Recently, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced that Trinity Products, Inc (“Trinity”), a billboards and signposts manufacturer, agreed to pay $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation suit filed by the EEOC. The EEOC alleged that a “high level manager harassed his assistant with offensive language and gestures and requests for sexual favors and sought to replace her after she complained to other supervisors about his conduct, resulting in her discharge.” (EEOC, et al. v. Trinity Products, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:09-CV-01617 CAS). As part of the settlement, Trinity must distribute a notice informing employees of their rights under federal anti-discrimination laws and provide sexual harassment training for all managers.

The above case is a reminder that the “language” used by one employee can easily be considered “offensive” and sexual harassing by another employee. An employee’s stray comment, sexual inference or joke is often considered sexual harassment by a co-worker. Interestingly, the improper comments are often made by those employees in a supervisory, management or senior executive position.

To reduce company liability and prevent harassment allegations, claims and lawsuits, many companies conduct sexual harassment prevention training on an annual basis. Employees should be provided with the legal definition of sexual harassment, given examples of sexual harassment based on common work-day interactions, provided the company’s reporting procedures and encouraged to report all incidents without fear of retaliation.

Creating a culture where employees are empowered to report sexual harassment often starts with a well drafted employee handbook that clearly defines the company’s reporting procedures. To prevent sexual harassment, we recommend that all employers review their handbook policies for clarity and consider sexual harassment prevention training on an annual basis. Indeed, this training is a requirement for employers with more than 50 employees, which includes contractors and part-time employees.  Additionally, the training should be considered by smaller employers to bolster their defenses in the event of similar litigation.

Liberty Law provides economical harassment prevention training that complies with the law, adding to the employer’s defense in the event of litigation. Additionally, Liberty Law will provide this training and seminar free of charge to its level 2 and 3 monthly subscribers (more details here) after 6 months of engagement.

A recent decision by the California Court of Appeal has basically banned unions from picketing on business property within California. In its opinion the court invalidated two California laws designed to protect union demonstrations on business property.  The reviewing court ordered the trial court to grant an injunction restraining the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (“the Union”) from picketing in front of a Sacramento warehouse store owned by Ralphs Grocery Co. (“Ralphs”). Ralphs Grocery Co. v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 8, No. C060413 (Cal. Ct. App. July 19, 2010).

Facts: The dispute arose when several members of the Union picketed in front of Food Co., a subsidiary of Ralphs, for being a nonunion store. Ralphs sued for trespass and sought to enjoin the unauthorized picketing after an unsuccessful attempt to require the Union to follow Food Co.’s rules for speech on the property. The rules prohibited, in part, the distribution of literature, physical contact with any person, display of signs larger than two feet by three feet, and speech within 20 feet of the store entrance. Ralphs alleged that the Union didn’t follow the rules ; specifically, that the Union  was handing out flyers and enlisting supporters within five feet of the entrance.

In bringing suit, Ralphs challenged the constitutionality of California’s Moscone Act, which deprived state courts of jurisdiction to issue injunctions against “peaceful picketing or patrolling” involving any labor dispute. Ralph’s lawsuit also challenged California’s Labor Code section 1131.8, which imposed severe restrictions on a property owner’s right to obtain injunctive relief against union activities. The trial court ruled that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional because it constituted content based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. The trial court, however, upheld the constitutionality of California’s Labor Code section 1138.1 in light of a prior appellate decision which held that Labor Code section 1138.1 did not violate federal and state constitutional guarantees of equal protection. Applying Labor Code section 1138.1, the trial court denied Ralphs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Ralphs appealed.

Decision: Three questions of law were at issue on appeal:

1) Is the entrance area of Food Co., where the picketing was taking place, a public or private forum? If public, the California Constitution required that any time, place, and manner restrictions on free speech be reasonable. The court found that Food Co.’s entrance area was not a public forum, so the company was free to restrict the type of speech allowed at its entrance.

2) Is California’s Moscone Act, which limited the ability of courts to issue injunctions in labor relations cases, constitutional? The constitutionality of the Moscone Act was at issue because the Act’s selective restriction was based on the content of the speech. The court held that the Moscone Act was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it afforded preferential treatment to speech concerning labor disputes over speech about other issues.

3) Is the requirement of California’s Labor Code section 1138.1 that factual showings be made before a court is able to grant an injunction in a labor dispute constitutional (i.e., that unlawful acts have been threatened and will be committed and that substantial and irreparable injury to the property would result)? The court found that this Labor Code section was unconstitutional for the same reasons as that of the Moscone Act.

Stay Tuned: Although the decision may be subject to further appeal, this case provides important guidance for employers dealing with the issue of regulating union activity on business property. The court’s ruling is seen as a major victory for California retailers who have endured loss of business and damage to their image resulting from union picketing on their properties. A wide spectrum of businesses ranging from hospitals to retail chain stores are expected to be impacted by this decision. Employers need to have a firm grasp of what constitutes public and private forums under California law and be able to determine the types of content neutral restrictions that are enforceable on their premises.