Affairs at Work Subject to Suits
SAN FRANCISCO — Workers who lose promotions to colleagues who are sleeping with the boss can sue their employers for sexual harassment, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In a significant expansion of sexual harassment law in California, the state high court unanimously decided that any worker, male or female, could suffer sexual harassment even if his or her boss never asked for sexual favors or made inappropriate advances.
Previously, only the worker who had the affair or received unwanted sexual attention could prevail in California.
"Widespread favoritism based upon consensual sexual affairs may imbue the workplace with an atmosphere that is demeaning to women because a message is conveyed that managers view women as 'sexual playthings,' " Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the court.
In such a situation, other employees may believe "that the way required to secure advancement is to engage in sexual conduct with managers," he added.
Shannon B. Nakabayashi, who represented California employers in the case, said the decision would result in employers monitoring office romances, even those between employees of the same rank, for fear of being sued for tolerating a sexually charged work environment.
"Unfortunately, employers will have to pay a lot more attention to these things," said Nakabayashi, who represented the Employers Group.
The decision, which came in the case of a California prison warden who was accused of having multiple affairs with employees, overturned two lower court rulings and was at odds with most decisions by courts in other states that have considered similar claims, employment lawyers said.
A spokesman for Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer said that the ruling marked a significant change and noted that California employers will now be more vulnerable to employment suits.
"What the decision means for employers now is that merely having a nepotism policy in place is not enough to protect yourself from liability," said the spokesman, Nathan Barankin.
"It is a very strong opinion in favor of protecting women who are not directly harassed but indeed are disadvantaged by the fact there is favoritism in the office," said William C. Quackenbush, an employment law expert.
He said situations involving sexual favoritism arise frequently in the workplace, particularly in large companies. "The courts that have considered it have previously rejected this concept in California, and most federal courts likewise have rejected paramour favoritism as being a basis for a claim," he said.
