In the restaurant industry, businesses often grapple with complex challenges, including allegations of sexual harassment, which can severely damage a company’s reputation, lead to financial penalties, and result in extensive investigations. These accusations expose businesses and their employees to significant legal consequences under state and federal laws.
Lisa Sherman has a proven track record of success and is dedicated to achieving favorable outcomes for our clients.
Defending Restaurant Against Sexual Harassment Lawsuit
Lisa Sherman provides robust legal defenses for her clients, no matter the case’s complexity. In the following case, we detail our strategic approach in defending a California-based restaurant and its management in a challenging sexual harassment lawsuit.
The case involved intricate allegations of sexual harassment, retaliation, and defamation, which required a comprehensive and proactive legal strategy.
Overview of Factual Allegations
The plaintiff in this case was a female in her early 20s who was employed part-time as a waitress at a California-based restaurant. The alleged harasser was a male shift manager who was also in his early 20s.
Plaintiff, who admitted that she consensually dated the alleged harasser on and off for a seven-month period of time during her employment, claimed in the lawsuit that she filed that during this same period of time, the accused made sexually offensive remarks to her, would not take “no” for an answer, and used his authority to force her to have sex with him on eight separate occasions.
Retaliation and Negligence Claims
The plaintiff claimed that when she told the owner of the restaurant and another supervisor about one of the accused’s comments, they retaliated against her by changing her schedule and reducing her work hours. She further claimed that the Company did not take appropriate action against the alleged harasser in response to her complaints of sexual harassment; the Company negligently hired, supervised, and retained the accused; and the accused defamed her by communicating to third parties that Plaintiff was “promiscuous.”
Litigation and Defense Strategy
The plaintiff sued four defendants, stating in her lawsuit that she was seeking $5.5 million dollars against all of them. The four defendants included:
- Her employer
- The Company
- The owner, the non-harassing supervisor to whom she complained who allegedly retaliated against her, and
- The alleged harassing supervisor, who no longer was employed by the Company.
Following an attorney-client privileged investigation by counsel and execution of conflict of interest waivers, Lisa Sherman, who primarily handled the case, represented all four defendants.
Investigation Outcomes and Legal Proceedings
Attorney Sherman’s strategy in handling the case involved several key steps and outcomes:
- Conducting Investigations and Discovery: Ms. Sherman carried out an up-front legal and factual attorney-client investigation, served written discovery, and scheduled the former employee’s deposition. While many of the claims asserted against the individual defendants were not actionable as a matter of law against them, to save the cost of unnecessary motions that did not dismiss the individual defendants entirely from the lawsuit, Ms. Sherman requested that counsel dismiss the specific claims that were not viable, providing them with full legal authority. In the same letter, Ms. Sherman also informed counsel that her up-front legal and factual investigation of the facts and law refuted the plaintiff’s substantive allegations and reminded them of their obligation to conduct a similar investigation.
- Witness Interviews: The interviews indicated that the plaintiff’s relationship with the accused was consensual throughout her employment. The evidence also indicated that she actively pursued him, openly joked and touched him suggestively at work, and even initiated sexual relations with him, even boasting about it to her co-workers.
- Communication Analysis: Investigations also uncovered communications the Plaintiff had regarding the timing and intentions in filing the lawsuit.
- Deposition Strategy: During the deposition, Ms. Sherman aimed to secure admissions under oath to strengthen the defense. This included confirming the consensual nature of the relationship and the plaintiff’s ongoing initiation of welcome sexual conduct, none of which offended her at any time during her employment, and that after they broke up, she had no further contact with him and continued to work the same or similar hours as she did before.
- Motions for Summary Judgment and Sanctions: Ms. Sherman prepared to file a motion for summary judgment and sanctions against the Plaintiff for pursuing claims not supported by facts or law. Summary judgment motions are dispositive and can dismiss the lawsuit if it is shown that, even if all allegations were true, they do not constitute a legal claim against the defendants.
- Settlement Demand and Legal Motions: Ms. Sherman provided counsel with the opportunity to dismiss the claims by outlining the basis of her motions prior to filing them. Counsel for Plaintiff responded by serving a settlement demand (under Code of Civ. Procedure Section 998) for $1.1 million dollars and filed an ex parte (emergency) motion requesting that the Court grant her leave to amend the complaint (i.e., lawsuit) to allow her to add as a defendant, the alleged harasser’s father, on the ground that his father allowed his son and the plaintiff to have sex in his home. The Court denied the motion.
- Court Proceedings and Delays: After Defendants filed their motions for summary judgment and motion for sanctions, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a series of ex parte (emergency) motions seeking various extensions of time and additional discovery, which the Court granted in part, as is often the case when faced with summary judgment motions.
- By ensuring that both parties have had a full opportunity to respond and conduct discovery, the Court’s ruling will be based solely on the merits. Unfortunately, as is also often the case, the Court delayed the motion hearing until just ten days before trial so that the parties were also filing required pre-trial documents and preparing for trial simultaneously.
- Given the amount of time, expense, and uncertainty of how the Court would rule on the motions, the parties participated in two unsuccessful settlement conferences;
- Plaintiff and her counsel would not accept less than $1 million.
- Trial and Sanctions: Just ten days before trial, the Court granted the Defendants’ motions for summary judgment and motion for sanctions, adopting all of the legal arguments raised by Ms. Sherman. Sanctions of $15,000 were ordered against Plaintiff and her two attorneys.
- Outcome: Glendale News Press reported that the law firm that represented Plaintiff had been dissolved soon after the Court’s Order.
In conclusion, Attorney Sherman successfully defended the case by conducting a thorough investigation and securing key admissions, leading to the court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
Contact Lisa Sherman Today
For reliable guidance on defending against workplace sexual harassment claims and safeguarding your rights, contact Lisa Sherman. Contact us at (323) 488-2087 for a free consultation.
