer service expectations, tipping culture, close quarters, alcohol service, and late hours do not lower the legal standard. Employers must provide a workplace where complaints can be made and addressed without requiring the employee to confront the owner alone. Allegations in a Recent Owner Harassment Complaint According to the complaint, the employee began working for the restaurant as a host and server several years before her resignation. the restaurant owner allegedly served as the owner and manager. The complaint states that the owner was substantially older than the employee and held direct authority over her work. It alleges that he repeatedly targeted the employee and created a hostile work environment for her and other employees. The alleged conduct included forced hugs, kisses on the cheek and neck, comments about the employee's body and weight, sexual propositions, questions about whether she was submissive, and statements about sexual acts. The complaint also alleges that the owner smacked or touched her buttocks, rubbed her neck and back, pulled her ponytail, stared and winked while she worked, sent sexual text messages, and directed her to come to his office so they could be alone. The complaint further alleges that the owner grabbed the employee's face and kissed her with his tongue on several occasions. When she refused to kiss him, he allegedly became angry and insulted her. The pleading states that the owner encouraged her to consume alcohol with him at work to make her more susceptible to his advances. It alleges that the employee had maintained sobriety for a significant period before employment but relapsed under the stress of the conduct. The employee allegedly complained repeatedly to a supervisor, but no corrective action was taken. The complaint states that the conditions caused severe emotional distress and became so intolerable that she resigned after the alleged conditions became intolerable. It asserts claims for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful constructive termination under California law. Supervisor Harassment Under California Law FEHA's harassment provisions apply broadly. California's Civil Rights Department states that all employers, regardless of size, are covered by the harassment provisions of state law. Employers can be liable for harassment by supervisors or agents, and the individual who engaged in harassment may also be personally liable. Whether someone qualifies as a supervisor depends on actual authority, including the power to hire, discipline, assign, reward, discharge, or effectively recommend those decisions. Sexual harassment may involve unwanted touching, sexual comments, propositions, repeated requests, sexual messages, or conduct that communicates hostility based on sex. The legal analysis examines the complete circumstances, including frequency, severity, physical nature, power imbalance, and impact on working conditions. A single incident can be significant when it is extremely severe, while repeated conduct can establish a hostile pattern even if individual events are described as jokes. An employee's response must also be considered in context. Continuing to report for work, answering a message, accepting a schedule, or attempting to remain polite does not necessarily mean the conduct was welcome. Restaurant employees may depend on tips and shifts, need a reference, or fear that rejecting an owner will end their job. The question is whether the conduct was unwelcome, not whether the employee reacted in the way an outsider expected. Employers must take reasonable steps to prevent harassment. An effective policy identifies multiple complaint channels, prohibits retaliation, provides prompt and impartial investigation, and explains available corrective action. In an owner-operated business, an external hotline, designated board member, outside investigator, or counsel may be necessary to create a reporting route that does not depend on the accused owner. Training is part of prevention, but a signed attendance sheet is not the same as an effective program. Managers must know how to recognize a complaint, document it, preserve confidentiality as far as practical, and escalate it without promising secrecy or a particular result. Employees should be told whom to contact when the owner or senior manager is involved and should not be required to report through the alleged harasser. The physical setting can affect prevention. Restaurants often place workers in small kitchens, offices, storage rooms, and closing shifts with limited oversight. Employers can assess where one-on-one contact occurs, whether cameras and access controls are appropriate, how alcohol policies are enforced, and whether supervisors use scheduling or private meetings to isolate employees. These operational details may reveal risks that a generic handbook misses. Why Internal Complaints Must Lead to Action A complaint does not need to use legal terminology. An employee who reports unwanted kissing, touching, sexual messages, or fear of being alone with an owner has provided information that should trigger a serious response. A supervisor should document the report, protect the employee from continued contact when appropriate, preserve relevant messages, and elevate the matter to someone who can act independently. An employer's knowledge can come from more than a formal written complaint. Managers may witness conduct, receive verbal disclosures, observe employees avoiding an owner, or learn that similar complaints have been made. An employer cannot rely on the absence of a completed form when leaders knew or should have known about conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. Corrective action should be proportionate and effective. Telling the employee to avoid the owner, changing only the complainant's schedule, or encouraging the parties to work it out can shift the burden to the person reporting. A sound response evaluates safety, contact, reporting relationships, evidence, witnesses, and whether other workers may have experienced similar conduct. The employer should communicate enough about the process to show that the complaint has not disappeared. Retaliation can follow an explicit complaint, a rejection of advances, or participation in an investigation. Reduced hours, undesirable assignments, discipline, hostility, or pressure to resign may require separate review. Employers should examine decisions made after a report for consistency and document legitimate reasons without manufacturing a record against the complainant. Witnesses also need protection. Coworkers may fear losing preferred shifts, tips, or advancement if they confirm a complaint against an owner. An investigator should interview witnesses separately, warn decision-makers against interference, and evaluate whether schedules or assignments changed after anyone cooperated. A process that protects only the named complainant can still fail if witnesses are pressured into silence. Constructive Discharge and Available Remedies A resignation does not always end the legal analysis. Constructive discharge may be alleged when an employer intentionally creates or knowingly permits working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. Courts apply a demanding, fact-specific standard. Ordinary workplace dissatisfaction is insufficient, but persistent unwanted physical conduct by a person who controls the business and the absence of an effective reporting route may be relevant. An employee evaluating options should preserve text messages, schedules, complaints, witness names, pay records, medical or counseling documentation, and any written response from management. Original files are more useful than edited screenshots. A dated timeline should separate what the employee personally experienced from what coworkers reported. Evidence of similar complaints can matter, but employees should avoid pressuring witnesses or collecting information unlawfully. An employment attorney can assess whether the conduct may support harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or constructive-discharge claims; identify the proper defendants; and track administrative and court deadlines. Counsel may help submit a complaint, request preservation of records, seek interim protections, or negotiate a resolution. Consulting an attorney does not obligate an employee to file a lawsuit. The employee's allegations show why a restaurant cannot make the owner the beginning and end of its complaint system. A credible process must function when the highest-ranking person is accused. Independent review protects employees, produces more reliable findings, and gives the business an opportunity to correct conduct before the workplace becomes intolerable. This article provides general information, not legal advice. It summarizes allegations in a filed complaint that have not been proven, and the defendants may contest them. Rights and deadlines depend on the facts of each case. [button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Us![/button]

Call Us: (800)610-9646

Email Us: intake@law-rm.com

A Short Employment Period, Broader Wage Concerns: Class Action Against Great Northern

2026-10-08T17:52:36Z

Sometimes wage-and-hour problems do not take years to become visible. According to a proposed class action filed by Makarem & Associates against Wisconsin Great Northern Corporation and Great Northern Lamination, our client worked only a short period as a non-exempt V-Board Maker at the defendants’ Fontana facility. Yet during that time, he alleges he encountered practices that went beyond his individual paycheck and reflected broader policies affecting other hourly employees.

The complaint alleges that employees were not fully paid for all time worked, were required to work through breaks, experienced missed or shortened meal and rest periods, incurred unreimbursed work expenses, received inaccurate wage statements, and were not paid all wages owed after separation. The lawsuit seeks relief not only for our client, but also for other similarly situated non-exempt employees in California.

A Few Extra Minutes Can Become Unpaid Work

One of the central issues in the lawsuit is off-the-clock work.

According to the complaint, Great Northern allegedly allowed or required employees to continue working without recording or paying them for all of that time. The lawsuit specifically alleges that employees were required to work through their ten-minute rest periods. It also claims that workers were sometimes scheduled for shifts of a particular length but continued working after the scheduled shift ended without corresponding adjustments to their time records.

That kind of practice can affect more than an employee’s base wages. If unpaid time pushes a worker into overtime, the employee may also lose overtime compensation. The complaint alleges that this happened to our client and other class members, claiming they regularly worked overtime hours that were not fully compensated.

The lawsuit therefore seeks recovery for both unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages.

The Workload Allegedly Left Little Room for Breaks

The complaint also focuses heavily on meal and rest periods.

According to the lawsuit, employees allegedly experienced meal periods that were missed, shortened, late, or interrupted. The complaint claims that the workload assigned during shifts frequently left employees without enough time to take a full, uninterrupted meal period. The lawsuit further alleges that employees were not paid the additional premium wages sought when compliant meal periods were not provided. The same alleged problem applied to rest periods. According to the complaint, employees sometimes had shortened, interrupted, untimely, or completely missed rest breaks because the amount of work they were expected to complete did not leave sufficient time to take them.

That allegation connects directly to the off-the-clock claims. If an employee is supposedly on a break but is still expected to perform work, the issue is not simply whether the break was missed. It can also affect whether every minute worked was actually recorded and paid.

Wage Theft Is Not Always One Missing Paycheck

Wage-and-hour violations can be easy to think of as one large unpaid amount. But many cases involve smaller problems occurring across several parts of an employee’s compensation.

That is what this complaint alleges. The lawsuit claims employees lost wages through unpaid time and overtime. It separately alleges missed meal and rest period premiums. It also claims employees had to pay certain business expenses themselves and were later provided wage statements that did not accurately reflect what they had earned.

Taken together, those allegations raise a broader question: whether the payroll system accurately captured the full economic cost of the work employees were performing.

Workers Allegedly Paid for Their Own Job Expenses

Another significant part of the lawsuit involves necessary work expenses.

According to the complaint, the defendants failed to reimburse employees for costs incurred while performing their jobs, including expenses for safety equipment and travel.

For an hourly employee, those expenses can make a meaningful difference. If a worker must spend personal money on items necessary to perform the job, that cost effectively reduces the amount the employee takes home from working.

The complaint seeks reimbursement of those expenses, along with other available relief.

When the Paystub Does Not Tell the Whole Story

The lawsuit also alleges that employees received inaccurate itemized wage statements.

According to the complaint, the wage statements allegedly failed to accurately report information including gross wages, total hours worked, net wages, applicable hourly rates, and the number of hours worked at each rate.

That can matter because wage statements are often the employee’s primary record of how the employer calculated each paycheck. If the recorded hours are incomplete, the wage statement may also fail to show the employee the full amount of work actually performed.

The lawsuit seeks statutory penalties and other relief based on those alleged inaccuracies.

The Allegations Continued Through the End of Employment

The complaint further alleges that the wage issues did not end when employees separated from the company.

According to the lawsuit, our client and other former employees were not timely paid all wages due when their employment ended. Based on those allegations, the lawsuit seeks waiting-time penalties for qualifying former employees.

California wage-and-hour disputes often involve this final stage because unpaid wages accumulated during employment can remain unpaid after separation. The complaint alleges that happened here.

Why This Is a Class Action

Our client filed the case not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of other non-exempt employees who worked for the defendants in California during the applicable class period.

The complaint alleges that the same general policies affected employees across the proposed class, including policies involving unpaid minimum and overtime wages, meal and rest periods, expense reimbursement, wage statements, and final pay.

According to the lawsuit, the proposed class includes at least 100 employees.

The significance of a class case is that the alleged harm may not look large when viewed one shift or one employee at a time. A missed ten-minute break, several minutes of unpaid work, an unreimbursed expense, or one inaccurate wage statement may appear small in isolation. The complaint alleges that these practices were recurring and affected a broader group of workers.

What California Hourly Employees Should Watch For

Employees may want to pay attention when their actual workday does not match what appears on their time records.

If you regularly begin work before clocking in, continue working after clocking out, perform tasks during breaks, or are expected to skip meal periods because of workload, keeping your own notes can be useful. Employees should also review wage statements for missing hours or incorrect rates and preserve receipts for work-related purchases and travel.

A final paycheck deserves the same attention. If wages were already missing during employment, those amounts may still be owed after the job ends.

Where the Case Stands

Makarem & Associates filed the proposed class action in San Bernardino County Superior Court against Wisconsin Great Northern Corporation and Great Northern Lamination. The complaint asserts claims for unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, meal-period violations, rest-period violations, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed expenses, unfair competition, and waiting-time penalties.

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 defendants are entitled to respond and defend themselves. 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.

[button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Our Team Today![/button]

Call Us: (800)610-9646

Email Us: intake@law-rm.com

A Dishwasher Says She Reported Sexual Harassment — Then Her Hours Were Cut: Lawsuit Against Bon Appetit

2026-10-07T18:57:48Z

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.

[button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Us![/button]

Call Us: (800)610-9646

Email Us: intake@law-rm.com

A Truck Driver’s Story: Sexual Harassment, Assault, and Retaliation

2026-10-06T18:45:46Z

Some workplace harassment cases build slowly, over months of comments that escalate a little at a time. Others turn physical almost immediately. Our client's case is the second kind. It's a hard one to read, but it's also exactly the kind of situation we want other employees to be able to recognize before it goes as far as it did here.

A New Job, and Harassment From the Very First Days

Our client began working as a truck driver in January 2025. From the outset of her employment, according to the complaint, her supervisor began making frequent sexually explicit remarks to her, calling her sexy or beautiful, and repeatedly pressuring her to have sex with him.

Compliance Born Out of Fear, Not Consent

About two weeks into the job, the complaint alleges, the combination of her supervisor's persistent harassment and his authority over her employment left her feeling intimidated and trapped. She eventually gave in to his demands, not because she wanted to, but because she felt she had no real choice and feared what would happen to her job, or to her, if she refused.

Under California law, a person's apparent compliance does not necessarily mean the conduct was welcome, particularly where a supervisor is allegedly using workplace authority, pressure, or intimidation.

When It Became a Physical Assault

The harassment didn't stop there, and it escalated. Her supervisor kept pressuring her for more sexual encounters, commented on her appearance, and tracked her whereabouts at work, leaving her feeling unsafe.

In late January 2025, the complaint alleges, he entered her truck without permission, groped her despite her objections, and sexually assaulted her by forcing himself on her without her consent.

Weeks later, in about February 2025, he allegedly tried again. After repeatedly calling and video-calling her, he approached her truck at work and attempted to get inside while making graphic sexual advances. This time, our client physically pushed him back. He continued pressuring her for sex anyway.

Reporting It, and What Happened After

The complaint alleges that our client reported the February incident to a dispatcher on shift. She was later contacted by the company's HR department and reported her supervisor's conduct directly to HR. According to the complaint, HR later told her that her supervisor had admitted to inappropriate conduct.

Rather than protect her, the complaint alleges, the company retaliated against her. She received a verbal warning and, in March 2025, a formal written write-up, both of which she alleges were pretextual.

Unable to Return

Our client went on medical leave for an unrelated physical injury beginning in late March 2025, with a return date set for mid-May. But the toll of the alleged harassment, assault, and retaliation she had already experienced made the prospect of returning to the workplace unbearable.

On or about May 8, 2025, she alleges that she was constructively discharged because the conditions her employer had allowed to persist left her with no reasonable way to return.

Where the Case Stands

Our client's complaint against her former employer and supervisor raises five claims under California law: sexual harassment, discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment and discrimination, and constructive discharge in violation of public policy. Constructive discharge generally means that working conditions became so intolerable that the employee felt she had no reasonable choice but to leave the job.

If This Sounds Like Somewhere You've Worked

Going along with something out of fear does not necessarily mean it was welcome. If you complied because you were afraid of losing your job or facing other consequences, that context can matter.
A supervisor's authority over your job can make the situation even more serious. Their power over your schedule, assignments, discipline, or continued employment may be highly relevant to a harassment claim.
You can report misconduct through the channels available to you. An initial report does not always have to begin with HR, particularly when an employee is trying to get help in the moment.
An employer's response after a complaint matters. Even where the underlying misconduct is acknowledged, an employee may still have concerns about retaliation or whether the employer took adequate corrective action.
Discipline that closely follows a complaint may warrant scrutiny. Warnings, write-ups, reduced hours, undesirable assignments, or other adverse actions can potentially support a retaliation claim depending on the circumstances.
Being forced to leave can sometimes amount to constructive discharge. If working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign, California law may treat the separation differently from an ordinary voluntary resignation.

If you're dealing with sexual harassment, assault, or retaliation at work anywhere in California, you don't have to figure out what to do next on your own. Makarem & Associates offers free, confidential consultations to help you understand your options. Reach out to us — we're here to listen and to help.

This article is based on allegations made in a complaint filed in court. Those allegations have not been proven, and the defendants are entitled to contest them. Our client is proceeding under a pseudonym to protect her privacy, and her name has been withheld here for the same reason. Nothing in this article is legal advice; if you're dealing with a similar situation, please speak with an employment attorney about the specifics of your case.

[button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Us![/button]

Call Us: 800-610-9646

Email Us: intake@law-rm.com

When Working Through Breaks Becomes Wage Theft: What California Employees Should Know About Off-the-Clock Work

2026-10-05T21:00:19Z

At Makarem & Associates, we regularly speak with employees who know they are working hard but are not always sure whether they are being paid correctly for all of that work. Wage theft does not always look like an employer simply refusing to issue a paycheck. More often, it can happen in smaller increments: employees working through lunch, answering work questions while clocked out, staying late without recording the time, missing rest breaks because there is no one available to cover them, or paying business expenses out of pocket without reimbursement. Those are some of the issues at the center of our client’s case against Select Comfort Retail Corporation. According to the filed complaint, our client worked as a non-exempt sales associate at a California retail location. The lawsuit alleges that the company maintained policies and practices that resulted in unpaid minimum wages and overtime, missed and interrupted meal and rest periods, inaccurate wage statements, unreimbursed business expenses, and unpaid wages upon separation from employment. The case was filed as a representative action under California’s Private Attorneys General Act, commonly known as PAGA, based on alleged Labor Code violations affecting our client and other aggrieved employees.

A Meal Break on Paper Is Not Always a Real Break

One of the central issues raised in the complaint involves meal periods. California employees may be familiar with the practice of clocking out for lunch, but what matters is not simply what the timekeeping system says. According to the complaint, our client and other employees were sometimes required to continue working even though a 30-minute meal period was recorded as unpaid time. The complaint alleges that employees were given too much work to complete and sometimes had no one available to relieve them for a break. As a result, meal periods were allegedly taken late, cut short, interrupted, or missed altogether. That can create a serious problem when the employer’s records show an uninterrupted meal period even though the employee was still performing work. For example, imagine that an employee clocks out for lunch but continues answering customer questions, assisting coworkers, handling a work call, or responding to a supervisor. From the employee’s perspective, she is still working. Yet if the timecard automatically reflects a 30-minute unpaid meal period, that work time may never appear on the paycheck. The complaint alleges that this type of practice resulted in an automatic deduction of meal-period time even when employees were required to continue working or were interrupted during their breaks. Over the course of one shift, that may seem like only a few minutes. Over months or years of employment, however, those minutes can add up.

Rest Breaks Can Be Lost to Workload Too

The complaint also alleges that employees were not always provided uninterrupted rest periods. In many workplaces, employees technically have a right to take a rest break, but the practical realities of the job may make it difficult or impossible to do so. A store may be understaffed. A supervisor may expect an employee to remain available. Customers may continue arriving. An employee may be told to finish a task before stepping away. According to the complaint, employees were required to continue working throughout scheduled shifts without adequate relief and sometimes had to take rest breaks late or skip them entirely. The allegations highlight an important distinction: having a rest-break policy in a handbook is not necessarily the same as employees actually being able to take their breaks. Employees should pay attention to what happens in practice. Are workers expected to remain available during breaks? Do supervisors discourage employees from stepping away? Is there adequate staffing to cover employees while they take legally required breaks? Are missed breaks treated as the employee’s problem rather than a scheduling or staffing issue? Those practical details can become significant in a wage-and-hour case.

Off-the-Clock Work Can Affect Overtime Too

The lawsuit does not stop at meal and rest periods. According to the complaint, our client and other non-exempt employees regularly worked more than eight hours in a day or more than forty hours in a week but were not paid for all overtime worked. The complaint also alleges that employees performed work off the clock and were not compensated for all time they remained under the employer’s control. That matters because unpaid work does not exist in isolation. If an employee is already working a full shift, additional off-the-clock time can potentially affect overtime calculations as well. Consider an employee who works eight recorded hours but performs another thirty minutes of work while clocked out. Those thirty minutes are not merely missing from the total hours. Depending on the circumstances, they may also affect whether overtime compensation is owed. The complaint further alleges that employees were not accurately paid for certain work performed during what the lawsuit describes as “market share events.” The broader issue is straightforward: employees should generally be paid for the time they are actually working, not simply the time the employer’s records happen to capture.

Paycheck Problems Often Lead to Other Problems

One reason wage-and-hour cases can become complicated is that one timekeeping problem may create several additional issues. If an employer fails to record all hours worked, the employee’s wage statement may also become inaccurate. If wages remain unpaid when an employee leaves the company, the dispute can continue after employment ends. If an employee must use a personal cell phone or other personal resources for work without reimbursement, that can create another category of alleged loss. Our client’s complaint raises all of these issues. According to the lawsuit, employees allegedly received wage statements that did not accurately reflect all hours worked and did not include certain required information. The complaint also alleges that employees incurred necessary business expenses, including use of personal cell phones for work-related duties, without being fully reimbursed. The lawsuit further alleges that employees were not always paid all wages owed when their employment ended. Taken together, these allegations illustrate how a seemingly simple timekeeping practice can affect multiple parts of an employee’s compensation.

Why Employees Should Keep Their Own Records

Employees often assume that their employer’s payroll system will accurately preserve everything that happened during a workday. That is not always the case. If you regularly work through lunch, write it down. If you are asked to perform tasks before clocking in or after clocking out, keep track of the dates and approximate amount of time. If you are unable to take rest breaks because of staffing or workload demands, document the circumstances. If you use your personal phone, car, supplies, or other property for work, keep records of those expenses. Employees should also consider keeping copies of wage statements, schedules, timecards, written policies, and work-related messages when appropriate. These records can help show the difference between what the employer’s system reports and what actually happened in the workplace. That difference is a central theme in our client’s case. According to the complaint, Select Comfort’s policies and practices allegedly resulted in employees working through breaks, performing unpaid work, missing overtime compensation, receiving inaccurate wage statements, and paying certain business expenses themselves.

Small Amounts of Unpaid Time Can Become Significant

One reason employees sometimes hesitate to raise wage concerns is that each individual incident may appear minor. Ten minutes here. Fifteen minutes there. A missed lunch once or twice. A few work-related calls on a personal phone. But wage-and-hour laws focus on compensation for work performed. When the same practice occurs repeatedly, small amounts of unpaid time can accumulate. And when the same policy or practice affects multiple employees, the potential impact can become much larger. That is part of the significance of a representative case like this one. The allegations are not limited to a single isolated payroll mistake. The complaint alleges broader policies and practices affecting non-exempt employees.

What California Employees Can Take Away From This Case

Employees should not assume that a timecard is automatically correct simply because it was generated by an employer’s system. Ask yourself whether the recorded hours match the hours you actually worked. Consider whether your meal periods were genuinely uninterrupted. Think about whether you were able to take rest breaks without continuing to perform job duties. Review whether your overtime appears accurate. Keep track of expenses you incur because of your work. Most importantly, pay attention to patterns. One missed break may feel insignificant. Repeated missed breaks, unpaid work, inaccurate time records, and unreimbursed expenses may tell a different story. Our client’s lawsuit against Select Comfort alleges that these kinds of practices affected her and other non-exempt employees. The case is a reminder that wage theft can happen gradually and may be difficult to identify unless employees compare their pay records with what actually happened during their workdays. If you believe you have not been paid for all of the time you worked, have regularly worked through meal or rest breaks, or have concerns about your wage statements or unpaid work expenses, Makarem & Associates can help you understand your rights and evaluate your options. This article is based on allegations made in a publicly filed legal complaint. The allegations described have not been proven in court, and the defendant is entitled to respond and defend itself. Our client’s name has been withheld out of respect for her privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. [button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Us[/button] Call Us: 800-610-9646 Email Us: intake@law-rm.com Website: https://www.makaremlaw.com/