The California Supreme Court in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (S265223, July 29, 2024) clarified the circumstances under which a single racial slur by a coworker can lead to employer liability and further expounded on the type of conduct that can constitute an adverse employment action giving rise to a claim of retaliation. In doing so, the Court provided an important reminder of the necessity to consider the totality of circumstances whenever such claims are made, and to always take claims made by employees against coworkers seriously.
Plaintiff Twanda Bailey, who is African-American, alleged that a coworker with whom she shared an office and job duties called her the N-word. Ms. Bailey reported the incident to her employer’s human resources manager but alleged that rather than take appropriate action in response to the racial harassment, the manager blocked her from filing of a formal complaint and engaged in a course of intimidating conduct against her. Ms. Bailey sued her employer for race-based harassment and retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment for her employer, and the California Court of Appeal affirmed, finding as a matter of law that she had failed to allege sufficiently severe or pervasive conduct to support her claim for harassment, and that the subsequent actions by the HR manager did not constitute an adverse action against her in retaliation for raising her claim. Ms. Bailey took her case to...
The Trump administration’s fraud prosecution of the Southern Poverty Law Center is set for arraignment on Thursday afternoon. Ahead of the scheduled court appearance in Alabama, defense lawyers fo...