Johanna Schiavoni and Josh Gruenberg Secure a Complete Appellate Victory in a Sexual Harassment and Wrongful Termination Case Against a Prominent San Diego Golf Club

March 24, 2015

A 3-judge panel of the California appellate court in San Diego issued a sweeping appellate victory to the plaintiff in a sexual harassment and wrongful termination case. The case was handled in the trial court by San Diego employment attorney Josh Gruenberg, and by appellate attorney Johanna Schiavoni on appeal.

After extensive briefing in this hard-fought case, the appellate court overturned the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication and summary judgment on five separate causes of action, including hostile work environment sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA), in addition to claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The court’s decision is available at Dawson v. Country Club of Rancho Bernardo (Mar. 23, 2015) 2015 WL 1311302, 126 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1300.

The appellate court adopted Johanna’s argument, agreeing that the employee raised triable issues of fact on both the subjective and objective aspects of her sexual harassment, failure to prevent harassment and IIED claims, and that the trial court erred by considering the evidence in piecemeal fashion and discounting certain of the employee’s evidence. The court also agreed that the employee raised triable issues that she was retaliated against and wrongfully terminated within just weeks after she complained about the harassing conduct. The court held the company manager to whom the employee complained demonstrated hostility and bias against her during the investigation and that the evidence showed other inconsistencies in the company’s “performance-based” explanation for the termination. Thus, there were triable issues regarding whether the termination was instead done in retaliation for the employee’s protected conduct of complaining about her supervisor’s harassment.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in its entirety, awarded costs to the plaintiff, and remanded the case for trial on all five causes of action.



Categorized in: ,