hostile work environment

Mattioda v. Nelson, 98 F.4th 1164 (9th Cir. 2024)

Dr. Andrew Mattioda, a NASA scientist, sued the agency for discrimination and hostile work environment that allegedly began after he informed his supervisors of a disability to his hips and spine and requested upgraded airline tickets for work-related travel.  The district court dismissed on summary judgment both the discrimination and hostile work environment claims, but

Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc., 97 Cal. App. 5th 865 (2023)

Stephanie Beltran, a server at the Hard Rock Hotel in Palm Springs, alleged she had been sexually harassed by Juan Rivera, the former General Manager of the hotel. Beltran reported to Human Resources that Rivera had “grabbed or slapped her ass.” Beltran also testified in her deposition about “multiple incidents

We invite you to review our newly-posted July 2023 California Employment Law Notes, a comprehensive review of the latest and most significant developments in California employment law. The highlights include:

Sharp v. S&S Activewear, LLC, 69 F.4th 974 (9th Cir. 2023)

Fed up with hearing “very offensive” songs like Eminem’s “Stan” and Too $hort’s “B*job Betty” on the job, Stephanie Sharp and several other employees (including one male) filed a hostile work environment claim against their employer under Title VII.  Plaintiffs claimed they could not escape the music because it was “[b]lasted from

Reynaga v. Roseburg Forest Prods., 847 F.3d 678 (9th Cir. 2017)

Efrain Reynaga and his son Richard Reynaga, who worked as millwrights for Roseburg Forest Products, were the only millwrights of Mexican descent at the company. Efrain alleged that during the course of his employment he was subjected to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment based on his race or national origin. Efrain

Matson v. UPS, 840 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2016)

Mary Matson, a member of the Teamsters Union, worked as a “combination worker” unloading and sorting packages at UPS’s Boeing Field International hub in Seattle. During her employment, Matson allegedly complained that because of her gender she was subject to unfair and demeaning treatment in the workplace.  UPS subsequently fired Matson for “proven dishonesty,” relying upon

Arizona ex rel. Horne v. The Geo Group, 2016 WL 945634 (9th Cir. 2016)

Alice Hancock was employed by Geo as a correctional officer at the Arizona State Prison. Geo contracts with the Arizona Department of Corrections to maintain and operate two facilities in the state. Hancock filed a charge of discrimination and harassment based on sex and also alleging retaliation. After concluding its

Holmes v. Petrovich Dev. Co., 191 Cal. App. 4th 1047 (2011)

Gina Holmes sued her employer for harassment based on pregnancy, retaliation, constructive discharge, violation of the right to privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the defendants with respect to the claims for harassment, retaliation and constructive discharge, and a jury decided against Holmes with respect