The Ninth Circuit upheld an award of more than $700,000 to a female employee who alleged that she was raped and subjected to other forms of sexual harassment and retaliation during her employment.

The Claims

Olivia Tamayo was employed as a farm worker by California-based Harris Farms for fifteen years, beginning in 1985.  She alleged that for years she was forced to work in isolation with a supervisor, Rene Rodriguez, who continually harassed and intimidated her and forcibly raped her on three separate occasions.

She testified that she initially didn’t report the incidents because of Rodriguez’s threats,  and the fact that he routinely carried a gun and/or knife.  When she eventually did report the harassment, Tamayo says the company failed to take action to protect her and continued to force her to work alone in a field near Rodriguez’s home. 

The company contended that it took sufficient steps to protect Tamayo, including calling in a sheriff’s deputy to investigate Tamayo’s claims.  The deputy declined to file criminal charges against Rodriguez.

Tamayo filed a complaint with the EEOC in 1999.  The company allegedly reacted by suspending her and telling her that she would be terminated if additional “problems” occurred.

Tamayo eventually quit in 2001, claiming constructive termination.

The Verdict

The jury found the company liable for sexual harassment, retaliation and constructive termination.  She was awarded $300,000 in punitive damages, $350,000 in compensatory damages, $91,000 in front pay and $53,000 in back pay.  The judge also imposed an injunction against the company, ordering it to refrain from any further retaliation against employees who complain of harassment.

The Appeal

The company appealed the punitive damages award on the grounds that it was inappropriate and excessive.  The Ninth Circuit disagreed, pointing to the company’s ”retaliatory tactics,” including its suspension of Tamayo after she reported the harassment.

The EEOC issued the following statement following the ruling:  “The Ninth Circuit agreed with the jury’s verdict:  punitive damages were justified in light of the retaliation Mrs. Tamayo suffered.  As an immigrant with limited education and limited English, she faced significant financial risks and social obstacles to speak out against harassment.  In fact, her harasser threatened to kill her husband and otherwise harm her family.  To come forward under these circumstances only to be met with further retaliation by Harris Farms is unjust and illegal.”

The Lesson

Employers who fail to take adequate steps to address claims of harassment face significant potential liability.  Each claim should be investigated promptly, thoroughly and as confidentially as possible to ensure fairness and safety for all employees.

As evidenced by this case, failing to separate the alleged harasser and victim could be a recipe for disaster.  This is particularly true in remote work locations, where the potential for inappropriate conduct is heightened.  The employer should consider placing the alleged harasser on paid leave during the investigation, transferring him/her to a different shift or allowing him/her to telecommute.  Again, the goal is fairness and safety for all.

In a few minutes, I’ll post a handy checklist to help guide your investigations.  Check it out.

This entry was posted on Monday, May 5th, 2008 at 6:55 am and is filed under Employment Law News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.