California Sexual Harassment Lawyers | BNCL Law Firm

California Sexual Harassment Lawyers

Every employee in California has the right to earn a living and not face sexual harassment while at work. When employers do not uphold this right, and either sexually harass their workers or allow others to engage in such behavior, it can make work life insufferable for their employees. If your employer has violated your rights, you may be able to file a claim for monetary compensation. Our California sexual harassment lawyers at Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy can review the facts of your case and provide the legal advice you need.

{ "@context": "http://www.schema.org", "@type": "Attorney", "name": "BNCL Law Firm", "url": "https://bncllaw.com/practice-areas/employment-discrimination/sexual-harrassment/", "logo": "https://bncllaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BNCL-Logo-White.svg", "image": "https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img/https://bncllaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/police-abuse-lawyer-1.jpg", "description": "The legal team at BNCL is ready to fight back against workplace harassment and discrimination. We support victims in their quest for justice.\n", "address": { "@type": "PostalAddress", "streetAddress": "7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120", "addressLocality": "Oakland", "addressRegion": "CA", "postalCode": "94621", "addressCountry": "United States" }, "contactPoint": { "@type": "ContactPoint", "telephone": "(510) 839-5200" } }
READ MORELESS
Alt Text!

Sexual harassment in the workplace falls into one of two categories. The first is quid pro quo, which is not as common today as it once was, but it still does occur. Quid pro quo harassment occurs when one person offers something of value in exchange for sexual favors. In workplaces, the person making the offer is usually someone in an authoritative position, such as a boss or manager. For example, the owner of a company may offer an employee a promotion if they go out on a date with them.

Quid pro quo harassment is quite obvious, which is why it is not seen as commonly today. The second type of sexual harassment is behavior that creates a hostile work environment. A hostile work environment is not one in which an employee simply feels uncomfortable. For a hostile work environment to exist, the harassment must be so pervasive it interferes with the employee’s ability to perform their employment duties. A hostile work environment also involves ongoing behavior, and one cannot be created through a single event. Some common behaviors that could create a hostile work environment are as follows:

  • Knowingly invading the personal space of an employee
  • Physically touching an employee in an unwelcome manner
  • Regularly making jokes, comments, and innuendos of a sexual nature
  • Distributing messages or images that are sexual

Often when people think of sexual harassment, they imagine an employer or someone in a supervisory position knowingly harassing an employee. This is often the case and when it is, the employer can certainly be held liable for paying damages, or financial compensation. However, there are also other times when employers can be held liable for sexual harassment. When employers knew that sexual harassment was occurring and they did nothing to stop it, they can also be held vicariously liable.

For example, if a co-worker sexually harassed you and your employer did not stop it after you filed a complaint, you could hold your employer liable for the harassment as well. Employers can also be held liable if they knew other parties, such as contractors, vendors, and even customers, were sexually harassing their employees and they did nothing to stop it.

If you have been treated unfairly at work, our California sexual harassment lawyers at Burris, Nisenbaum, Curry & Lacy can answer all of your questions and provide sound legal advice on your claim. Call us now at 510-839-5200 or reach out to us online to schedule a consultation and to learn more about your legal options.

How can we help?

    Subject*

    Please describe your issue

    Our Offices

    Northern California Office Airport Corporate Centre
    7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
    Oakland, CA 94621
    Ph: (510) 839-5200
    Southern California Office
    9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    Ph: (310) 601-7070
    For press inquiries,
    please contact:
    Lee Houskeeper
    newsservice@aol.com
    Ph: (415)654-9141

    Our Offices

    Northern California Office Airport Corporate Centre
    7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120
    Oakland, CA 94621
    Ph: (510) 839-5200
    Southern California Office
    9701 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
    Beverly Hills, CA 90212
    Ph: (310) 601-7070
    For press inquiries,
    please contact:
    Lee Houskeeper
    newsservice@aol.com
    Ph: (415)654-9141
    Case Results

    Reginald Oliver v. City of Oakland

    Oakland Police keep fabricating evidence and lying about minorities to arrest and prosecute them for supposed “gang” crimes, in violation of a settlement that prohibits …

    Read More
    Named plaintiff Reginald Oliver claims the Oakland PD continues violating the Constitution, in defiance of the settlement in Delphine Allen e al. v. City of Oakland, USDC No. C-00-4599 TEH, also known as "The Riders" litigation. Read Full Course
    John Burris
    Jane Smith v. City of Oakland

    Racial profiling of Asian women by police officer resulting in a class action complaint for damages, declaratory and injunctive relief

    Read More
    Finding evidence about defendant's post-conviction parole violation unfairly prejudicial "since the jury could have construed that parole violation as character evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)" Read Full Course
    Rodney King
    Rodney King v. City of Los Angeles

    Rodney King has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to have Judge John G. Davies disqualified from presiding at the trial of …

    Read More
    Rodney King waited too long to file a malpractice suit against the first of 27 lawyers who represented him in connection with the infamous beating he suffered from Los Angeles police in 1991, this district’s Court of Appeal ruled yesterday. The ruling by Div. Two affirmed Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Kough’s grant of summary judgment to Steven Lerman. King earlier this year dismissed his appeal of Kough’s ruling in favor of two other lawyers sued in the case, Federico Sayre and John Burris. Read Full Course
    FEATURED News & Updates

    Civil rights lawyer John Burris confronts police narratives

    Written by Janie Har, AP researcher Rhonda Shafner also contributed to this report. To read on AP News click here OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — Before …

    Watch our video