Recreational program employee complains of sexual harassment by supervisor; both are fired. $9.1M. San Diego County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiff was hired by defendants in late 2020 to work at a beach club in Carlsbad as a recreational program lead.  According to its website, the company ran recreational programs for kids.  Over the next year and a half, plaintiff alleged she was misclassified, denied meal and rest breaks, denied overtime and subjected to sexual harassment by her direct supervisor. When plaintiff complained about her supervisor’s workplace conduct, her complaint was immediately relayed to the supervisor, causing the supervisor to get angry with her and instruct her to never go over his head to report him. As time went on, and the supervisor’s sexually harassing conduct continued, plaintiff confided in a coworker, who in turn, reported plaintiff’s complaint to ownership.

  Ownership decided to fire the supervisor for other misconduct. In firing the supervisor, however, ownership told him that he was being fired in part due to complaints by plaintiff of sexual harassment. After being fired, the supervisor alleged – for the first time – that plaintiff had sexually harassed him. Ownership decided to investigate the fired supervisor’s allegations.

  Plaintiff was fired in March 2022. Her termination came within days of participating in the sexual harassment investigation.  

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  That defendants retaliated against plaintiff after her complaints of sexual harassment by her supervisor and for complaining of being forced to work off the clock. That plaintiff was wrongfully terminated from her job.

  At trial, expert testimony alleged that defendants’ supposed investigation into sexual harassment by plaintiff was incomplete, biased, and motivated by defendants’ desire to protect themselves against potential liability, not to determine the truth.

   

• Defendant's Contentions:

  Defendants denied that plaintiff was misclassified, denied she was subjected to sexual harassment, denied she was wrongfully terminated and denied that she sustained any damages.

  The fired supervisor testified at trial that he made the allegations against plaintiff because he was sad that he had been terminated, and that plaintiff was not telling the entire story. The supervisor testified that the conduct between himself and plaintiff was friendly and joking, and that at the time he did not believe it was sexual harassment. Other employees testified that they had never observed either the supervisor or plaintiff sexually proposition or harass the other person. 

  Per defense counsel:

  Plaintiff never reported the alleged sexual harassment.  When the company discovered the allegations from a third party, it initiated an investigation and terminated the supervisor. Plaintiff only testified to three incidents of verbal sexual harassment, but only reported two of the incidents during the investigation. After being fired, the supervisor alleged that plaintiff had sexually harassed him, was trying to get him fired, and created a hostile work environment. Ownership discovered evidence that plaintiff was, in fact, trying to get him fired and that she had created a hostile work environment. During the investigation, the investigators found a text message from plaintiff to the supervisor that was sexually suggestive. The investigators asked plaintiff if she had sent a sexually suggestive text message to the supervisor and she denied ever sending it, even though the investigators had the evidence.