Makarem & Associates Makarem & Associates 2026-11-11T18:12:12Z https://www.makaremlaw.com/feed/atom/ WordPress /wp-content/uploads/sites/1404348/2025/02/cropped-New_Fav-32x32.png by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[Holiday Party or HR Nightmare? When Office Celebrations Cross the Line Into Sexual Harassment]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256311 2026-11-11T18:12:12Z 2026-11-11T18:12:12Z Workplace holiday parties are often treated as a chance for employees to relax, celebrate accomplishments, and connect outside the usual office environment. Companies may reserve restaurants, host gatherings at event venues, or organize celebrations after business hours. Although these events are intended to be enjoyable, the change in setting does not eliminate the professional relationships and power dynamics that exist in the workplace.

Alcohol, informal conversations, and late-night activities can create situations in which employees feel pressured to tolerate behavior they would never accept during a normal workday. A supervisor may make unwanted advances, an employee may experience inappropriate touching, or a coworker may engage in repeated sexual comments that make the event uncomfortable or intimidating. When conduct crosses professional and legal boundaries, calling it a party does not automatically excuse it. Under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), workplace sexual harassment is prohibited in a range of employment-related settings. A holiday celebration may fall within that context depending on its connection to work, the individuals involved, and the circumstances surrounding the misconduct. Understanding harassment on the job by supervisor figures and the potential responsibility of employers can help employees recognize when an office celebration has become a serious workplace issue. How Alcohol and Late-Night Hours Can Blur Professional Boundaries Holiday parties often create a less formal atmosphere than the workplace. Employees may interact with managers and coworkers socially, attend events at bars or restaurants, and participate in activities that continue after regular working hours. Alcohol may also be served. These circumstances can contribute to lowered inhibitions and poor judgment, but they do not change an employee's right to be free from sexual harassment. Unwanted sexual conduct can take many forms during an office celebration. A coworker may make repeated comments about an employee's appearance, ask intrusive questions about their personal life, or make sexually suggestive jokes. Another employee may repeatedly attempt to initiate physical contact, touch someone without consent, or continue pursuing an employee after being told to stop. These actions may become especially concerning when they create an intimidating or offensive environment based on sex or gender. The conduct of supervisors deserves particular attention. A manager may use the social setting to make unwanted advances, pressure an employee to spend time alone with them, or suggest that personal attention could influence professional opportunities. When someone with authority over an employee uses that position to pursue unwanted sexual conduct, the power imbalance can make it difficult for the employee to refuse or leave the situation comfortably. Alcohol does not excuse harassment. An employee who has been drinking remains responsible for their conduct, and an employer cannot automatically dismiss an allegation because the incident occurred after hours or at a venue outside company property. Similarly, an employee's decision to attend a party, socialize with coworkers, or accept a drink does not mean they agreed to unwanted sexual comments, touching, or advances. The late-night setting can also make reporting more difficult. An employee may feel embarrassed about what happened, worry that coworkers will gossip, or fear that management will characterize the incident as a misunderstanding between people who had been drinking. A person may not immediately report an incident because they need time to process what occurred or are concerned about the professional consequences of making a complaint. It is important to distinguish ordinary social discomfort from conduct that may violate FEHA. Not every awkward conversation or regrettable comment will amount to unlawful harassment. Courts evaluate the nature of the conduct and the surrounding circumstances, including its severity, frequency, and effect on the employee's work environment. A serious incident may be actionable on its own in appropriate circumstances, while repeated conduct may become unlawful when it contributes to a hostile work environment. Employees should also remember that harassment can continue after the party ends. Unwanted messages, inappropriate photographs, repeated invitations, or pressure to meet privately may follow an incident at the event. These communications can provide important context when evaluating whether the conduct was isolated or part of a continuing pattern. Company Liability at Work Holiday Parties A company's responsibility for harassment at a holiday party depends on the circumstances, including the relationship between the event and the workplace, the identity of the person responsible, and the employer's response. An event does not have to take place inside the office to raise potential FEHA concerns. When an employer organizes, sponsors, or encourages attendance at a celebration, the connection to employment may be relevant to determining whether the conduct occurred in a work-related setting. California law provides different standards for employer liability depending on who committed the harassment. Under FEHA, an employer is generally strictly liable for unlawful harassment committed by a supervisor or qualifying agent. This means the employer may be responsible even if upper management did not know about the conduct beforehand. The issue of supervisor personally liable harassment is separate: California law also allows an employee who personally engages in prohibited harassment to be held individually liable. When the alleged harasser is a coworker who is not a supervisor or agent, the employer's knowledge and response become particularly important. An employer may be liable if it knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. For example, if employees or event organizers report inappropriate conduct during a party and management ignores the complaint, the company's response may create additional legal exposure. The relationship between the event and the employer can matter in evaluating liability. A company-sponsored party held at a restaurant may still be closely connected to employment, even though employees are away from the office and not performing their ordinary job duties. On the other hand, a purely private gathering between coworkers may present different legal questions. The analysis depends on the facts, and the location or time of the incident is not necessarily decisive by itself. Employers also have responsibilities to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment. This includes maintaining appropriate policies, providing required training, and ensuring employees have a meaningful way to report misconduct. Those responsibilities do not disappear when a company hosts a social event. Employers can take practical precautions by communicating expectations, ensuring managers understand their obligations, providing a way to raise concerns during an event, and responding appropriately when complaints arise. The company's response after an incident can be just as important as the original conduct. An employer should not dismiss a complaint simply because alcohol was involved, the event occurred outside regular hours, or the accused employee is well regarded. A meaningful response may require a prompt and impartial investigation, appropriate interim measures, and corrective action when misconduct is substantiated. Employees who report harassment should also be protected from retaliation. FEHA prohibits employers from punishing individuals for opposing conduct they reasonably believe is unlawful or participating in protected complaint proceedings. Retaliation may include termination, demotion, reduced responsibilities, or other materially harmful changes to employment. Exclusion, unfair discipline, or changes in treatment after a complaint may also be relevant when considered in context. How to Find the Right Lawyer for You If you experience sexual harassment at a workplace holiday party, speaking with an employment attorney can help you understand whether the conduct may support a legal claim. These situations can involve questions about the event's connection to work, the authority of the person responsible, the employer's knowledge, and the steps taken after a complaint. An attorney can evaluate these circumstances and explain the legal options that may be available. When choosing an attorney, it can be helpful to look for experience handling California sexual harassment and FEHA claims. Holiday party incidents may involve both workplace relationships and social interactions, so an attorney should be prepared to examine the broader context rather than focusing only on the location or time of the incident. Experience with supervisor harassment, employer liability, and retaliation can be particularly relevant. Preserving evidence can help clarify what happened. Employees should retain relevant text messages, emails, photographs, videos, and communications exchanged before or after the event. If coworkers witnessed the incident, it may be useful to record their names and what they observed. Employees should also make a written account while their recollection is fresh, including the date, location, individuals involved, and any conversations that followed. An attorney can also help evaluate how the employer responded. This may involve reviewing internal complaints, investigation records, company policies, and communications with human resources or management. If the company failed to take appropriate action or retaliated against the employee for reporting the incident, those facts may affect the claims available. Potential remedies depend on the facts and applicable law. They may include compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and other damages recognized under FEHA. Some cases may also involve requests for changes to workplace practices or other forms of relief. An attorney can explain the administrative procedures and filing deadlines that may apply before a lawsuit can be pursued. Employees should not feel that they must handle the situation alone or immediately leave their jobs to protect their rights. Legal advice can help clarify available options while accounting for the employee's professional and personal circumstances. Conclusion A workplace holiday party may take place outside the office, but employees do not lose their legal protections when the workday ends. Unwanted advances, inappropriate touching, sexual comments, and other conduct based on sex or gender can raise serious concerns, particularly when a supervisor uses the event to exploit a position of authority. California law recognizes that employers may be responsible for harassment committed by supervisors and may also face liability when they fail to respond appropriately to coworker misconduct. A company's obligation to prevent harassment and protect employees from retaliation does not automatically disappear at a social event. If a holiday celebration becomes an experience involving sexual harassment, documenting the incident and understanding the available reporting options can be important first steps. An experienced employment attorney can help evaluate the conduct, examine potential employer responsibility, and explain possible legal remedies. Employees deserve to participate in workplace events without being subjected to unwanted sexual conduct or fearing professional consequences for speaking up. Contact Us! [button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Form[/button] Call Us: 800-610-9646 Email Us: intake@law-rm.com]]> by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[When Teachers Abuse Their Authority: Sexual Abuse and Grooming in Schools]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256274 2026-11-05T19:48:04Z 2026-11-05T19:48:04Z Schools should be places where students feel safe, supported, and encouraged to learn. Teachers and other educators hold positions of trust, serving as mentors and role models. When an educator abuses that trust, the consequences can extend far beyond the classroom.  Sexual harassment and abuse in schools do not always begin with obvious misconduct. In some cases, an educator gradually crosses professional boundaries through attention, favoritism, or emotional support. This process, called grooming, can make it difficult for students to recognize manipulation or report inappropriate behavior.  A teacher sexually harassing a student may exploit the power imbalance in the relationship. Students may worry that speaking up will affect their grades, opportunities, reputation, or relationships with educators. Understanding warning signs and the responsibilities of schools can help families identify misconduct and seek protection.    What Does Grooming in Schools Look Like?  Grooming involves building trust and emotional influence to facilitate exploitation or abuse. In schools, a teacher, coach, counselor, or staff member may use professional authority to establish an inappropriate relationship with a student.  Grooming can begin with interactions that appear harmless. An educator might offer extra academic support, take a special interest in a student's personal life, or provide encouragement. These actions are not inherently inappropriate. They become concerning when used to create secrecy, dependency, or opportunities for unwanted contact.  Favoritism and Special Treatment  One warning sign is repeatedly singling out a student for attention unrelated to educational needs. A teacher might offer gifts, grant privileges, arrange unnecessary private meetings, or find reasons to be alone with a particular student.  The student may believe the relationship is special or feel obligated to reciprocate the attention. Favoritism alone does not establish grooming. However, when it accompanies secrecy, inappropriate conversations, or increasingly intimate interactions, it may signal that professional boundaries are being crossed.  Inappropriate Communications Outside School  Technology gives educators more ways to contact students privately. Teachers may appropriately use email or educational platforms for assignments, but communications become concerning when they turn personal, secretive, or unrelated to schoolwork.  Warning signs may include private messages, late night contact through social media, discussions of romantic or sexual subjects, requests to conceal conversations from parents, or instructions to delete messages.  Sexual harassment by a teacher can involve electronic communications when messages are exchanged outside school hours. The location or timing of a conversation does not automatically remove it from scrutiny.  Crossing Physical and Emotional Boundaries  Grooming may involve gradually testing a student's comfort with physical contact. An educator might initiate touching or prolonged hugs before escalating the behavior. Others may encourage students to disclose intimate personal information or suggest that the educator is the only adult who truly understands them.  These tactics can create emotional dependency. Students may hesitate to challenge someone they have been taught to respect, when that person controls grades, recommendations, or extracurricular opportunities.  A student might experience discomfort without understanding why. Adults should take such concerns seriously rather than dismissing them.  Secrecy, Manipulation, and Fear  An educator engaging in grooming may insist that others would misunderstand the relationship or claim that disclosure could ruin the educator's career. Some may imply that the student will face academic or disciplinary consequences for speaking up.  Pressure can leave students feeling responsible for protecting the adult. They may delay reporting, minimize events, or continue communicating with the educator. None of these reactions necessarily means the conduct was welcome.  Recognizing manipulation matters because intervention may prevent misconduct. Students should have trusted adults and reporting channels outside the authority of the person involved.    School Liability in Student Sexual Harassment  When a teacher sexually harasses a student, responsibility may extend beyond the individual educator. Schools have legal obligations concerning discrimination, harassment, and student safety. Whether a school can be held liable depends on the institution, applicable law, what officials knew, and how they responded.  Ignoring Warning Signs  Administrators may receive warnings before anyone makes a formal allegation of abuse. Parents might report unusual messages, students might describe uncomfortable interactions, or colleagues might observe repeated boundary violations.  A concern warrants an appropriate response. Depending on circumstances, schools may need to investigate, preserve communications, implement protective measures, and report suspected abuse to authorities.  Dismissing complaints as misunderstandings without assessment can leave students exposed to further harm. Schools should consider patterns of behavior rather than evaluating every incident in isolation.  Failing to Investigate Complaints  A school's response after receiving a complaint is important. Students should not have to seek help while alleged misconduct continues.  An inadequate response may include discouraging reports, failing to preserve evidence, overlooking witnesses, or allowing concerning conduct to continue without reasonable safeguards. Schools must also avoid unlawful retaliation against students who report harassment or participate in investigations.  Retaliation can involve intimidation, threats, exclusion from activities, or adverse academic treatment connected to a complaint. Fear of these consequences can discourage students from reporting and allow harmful conduct to remain hidden.  Legal Protections for California Students  California Education Code section 220 prohibits discrimination based on sex and other protected characteristics in covered educational programs and activities.  Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Sexual harassment and sexual violence can constitute prohibited discrimination, although institutional liability varies by claim and circumstances.  California law may also support claims involving negligent hiring, supervision, or retention when an institution's conduct contributes to foreseeable harm. Not every incident automatically establishes school liability. The inquiry may involve warnings, supervisory practices, the adequacy of investigations, and the legal duties applicable to that school.    How an Attorney can Prevent Future Harassment in Schools  Legal action cannot guarantee that misconduct will never recur. However, attorneys can help survivors and families understand their rights, examine failures, and pursue remedies that may encourage protections for students.  Investigating What the School Knew  An attorney may investigate whether administrators received complaints about an educator, whether other students reported similar experiences, and how school officials responded.  Evidence may include messages, witness accounts, complaint records, school policies, and personnel materials obtained lawfully. These records can help establish a timeline and reveal whether warning signs were overlooked.  An investigation may also identify gaps in supervision or reporting practices that affected more than one student. Understanding those failures can be important for accountability.    Protecting Students from Retaliation  Students may fear that reporting misconduct will affect grades, recommendations, friendships, or participation in school activities. Some worry that adults will not believe them or that classmates will blame them for the consequences.  An attorney can explain protections, help families document adverse treatment, and identify available reporting or legal options. Families may benefit from maintaining copies of communications and recording when concerns were raised.  Students should not have to choose between protecting their education and reporting inappropriate conduct by someone in authority.  Encouraging Institutional Change  Depending on available remedies, legal proceedings or negotiated resolutions may address failures involving employee supervision, staff training, reporting procedures, or complaint investigations.  Schools may need clearer boundaries for private communications, stronger responses to warning signs, and reporting channels that do not require students to complain directly to the person involved.  Although litigation does not guarantee policy changes, accountability can encourage institutions to examine how misconduct occurred and whether additional safeguards are necessary.  Understanding Legal Options and Deadlines  Survivors may experience emotional distress, disrupted education, and difficulty trusting authority figures. Some do not recognize grooming or understand its effects until years later.  An attorney can evaluate potential claims, identify responsible parties, explain available remedies, and assess filing deadlines. California has special rules for certain childhood sexual assault claims, but deadlines and procedural requirements depend on the circumstances and can change.  Prompt legal guidance can be important, when claims involve public entities or evidence that may become harder to obtain over time. Representation can also help families pursue accountability while protecting sensitive information.    Conclusion  Educators occupy positions of trust. Students rely on them for instruction, guidance, and access to opportunities. When that authority is misused to facilitate harassment, grooming, or abuse, the effects can reach well beyond a student's school years.  Grooming may begin with subtle boundary violations, private communications, or special treatment before becoming serious. Recognizing these patterns and responding appropriately to complaints can help protect students from further harm.  Schools must take their legal responsibilities seriously. Ignoring credible warnings, minimizing inappropriate behavior, or failing to implement reasonable protective measures can expose students to continued harm and, in some circumstances, legal liability.  If you or your child has experienced sexual harassment or abuse involving a teacher, coach, or school employee, Makarem & Associates can help evaluate legal options and whether a school or other party may be held accountable.  Every student deserves an education free from sexual harassment and abuse.  This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal rights and remedies depend on the facts and applicable law.  Contact Us Call us: 213-269-4013 Email us: intake@law-rm.com]]> by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[When Reporting Changes Your School Life: Retaliation After Sexual Abuse Complaints ]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256272 2026-11-04T23:38:19Z 2026-11-04T23:38:19Z Reporting sexual harassment or abuse at school takes courage. Students may already be dealing with emotional distress, confusion, or fear about what happened. When they decide to speak up, they should be able to trust that their school will take their concerns seriously and protect them from further harm.  Unfortunately, some students experience additional difficulties after reporting misconduct. A student who previously performed well academically may suddenly face disciplinary action, exclusion from activities, or negative treatment from teachers and administrators. Others may experience threats, intimidation, or pressure to withdraw their complaints.  Retaliation for reporting sexual harassment at school can discourage students from seeking help and create an environment where misconduct goes unaddressed.  California and federal laws provide protections against certain forms of retaliation in educational settings. Understanding what retaliation looks like, how schools should respond, and what legal options may be available can help students and families protect their rights.    What Retaliation Looks Like in Schools  Retaliation occurs when someone takes adverse action against a person because they engaged in protected activity, such as reporting unlawful sexual harassment or participating in an investigation.  In schools, retaliation may come from teachers, administrators, coaches, or other individuals. It can also involve peer harassment when school officials fail to respond appropriately to known misconduct.  Not every negative experience following a complaint constitutes unlawful retaliation. However, when adverse treatment is connected to a student's report, it may raise serious legal concerns.  Academic Consequences After Reporting  One form of student sexual harassment retaliation involves changes in academic treatment.  A student who reports inappropriate behavior by a teacher may subsequently receive unusually harsh grading, lose academic opportunities, or experience negative treatment in the classroom.  For example, a teacher might begin criticizing a student's work more frequently, refuse reasonable academic assistance, or exclude the student from classroom participation.  Students may also worry that reporting misconduct will affect college recommendations, academic awards, or relationships with other educators.  Although schools may continue enforcing legitimate academic standards, they cannot lawfully punish students for engaging in protected reporting activity.  When academic treatment changes after a complaint, families should document the circumstances and determine whether the changes have a legitimate explanation.  Disciplinary Action and Increased Scrutiny  Retaliation may also appear through disciplinary measures.  A student who previously had few disciplinary problems might suddenly receive repeated warnings, suspensions, or accusations of misconduct after reporting sexual harassment.  School officials may begin enforcing rules against the reporting student more aggressively than against classmates or subjecting the student to unnecessary scrutiny.  Disciplinary decisions are not automatically retaliatory simply because they occur after a complaint. However, inconsistent enforcement, unusual timing, or statements connecting discipline to the report may support concerns about retaliation.  Schools should ensure that disciplinary procedures remain fair and are not used to discourage students from exercising their rights.  Exclusion From Activities and Opportunities  School life extends beyond academic instruction. Students participate in athletics, clubs, performances, leadership programs, and other extracurricular activities that contribute to their education and development.  After reporting harassment, some students may find themselves excluded from opportunities they previously enjoyed.  A student athlete might lose playing time, be removed from a team, or face hostility from a coach. Another student might be denied leadership positions, excluded from school events, or discouraged from participating in extracurricular programs.  These changes can have lasting consequences, particularly when activities influence scholarships, college applications, or future educational opportunities.  When exclusion is connected to a protected complaint, it may constitute unlawful retaliation depending on the circumstances.  Threats, Intimidation, and Social Pressure  Retaliation is not always reflected in grades or disciplinary records. It can also involve threats, intimidation, or social pressure.  Students may be told that reporting harassment will damage an educator's reputation, create problems for their families, or negatively affect their future.  Others may face rumors, bullying, or hostility from classmates who blame them for an investigation or disciplinary action involving a popular teacher or coach.  In some situations, students may feel pressured to withdraw their complaints to avoid further conflict.  Schools cannot necessarily prevent every negative interaction between students. However, when administrators become aware of retaliatory harassment that interferes with educational access, they may have obligations to take appropriate corrective action.  Students should not be expected to tolerate intimidation simply because they reported misconduct.    Campus Responsibility: When Receiving Reports of Sexual Harassment  Schools have responsibilities when they receive complaints of sexual harassment or abuse. Their response should address the reported misconduct while protecting students from additional harm.  Depending on the circumstances, these responsibilities may arise under California law, Title IX, school policies, and other applicable legal requirements.  Taking Complaints Seriously  When a student or parent reports sexual harassment, school officials should evaluate the allegations and determine what action is appropriate.  A meaningful response may include gathering information, interviewing relevant witnesses, preserving evidence, and implementing measures to protect the student during the investigation.  Administrators should avoid dismissing complaints because the accused educator is respected, has worked at the school for many years, or disputes the allegations.  Schools should also avoid pressuring students to remain silent or suggesting that reporting misconduct will unnecessarily disrupt the educational environment.  The purpose of an appropriate response is to address potential misconduct while protecting the rights and safety of those involved.  Preventing Retaliation During Investigations  A school's responsibility does not necessarily end when an investigation begins.  Students may remain in classes, athletic programs, or extracurricular activities involving individuals connected to their complaints.  Schools should consider whether protective measures are necessary to prevent intimidation, unwanted contact, or interference with educational opportunities.  Depending on the circumstances, appropriate measures may include adjusting schedules, establishing reporting contacts, limiting interactions, or monitoring for retaliatory behavior.  These measures should not unnecessarily burden the reporting student or effectively punish them for seeking protection.  Schools should also explain how students can report additional concerns if retaliation occurs during or after an investigation.  Documenting Retaliatory Conduct  Documentation can be important when determining whether adverse treatment is connected to a harassment complaint.  Students and families should consider maintaining a record of relevant incidents, including dates, individuals involved, communications, and changes in academic or extracurricular treatment.  Useful documentation may include emails, text messages, disciplinary notices, grading records, school correspondence, and written complaints.  Families may also preserve records showing how the student was treated before reporting misconduct.  For example, previous grades, participation records, or positive evaluations may provide context when assessing sudden changes after a complaint.  Contemporaneous documentation can help establish a timeline and identify patterns that might otherwise be difficult to demonstrate.  Students should avoid secretly accessing private records or taking other inappropriate steps to gather evidence.  Legal Protections Against Retaliation  California Education Code section 220 prohibits sex discrimination in covered educational programs and activities.  Federal Title IX protections also prohibit retaliation for exercising rights protected under the statute, including certain complaints and participation in investigations involving sex discrimination.  Additional California protections may apply depending on the institution and circumstances.  A retaliation claim generally requires more than showing that an unpleasant event occurred after a complaint. Relevant considerations may include whether the student engaged in protected activity, experienced materially adverse treatment, and whether the treatment was connected to that activity.  The applicable standards vary by legal claim, making an individualized assessment important.    How an Attorney Can Hold Schools Accountable  When students experience retaliation after reporting sexual harassment, an attorney can help evaluate whether the school's actions violated applicable law.  Legal representation may also help families understand reporting procedures, preserve evidence, and identify potential remedies.  Evaluating the School’s Response  An attorney may review the original harassment complaint, communications with administrators, investigation records, and subsequent treatment of the student.  The investigation may focus on whether school officials knew about the complaint, whether adverse treatment followed, and whether there is evidence connecting that treatment to protected reporting activity.  An attorney may also examine whether the school applied policies consistently or treated similarly situated students differently.  These details can help distinguish legitimate educational decisions from potentially retaliatory conduct.  Protecting Educational Opportunities  Retaliation can affect more than a student's immediate school experience.  Lost academic opportunities, exclusion from extracurricular activities, and disciplinary records may influence future educational plans.  An attorney can help families identify available procedures for challenging potentially retaliatory decisions and seeking appropriate relief.  Depending on the circumstances, remedies may address educational access, discriminatory treatment, or other harm resulting from unlawful retaliation.  Legal action cannot guarantee a particular outcome, but it may provide an avenue for challenging misconduct and seeking accountability.  Pursuing Institutional Accountability  When a school fails to respond appropriately to retaliation, legal claims may reveal broader problems involving complaint procedures, employee supervision, or administrative practices.  An attorney may investigate whether similar concerns were previously reported, whether administrators followed established policies, and whether students had meaningful opportunities to seek protection.  Depending on the claims and available remedies, litigation or a negotiated resolution may encourage improvements to reporting systems, staff training, and protective procedures.  Accountability can also help reinforce that students should be able to report sexual harassment without fearing punishment.  Understanding Legal Options and Deadlines  Students and families may have different legal options depending on whether the institution is public or private, the nature of the misconduct, and the applicable laws.  Some claims involve specific filing deadlines, administrative procedures, or requirements concerning public entities.  An attorney can evaluate potential claims, explain relevant deadlines, and help families understand the available avenues for relief.  Seeking guidance promptly may also help preserve evidence and address ongoing educational consequences.    Conclusion  Reporting sexual harassment or abuse should never become a reason for a student to lose educational opportunities, face intimidation, or experience unfair treatment.  Retaliation may appear through disciplinary measures, academic consequences, exclusion from activities, threats, or social pressure. Although not every negative experience constitutes unlawful retaliation, schools must take credible concerns seriously and respond consistently with their legal obligations.  Students and families can protect their interests by documenting concerning conduct, preserving communications, and seeking appropriate assistance when adverse treatment follows a complaint.  If you or your child has experienced retaliation after reporting sexual harassment or abuse at school, Makarem & Associates can help evaluate potential legal claims and determine whether a school or other responsible party may be held accountable.  Students deserve to pursue their education without fear of punishment for speaking up about misconduct.  This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal rights, filing deadlines, and available remedies depend on the specific circumstances and applicable law.  [button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Form[/button]   Call Us: 800-610-9646 Email: intake@law-rm.com]]> brookelum <![CDATA[Sexual Harassment Before Being Hired: Zeus Networks Lawsuit Alleges a Role Was Tied to Sex]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256259 2026-11-10T08:26:07Z 2026-10-29T18:13:36Z Sexual harassment before being hired is still harassment under California law, and our client’s lawsuit against Zeus Networks, LLC alleges hers started long before she joined the cast. According to the complaint, in 2023, our client felt pressured to have a sexual relationship with the show's CEO and founder to be hired for one of the show's networks. 
At Makarem & Associates, we often hear from people who assume the law only protects them once they are officially on the payroll. That isn’t how California law works, and this case shows why the time before a job begins can matter.
An Offer Allegedly Tied to Sex, Long Before She Was Hired
The complaint alleges that in March 2023, the company’s founder and CEO propositioned our client. He allegedly implied that if she had sex with him, he would hire her to work on one of the network’s shows.

Several months later, the complaint alleges, he texted her asking her to visit him and told her she would be perfect for his show. According to the complaint, he coerced her into having sex with him several times in 2023 and 2024. Each time, she says, he talked about the show and told her she had a great personality for it and would be a star.

The Pressure Allegedly Continued Through Her Audition
In December 2024, our client auditioned for the show, and the complaint alleges the CEO paid for her flights to do so. She was offered the role in January 2025 and began working for the company as a cast member around February 2025.
According to the complaint, the CEO had complete authority over casting and employment decisions, including the power to end her work with the company. The complaint alleges he explicitly conditioned her casting opportunities and employment on her engaging in sexual acts with him.
An NDA Days Before Filming, the Complaint Alleges
In February 2025, days before filming began, the CEO allegedly coerced her into having sex again despite her repeated protests that she did not want to. That same night, the complaint alleges, he also coerced her into signing a non-disclosure agreement about their relationship.
Many people believe a signed NDA means they can never speak about what happened at work. California law generally limits agreements that keep employees from disclosing harassment, and our post on non-disclosure agreements in sexual harassment cases explains more.
During Filming and Season Two Auditions, She Says It Didn’t Stop
The complaint alleges that during filming events in March 2025 and August 2025, the CEO again coerced her into sex. In August, it alleges, he did so despite her repeated protests that she did not want to. In January 2026, during auditions for the show’s second season, he allegedly coerced her again despite her protests.
Does the Law Cover Sexual Harassment Before Being Hired?
Yes. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects job applicants from harassment, not just current employees, under Government Code section 12940. When someone ties a job, a role, or a promotion to sexual favors, it is often called quid pro quo sexual harassment.
California also has a separate law, Civil Code section 51.9, that covers sexual harassment in business, service, and professional relationships, including relationships with a director or producer. It can apply when someone holds himself out as able to help you establish a professional relationship. Our client’s complaint brings claims under both laws.
She Refused to Go On, and Lost Her Place on the Show, She Alleges
According to the complaint, our client realized the harassment would not stop. She refused to see the CEO again. The complaint alleges that the ongoing harassment made her work environment intolerable and that, as a result, she was not able to return for season two and was constructively terminated.
The complaint alleges the defendants subjected her to working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in her position would have had no choice but to resign. As a general matter, California law can treat a resignation as a wrongful termination when the employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have no reasonable alternative but to quit.
Is Saying No Protected Activity?
It can be. The complaint alleges that by resisting the CEO’s advances and telling him she did not want a sexual relationship, our client engaged in activity protected under FEHA. As a general matter, opposing harassment is protected, and an adverse action taken because of it can be retaliation, even when it isn’t a formal firing.
The complaint also alleges the company knew or should have known about the CEO’s conduct, because it and the CEO had allegedly been sued multiple times before for sexual harassment, assault, and battery.
Where the Case Stands
The case is pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 26NNCV05280, against Zeus Networks, LLC, its founder and CEO, and unnamed Doe defendants. The complaint alleges our client received a right-to-sue notice from the California Civil Rights Department. It pleads eight causes of action:
  • Sexual Harassment in Violation of FEHA, against all defendants.
  • Sexual Harassment in Violation of California Civil Code §51.9, against all defendants.
  • Sexual Assault, against all defendants.
  • Sexual Battery in Violation of California Civil Code §1708.5, against all defendants.
  • Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, against the defendants.
  • Failure to Prevent Harassment and Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, against Zeus Networks.
  • Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, against all defendants.
  • Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, against Zeus Networks and Does 1 through 20.
The case is at an early stage, and we’ll continue to share updates as the case moves forward.
What This Case Can Teach Other California Employees
The entertainment industry runs on auditions and callbacks, but the lessons here apply to anyone looking for work:
  • Protection can start before day one. FEHA covers job applicants, and Civil Code section 51.9 can reach professional relationships outside a formal job.
  • A role offered for sex is a red flag, not a career move. Conditioning a job or opportunity on sexual favors is a classic form of quid pro quo harassment.
  • Giving in under pressure doesn’t mean you wanted it. The legal question is generally whether the conduct was unwelcome, not whether you eventually complied.
  • An NDA may not be the last word. California generally limits agreements that keep workers from speaking about harassment. Have a lawyer read anything you signed.
  • Saying no can be protected. If you lose a role, shifts, or opportunities after refusing advances, that can be retaliation.
  • Get advice early. Harassment claims have filing deadlines, often shorter than people expect. Our complete guide to sexual harassment in California covers the basics.
If you’re dealing with sexual harassment at work anywhere in California, you don’t have to sort out your options alone. Makarem & Associates offers free consultations to help you understand what happened, what your rights are, and what steps make sense for you. Reach out to us. We’re here to listen and to help.
This article is based on allegations made in a publicly filed legal complaint. The allegations described are not yet proven in court, and the defendants are entitled to respond and defend themselves. Our client’s name and the names of the individuals involved have been withheld out of respect for their privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Contact Us!
Call Us: 800-610-9646
Email Us: intake@law-rm.com
]]> by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[From Complaint to Retaliation: What California Hospitality Workers Should Know After Reporting Harassment ]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256263 2026-10-29T17:20:15Z 2026-10-29T17:20:15Z Reporting sexual harassment can be difficult in any workplace. For hospitality employees, the decision to speak up may feel especially risky because managers often control the parts of the job that directly affect an employee’s income.  Restaurant servers may depend on busy sections and desirable shifts for tips. Bartenders may rely on weekend or evening schedules. Hotel employees may compete for overtime, preferred assignments, or advancement opportunities. When a worker reports harassment, those opportunities can suddenly change.  A server who previously worked Friday and Saturday nights may find themselves scheduled for slow weekday lunches. A bartender may lose profitable shifts. A restaurant employee may be moved from a busy section to one with fewer tables. Other workers may suddenly receive write-ups, increased scrutiny, unfavorable assignments, or fewer hours.  These changes are not automatically unlawful. Employers may make legitimate scheduling, disciplinary, and staffing decisions. But when negative treatment begins because an employee reported harassment, opposed discriminatory conduct, or participated in an investigation, it may constitute unlawful retaliation.  California law protects many employees who speak out against workplace discrimination and harassment. The California Civil Rights Department explains that retaliation can occur when an employer disciplines, terminates, or otherwise punishes someone because the employee engaged in activity protected by the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  For hospitality employees, recognizing the signs of hospitality retaliation in California can be particularly important because retaliation may affect income long before an employee is formally demoted or terminated.    Signs of Retaliation in Hospitality  Retaliation does not always look like being fired immediately after filing a complaint.  In restaurants, hotels, bars, resorts, and other hospitality workplaces, relatively small changes can significantly affect an employee’s earnings or ability to succeed.  Examples of possible retaliation may include: 
  • Reducing an employee’s scheduled hours. 
  • Moving the employee from busy shifts to slower ones. 
  • Taking away desirable tables, sections, or customer assignments. 
  • Removing an employee from lucrative events, banquets, or private parties. 
  • Reassigning duties in a way that reduces tips or income. 
  • Suddenly issuing disciplinary write-ups. 
  • Subjecting the employee to increased scrutiny. 
  • Denying promotions or advancement opportunities. 
  • Demoting the employee. 
  • Excluding the employee from meetings, training, or workplace opportunities. 
  • Treating the employee more harshly than coworkers who engaged in similar conduct. 
  • Terminating the employee shortly after a harassment complaint. 
California guidance recognizes that retaliation can include reductions in hours, changes in work assignments, demotions, discipline, and other employment actions. An employee does not necessarily need to be terminated or lose compensation for an action to potentially be retaliatory when the circumstances are considered as a whole.  A restaurant employee, for example, might remain employed but experience a substantial loss of income after being removed from the busiest dinner shifts. Another employee might still receive the same hourly wage but be transferred from a desirable hotel property or moved into a less favorable assignment.  Those changes may warrant closer examination when they begin after a harassment report.    Timing Can Be Important  One factor that may help establish retaliation is temporal proximity—the closeness in time between an employee’s protected activity and the negative action.  Suppose a server has consistently worked four evening shifts each week. The employee reports unwanted sexual comments from a supervisor. The following schedule gives the server only two weekday lunch shifts.  That timing does not automatically prove retaliation. There may be a legitimate explanation for the schedule change. But the close connection between the complaint and the reduction in hours may be relevant when considered with other evidence.  The same may be true when an employee has a positive performance history and suddenly begins receiving disciplinary notices after reporting harassment.  Workers should consider comparing how they were treated before and after the complaint. Previous schedules, performance reviews, emails from supervisors, sales records, attendance records, and disciplinary history may provide context.  Comparative treatment can also matter.  If several employees make the same scheduling mistake but only the employee who complained about harassment is disciplined, that difference may raise questions. Similarly, if a worker is told that hours were reduced because business is slow while coworkers continue receiving the same or greater hours, the employer’s explanation may deserve closer examination.  Retaliation can also take less obvious forms. California harassment-prevention guidance notes that retaliatory treatment can include changes in assignments, failures to communicate, ostracism, or workplace gossip in addition to more obvious actions such as termination or demotion.    How California Laws Can Protect Employees from Retaliation  California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act generally prohibits employers with five or more employees from retaliating against workers for asserting rights protected by the law. Harassment protections are broader and apply even in workplaces with fewer employees.  Protected activity can include reporting sexual harassment, opposing conduct that an employee reasonably believes is unlawful, participating in a workplace harassment investigation, filing a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department, or assisting another person in asserting protected rights.  An employee does not necessarily need to prove the underlying harassment claim before retaliation protections can become relevant.  For example, an employee may report conduct they reasonably believe constitutes sexual harassment. If the employer later concludes that the conduct did not violate the law, that does not automatically give management permission to punish the employee for making the complaint.  Employers also should not discourage employees from participating in investigations or punish witnesses who provide information.  For hospitality employees, a retaliation claim may focus on whether the employee engaged in protected activity, experienced a materially negative employment consequence, and whether the protected activity contributed to that action. California’s Civil Rights Department identifies those basic elements in its retaliation guidance.  The surrounding circumstances often matter.  A manager may claim that a worker’s hours were reduced because of scheduling needs. An employee may believe the change occurred because of a harassment complaint. Determining what actually happened may require looking at schedules, staffing levels, prior performance, manager communications, treatment of other employees, and the timing of the decision.  That is why documentation can be especially important in a retaliation after harassment complaint case.  Employees should consider keeping copies of their work schedules before and after making a complaint. They may also want to preserve pay records, tip records, performance reviews, text messages with managers, disciplinary notices, emails, and communications with human resources.  Employees can also create a factual timeline documenting when the harassment occurred, when it was reported, who received the complaint, when workplace treatment changed, and what explanation management provided.  Whenever possible, records should focus on facts rather than conclusions. For example, noting that a manager removed three scheduled shifts two days after a complaint may be more useful than simply writing that the manager was “retaliating.”  California employees who believe they experienced unlawful harassment or retaliation may file a complaint with the Civil Rights Department. In general, CRD states that an employment discrimination complaint must be filed within three years of the alleged unlawful act, although particular circumstances can affect deadlines and other claims may have different limitation periods.    When to Reach Out to an Employment Attorney  Employees do not necessarily need to wait until they are terminated before speaking with an employment attorney.  Early advice can be useful when an employee notices a meaningful change in treatment after reporting harassment, particularly when that change affects hours, tips, assignments, advancement opportunities, or continued employment.  An attorney can help evaluate whether the employer’s explanation is consistent with the available records.  For example, if a restaurant claims that an employee’s hours were reduced because business declined, an attorney may examine schedules showing whether other employees experienced similar reductions. If management claims that a server was removed from a profitable section because of performance problems, past reviews or sales records may help determine whether that explanation is consistent with the employee’s history.  An attorney can also help identify evidence that should be preserved.  For a restaurant employee retaliation case, relevant information might include schedules, point-of-sale records, tip reports, table or section assignments, employee handbooks, disciplinary documents, texts with supervisors, emails to human resources, and communications regarding the original harassment complaint.  Witnesses may also be important. Coworkers may know that a manager was angry about the complaint, heard statements about cutting an employee’s hours, or observed that the worker began receiving different treatment afterward.  Employees should also consider seeking legal advice before signing severance agreements, resignation documents, disciplinary acknowledgments, or other documents that could affect their rights.  An attorney can evaluate the specific circumstances, identify potentially applicable laws, and help determine whether internal reporting, a CRD complaint, litigation, or another course of action may be appropriate.    Conclusion  Reporting workplace harassment should not cost a hospitality employee their livelihood.  California employees may have legal protections when they report sexual harassment, oppose discriminatory conduct, or participate in an investigation. Retaliation can include more than termination. In hospitality workplaces, reduced hours, undesirable shifts, lost sections or tables, reduced earning opportunities, discipline, demotion, and exclusion from workplace opportunities can all have serious consequences.  Not every unfavorable workplace decision following a complaint is unlawful retaliation. But timing, changes in treatment, inconsistent explanations, prior performance, and the way similarly situated coworkers are treated may help reveal whether a decision was legitimate or retaliatory.  Employees concerned about hospitality retaliation in California should consider preserving schedules, tip records, pay information, messages, performance reviews, disciplinary records, and documents relating to their harassment complaint.  Workers experiencing retaliation after a harassment complaint do not necessarily need to wait until the situation results in termination. An employment attorney can review the timeline, evaluate the employer’s stated reasons for its actions, and help determine what legal protections may apply.  Hospitality workers should be able to report harassment without having to choose between speaking up and keeping the shifts, income, and career opportunities they worked to earn. ]]> by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[The Cost of Looking Away: When California Hospitality Employers Ignore Repeated Customer Harassment]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256261 2026-10-29T17:10:33Z 2026-10-29T17:10:33Z Hospitality employees are expected to provide good service even when customers are difficult. Servers, bartenders, hotel employees, hosts, housekeepers, and other workers may regularly deal with demanding guests, complaints, and uncomfortable interactions.  But providing customer service does not require employees to tolerate sexual harassment.  A customer may repeatedly make sexual comments to a server, ask invasive questions about an employee’s body or dating life, make unwanted advances, or deliberately touch an employee. A hotel guest may make sexual remarks to housekeeping staff each time they enter a room. A regular patron may repeatedly target the same bartender despite being told to stop.  When management knows that this conduct is occurring but continues sending the employee back to serve the same customer without taking meaningful action, the problem can become more than an unpleasant customer interaction.  California law recognizes that workplace harassment can come from people who are not employees. The California Civil Rights Department explains that an employer may be liable for harassment by a nonemployee, such as a client or customer, when the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.  For hospitality workers, that protection is especially important because interacting with customers, guests, and patrons is often an unavoidable part of the job.  Questions involving employer liability for customer harassment in California therefore frequently focus on what management knew, when it knew it, and what the employer did after learning about the conduct.    Responsibility of Employers When Facing Workplace Sexual Harassment  California employers have an affirmative obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent and correct workplace harassment. California’s Civil Rights Department also requires employers to maintain policies and procedures for responding to complaints, conducting prompt and fair investigations, and taking appropriate remedial action.  Those responsibilities are not necessarily limited to misconduct committed by supervisors or coworkers.  A customer, guest, vendor, contractor, or other third party can create a hostile working environment. California guidance specifically states that employers may be liable for harassment by nonemployees when management knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective measures.  This can be particularly significant in restaurants, bars, hotels, casinos, resorts, and similar hospitality businesses where employees regularly interact with members of the public.  Consider a restaurant where a regular customer repeatedly makes sexual comments toward the same server. The server tells a manager several times that the behavior makes her uncomfortable. Instead of intervening, the manager says the customer spends a lot of money and tells the server to ignore the comments.  If the behavior continues, management's knowledge and response may become important.  The same problem can arise when a guest repeatedly touches a hotel employee, sends inappropriate messages to staff, or makes sexually explicit comments whenever a particular worker is assigned to assist them.  Employers are not expected to control every statement a customer makes before it happens. The legal issue may instead focus on how the employer responds once it knows, or reasonably should know, that harassment is occurring.    Repeated Complaints Can Put Management on Notice  Repeated complaints are especially significant because they can show that management had an opportunity to address the problem.  An employee might initially tell a shift supervisor verbally. The customer returns several days later and behaves the same way. Another employee later complains about the same patron. If management continues allowing the behavior without meaningful intervention, it becomes increasingly difficult to treat each incident as isolated.  Management knowledge does not necessarily require a formal written complaint.  A supervisor may personally witness the harassment. Coworkers may complain about the same customer. A manager may see inappropriate messages sent to an employee. Security may have previously responded to an incident involving the customer.  All of these circumstances may be relevant in determining whether the employer knew or should have known that a problem existed.  California's harassment-prevention framework emphasizes that employers should provide a complaint process, respond promptly, investigate allegations fairly, and provide appropriate options for remedial action.  What constitutes an appropriate response can depend on the circumstances.  An employer might warn the customer that the behavior is unacceptable, assign another manager to handle the customer, increase security, prevent the patron from interacting with the targeted employee, remove the customer from the property, or prohibit the person from returning.  The precise response may vary. What matters is whether the employer takes reasonable measures designed to stop the harassment rather than simply requiring the employee to continue enduring it.  An employer's level of control over the situation can also be relevant. A restaurant may have the ability to refuse service to a patron who repeatedly harasses workers. A hotel may be able to intervene when a guest targets an employee. Management may also be able to rearrange an interaction without penalizing the employee.  Simply telling the employee to tolerate repeated customer harassment because “the customer is always right” may leave the underlying problem unresolved.    How to Follow Up with Your Employer on Harassment Complaints  Employees who have already reported customer harassment should consider documenting what happens next.  Whenever possible, it can be helpful to create a written record of the complaint.  If the employee initially reported the misconduct verbally, a follow-up email to a manager or human resources department can confirm what was discussed. The communication does not need to be lengthy. It can identify the customer or guest involved, describe the conduct, state when it occurred, identify witnesses, and note any previous reports.  Employees should consider preserving: 
  • Emails or text messages reporting the harassment. 
  • Messages from the customer or guest. 
  • Work schedules showing repeated assignments involving the same person. 
  • Incident reports or security reports. 
  • Names of coworkers who witnessed the behavior. 
  • Dates of prior complaints to supervisors or managers. 
  • Any response received from management. 
  • Notes documenting additional incidents after the complaint. 
A factual timeline can be especially useful when the harassment occurs repeatedly.  For example, an employee might record that the same customer made sexual comments on three separate visits, that management was notified after the first two incidents, and that the employee was nevertheless assigned to the customer's table again.  Employees should also document what the employer did after receiving the complaint.  Did a manager speak with the customer? Was security notified? Was the employee told they would no longer be required to serve that person? Did management investigate whether other employees experienced similar behavior?  Or was the employee simply told to deal with it?  The distinction may be important when evaluating whether the employer took reasonable corrective measures.  Employees should also watch for retaliation.  A worker should not be punished simply for complaining about conduct they reasonably believe constitutes unlawful harassment. California law prohibits certain retaliation connected to complaints about workplace harassment and discrimination.  If shifts are suddenly reduced, desirable assignments disappear, discipline begins, or employment ends after a harassment complaint, employees should consider preserving records showing how their treatment changed.    How an Employment Attorney Can Keep Your Company Accountable  An employment attorney can help determine whether a hospitality employer responded appropriately after learning about customer harassment.  The analysis often begins with notice.  An attorney may ask when management first learned about the conduct, who received the complaint, whether anyone else complained about the same customer, and what steps the employer took afterward.  Evidence showing a pattern can be particularly important.  A restaurant may claim that it had no reason to believe a patron posed a problem. But if several employees previously complained about the same customer, internal emails, incident reports, or witness statements may show that management was already aware of the behavior.  An attorney may also evaluate whether the employer's corrective measures were actually effective.  For example, management may say that it warned a customer. But if the harassment continued and the employer repeatedly required the same employee to serve that individual, additional questions may arise about whether the response was sufficient.  California's Civil Rights Department has emphasized that employers have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent and promptly correct harassment. It has also pursued cases alleging that management knew about repeated harassment but failed to investigate or appropriately limit the employee's exposure to the alleged harasser.  Relevant evidence in a hospitality case may include schedules, reservation information, customer records, security footage, incident reports, complaints from other employees, emails between managers, and workplace harassment policies.  An attorney can also evaluate whether the employee experienced retaliation after complaining.  Potential remedies depend on the facts and claims involved. California's Civil Rights Department may investigate workplace harassment or retaliation complaints within its jurisdiction, and potential outcomes can include monetary damages, changes to workplace policies, training, or orders prohibiting unlawful practices.  In general, California employees have three years from an alleged unlawful employment practice to file a complaint with CRD, although the applicable deadline can depend on the particular circumstances and other claims may have different limitations periods.  Speaking with an employment attorney can help an employee evaluate those issues and determine what evidence should be preserved.    Conclusion  Hospitality workers may have to deal with demanding customers, but sexual harassment should not be treated as part of the job.  California law can hold employers responsible for harassment committed by customers and other nonemployees when management knew or should have known about the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.  That makes an employer's response especially important when harassment happens repeatedly.  Managers should take complaints seriously, investigate when appropriate, document reported misconduct, and consider reasonable measures designed to stop the behavior. Requiring employees to repeatedly serve a customer who is known to sexually harass them may create additional risks for both the employee and the employer.  Hospitality workers experiencing repeated customer harassment should consider documenting each incident, identifying witnesses, preserving communications, and following up on verbal complaints in writing.  When questions arise about hospitality employer obligations, an employment attorney can evaluate what management knew, whether its response was reasonable, whether similar complaints had previously been made, and whether the employee experienced retaliation after speaking up.  Customers may be important to a hospitality business, but an employer's desire to keep a profitable guest or regular patron should not come at the expense of an employee's right to work without sexual harassment.  Contact Us! [button link="#https://www.makaremlaw.com/lp/sexual-harassment-2/"] Contact Form[/button] Call us: 800-610-9646 Email Us: Intake@law-rm.com]]> by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[EOS Fitness Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: Employee Alleges Her Manager Tied Promotions to Sex]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256257 2026-10-27T18:26:45Z 2026-10-27T18:26:45Z An EOS Fitness sexual harassment lawsuit filed in San Diego County alleges that a gym’s general manager pressured a membership sales employee for sex, suggested her promotions depended on it, and sexually assaulted her. At Makarem & Associates, we represent her. The complaint also alleges that after she resigned, a district manager told her not to report what happened.
Many people believe that once they’ve left a job, it’s too late to speak up. It usually isn’t. And a manager telling you to stay quiet doesn’t change what the law allows you to do.
A New Sales Job and a Manager Who Allegedly Controlled Her Pay
According to the complaint, our client was hired in late 2025 to sell gym memberships at an EOS Fitness location in San Diego County. The location’s general manager was her direct supervisor.
The complaint alleges he had authority over the terms and conditions of her job, including her work assignments, walk-in appointments, sales opportunities, and commissions. In a commission-based sales role, that kind of control can shape how much someone earns.
Unwanted Comments, Images, and Pressure, the Complaint Alleges
In early 2026, our client says, she attended a sales training at another EOS Fitness location, where that location’s general manager followed her to the parking lot and asked her out. She reported it to her own general manager. To her knowledge, the complaint says, nothing was done.
Soon after, the complaint alleges, her general manager began sexually harassing her. He allegedly made repeated sexual comments, commented on her body and personal life, engaged in unwelcome physical contact, showed her sexually explicit images, and repeatedly pressured her to have sex with him. Because he controlled her job, she feared that rejecting him or reporting him would put her job at risk, the complaint says.
Pressure Outside Work, and an Alleged Sexual Assault
According to the complaint, the general manager repeatedly pressured our client to spend time alone with him outside of work until she reluctantly agreed. On multiple occasions, the complaint alleges, he encouraged her to drink excessive amounts of alcohol before taking her to hotel rooms.
Our client says she repeatedly told him she did not want sexual activity with him and, more than once, physically resisted. The complaint alleges he ignored her refusals and, on at least one occasion, sexually assaulted her after she had fallen asleep. Immediately afterward, the complaint alleges, he told her he needed to get her promoted.
What Is Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment?
Quid pro quo harassment generally means making job benefits, like promotions or better assignments, depend on submitting to sexual demands. The complaint alleges the general manager repeatedly suggested her promotions and other favorable treatment depended on submitting to him.
Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer is generally strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor, and the supervisor can be held personally liable (Gov. Code § 12940(j)). The test is whether conduct was severe or pervasive, and a single serious incident can be enough (Gov. Code § 12923(b)).
Rejected, Then Allegedly Given Fewer Opportunities
When she rejected his advances, the complaint alleges, the general manager became hostile, reduced her work opportunities, interfered with her ability to earn commissions, and otherwise treated her adversely.
As a result of the harassment, the alleged assault, and his abuse of supervisory authority, the complaint alleges, her working conditions became so intolerable that a reasonable person in her position would have had no reasonable alternative except to resign. She resigned in spring 2026.
Can Quitting Count as Being Fired?
Sometimes. As a general matter of California law, a resignation can be treated as a termination, called a constructive discharge, when the employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have no reasonable alternative but to resign. It’s an objective, fact-specific standard. Our wrongful termination page explains more.
Told Not to Report It, She Alleges
After she left, the complaint alleges, a district manager contacted our client, and she told him she had resigned because of the general manager’s sexual harassment. Instead of investigating, sending her to Human Resources, or asking her to return with assurances that the harassment would stop, the district manager allegedly instructed her not to report the misconduct and to leave it in the past.
In July 2026, our client says she submitted a written report of the sexual harassment and sexual assault to the company, including Human Resources, a senior regional sales executive, and its talent team. The complaint alleges the company failed to remedy the situation or offer her reinstatement.
Where the Case Stands
Our client filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court in July 2026 (Case No. 26CU038681C), after receiving a right-to-sue notice from the California Civil Rights Department. The defendants are EOS Fitness San Diego LLC, Sports Arena Fitness LLC, the general manager individually, and unnamed Doe defendants.
The claim for Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA is brought against all defendants, including the general manager individually. The claims for Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, Failure to Prevent Harassment & Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA are brought against EOS Fitness San Diego LLC and Sports Arena Fitness LLC.
The complaint also states that any arbitration agreement is unenforceable as to this action under the federal Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act. The case is pending, and we’ll continue to share updates as the case moves forward.
What This Case Can Teach Other California Employees
No two cases are the same, but these points apply to many California workers:
  • Promotions tied to sex are quid pro quo harassment. When someone with power over your job connects advancement to sexual demands, that is one of the most serious forms of harassment under California law.
  • Harassment doesn’t stop counting at the door. A supervisor’s conduct away from work can still be part of a hostile work environment, depending on the facts.
  • Saying no can be protected. Refusing a supervisor’s sexual demands can count as opposing harassment, and losing sales opportunities or commissions afterward can be retaliation, depending on the facts.
  • Leaving your job doesn’t end your rights. You can still report harassment and pursue claims after you resign, within the filing deadlines, which are often shorter than people expect.
  • A manager can’t make the problem disappear by telling you to drop it. Being told to leave it in the past isn’t an investigation. Our sexual harassment FAQs and complete guide cover your options.
If you’re dealing with sexual harassment at work anywhere in California, you don’t have to sort out your options alone. Makarem & Associates offers free consultations to help you understand what happened, what your rights are, and what steps make sense for you. Reach out to us. We’re here to listen and to help.
This article is based on allegations made in a publicly filed legal complaint. The allegations described are not yet proven in court, and the defendants are entitled to respond and defend themselves. Our client’s name and the names of the individuals involved have been withheld out of respect for their privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Contact Us!
Call Us: 800-610-9646
Email Us: intake@law-rm.com
]]> by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[Chuck E. Cheese Sexual Harassment Lawsuit: Teen Employee Alleges Older Coworker Groped Her]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256255 2026-10-27T17:59:11Z 2026-10-27T17:59:11Z A Chuck E. Cheese sexual harassment lawsuit alleges that a much older male coworker repeatedly touched a teenage employee, then groped and kissed her, and that her hours were slashed after she reported it. At Makarem & Associates, we represent her. She was a minor in her first job when the complaint says it began.
Young workers often assume they have to put up with it, or that no one will take them seriously if they speak up. California law doesn’t work that way. Harassment protections apply to every employee, whatever their age.
A First Job, and Allegedly Unwanted Touching Almost Every Shift
According to the complaint, our client began working for CEC Entertainment, LLC at one of its Chuck E. Cheese locations in late 2024.
Shortly after she was hired, the complaint alleges, a much older male coworker began sexually harassing her. She estimates he was in his fifties or sixties. The harassment allegedly happened almost every shift she worked, about four days a week.
The complaint alleges that whenever she walked by, he found a way to touch her, including rubbing her arm and putting his hands on her shoulders. He allegedly told her she was different from other workers, called her pretty, beautiful, and sweet, and on at least one occasion kissed her cheek.
The Complaint Alleges It Escalated in the Breakroom
In spring 2025, according to the complaint, the coworker’s conduct escalated. In the breakroom, he allegedly hugged her, groped her buttocks, kissed the side of her neck, and winked at her.
She says it wasn’t only him. The complaint alleges the location’s general manager, also significantly older, frequently made inappropriate comments about her appearance. Another much older male employee, a friend of the coworker, allegedly made similar comments.
She Reported It the Same Day, the Complaint Says
Our client didn’t wait. The complaint alleges that on the same day as the breakroom incident, she verbally reported the coworker’s conduct to multiple supervisors and completed a written complaint.
According to the complaint, the company was aware, or should have been aware, of earlier problems with the same coworker. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that another female employee had complained he touched her inappropriately and management did not believe her, and that a male employee had complained the coworker showed him pornography.
Is an Employer Responsible When a Coworker Harasses an Employee?
It can be. Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer is liable for a coworker’s harassment if it knew or should have known about it and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. The coworker can also be held personally liable.
FEHA’s harassment protections reach employers with one or more employees. Harassment also doesn’t have to be both severe and pervasive. The test is severe or pervasive, and a single serious incident can be enough (Gov. Code § 12923(b)). Our complete guide to sexual harassment in California explains more.
After the Report, Her Hours Were Allegedly Cut
The complaint alleges the company let the coworker keep working during its investigation, which exposed our client and other employees to his ongoing presence. She says she was never told the results of any investigation.
Then, according to the complaint, her hours were drastically cut, from about 15 hours a week to about three. The coworker’s friend allegedly became hostile toward her. Several months later, she sent a letter to the company’s Human Resources department describing the harassment and retaliation, the complaint says.
Can a Cut in Hours Be Retaliation?
Yes, it can be. FEHA makes it unlawful to retaliate against someone for opposing or reporting harassment (Gov. Code § 12940(h)). Retaliation doesn’t have to be a firing. A sharp drop in scheduled hours soon after a complaint can be an adverse action, depending on the facts.
Forced to Resign, She Alleges
According to the complaint, the harassment, the company’s inadequate response, and the reduced hours created intolerable working conditions for our client. The complaint alleges she could not stand returning to the place where she had been harassed and retaliated against, and that she was constructively terminated.
As a general matter of California law, a resignation can be treated as a firing when the employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would have no reasonable alternative but to resign. Our wrongful termination page covers how that works.
Where the Case Stands
After receiving a right-to-sue notice from the California Civil Rights Department in May 2026, our client filed suit in Ventura County Superior Court against CEC Entertainment, LLC, the coworker individually, and unnamed Doe defendants. The operative complaint is the First Amended Complaint, as later amended.
The claim for Sexual Harassment & Hostile Work Environment in Violation of FEHA is brought against all defendants, including the coworker individually. The claims for Sex Discrimination in Violation of FEHA, Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, and Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy are brought against CEC Entertainment, LLC. The case is pending, and we’ll continue to share updates as the case moves forward.
What This Case Can Teach Other California Employees
If you, or a young person in your life, are facing something like this at work, here’s what we want you to know:
  • Age doesn’t shrink your rights. Teen workers are protected from sexual harassment under FEHA just like adult employees.
  • Unwanted touching isn’t friendliness. Repeated touching, kissing, or comments about your appearance can be harassment, even when someone calls it affection. Our guide to hostile work environments explains more.
  • Report it, and put it in writing. A written complaint made soon after an incident creates a record of what you reported and when.
  • Your employer has to act on coworker harassment. Letting the person keep working alongside you with no protective steps may not be an appropriate response.
  • Fewer hours after a complaint can be retaliation. Track your schedule and pay before and after you report.
  • Talk to a lawyer before you resign, if you can. Whether leaving counts as a constructive discharge depends on the specific facts. Our sexual harassment FAQs answer common questions.
If you’re dealing with sexual harassment or retaliation at work anywhere in California, you don’t have to sort out your options alone. Makarem & Associates offers free consultations to help you understand what happened, what your rights are, and what steps make sense for you. Reach out to us. We’re here to listen and to help.
This article is based on allegations made in a publicly filed legal complaint. The allegations described are not yet proven in court, and the defendants are entitled to respond and defend themselves. Our client’s name and the names of the individuals involved have been withheld out of respect for their privacy. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Contact Us!
Call Us: 800-610-9646
Email Us: intake@law-rm.com
]]> by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[When Reporting Costs You Playing Time: Retaliation in College and Professional Athletics]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256253 2026-10-21T19:12:35Z 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]]> by Makarem & Associates <![CDATA[She Reported Sexual Harassment — Then Faced A Hostile Workplace: Understanding Retaliation]]> https://www.makaremlaw.com/?p=256251 2026-10-20T21:24:21Z 2026-10-20T21:24:21Z 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]]>