ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> Law Blog - WSJ.com

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: Law Blog - WSJ.com

Sexual Harassment in California: A Twofer

By Peter Lattman

ADVERTISEMENTS

dovcharneyHow about a little sexual-harassment litigation as we head into the three-day holiday weekend? A couple of cases out in California had us choking on our Cheerios this morning.

First, a California appeals court overturned a $1.5 million verdict awarded to a woman who was spanked in front of co-workers. Her employers called it team-building exercise. She called it sexual harassment. In 2006, a jury agreed and punished the company with a $1 million punitive damage award.

But this week a state appeals court overturned the verdict. Why? Because the judge didn’t properly instruct the jury on the relevant issue: Was she spanked because she was a woman? The company, Alarm One, had argued since it spanked both male and female employees, there was no harassment. The spanking was part of a team building exercise for its sales force — winners also reported made the losers wear diapers and fed them baby food. (We hope there are writers from The Office who kill time reading this blog while on strike.)

If you think that’s amusing, try this one on for size. The LAT, via Overlawyered, reported on the latest sexual-harassment suit set to go to trial next week against Dov Charney (pictured), the controversial wunderkind owner of clothing chain American Apparel. (Click here for a New Yorker article on Charney by Malcolm Gladwell.) Charney has been sued four times for sexual harassment (one dismissal, two settled) for, er, unusual behavior.

Like wearing underwear around the office. Or walking around naked wearing only a sock to cover his genitals. He denies creating a hostile work environment and in depositions he has explained away his behavior, saying that during the plaintiff’s employment he “frequently had been in my underpants . . . because I was designing an underwear line.” He added: “I’m very proud of the underwear.” As for the sock, he says that he was considering it as a product and he “was in fit condition for it.”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 18, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 10/31/26 02:50:42)