General “harassment,” such as yelling, screaming, demeaning language, or unfair workload, is not “unlawful” if based merely on a personality conflict (contact me so that I can give you my red shoe example and clarify this point). Such conduct is only illegal if the harasser is motivated by racial prejudice (or animus towards any of the protected classes).

Racial motive may be proven by showing that others of different races were treated more favorably. Racial motive may also be inferred from discriminatory remarks, stereotypes, racial joking, or slurs.

Also, harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile or abusive work environment is illegal. That means that isolated, infrequent, trivial, or merely offensive comments would usually not suffice. However, if the comments are severe enough, like egregious racial slurs, they need not be as frequent. Also, if the discriminatory remarks are combined with frequent, general harassment, like yelling, screaming, or use of a demeaning or disrespectful tone, the combination may be sufficient to violate the law.

Since the conduct must be “unwelcome” to violate the law, a case is usually strongest where the employee has told the harasser to stop and also reported the conduct.

Reporting the conduct is particularly important where the harasser is a coworker rather than a supervisor. If the harassment is perpetrated by a mere coworker, you will usually need to show that a supervisory employee knew or should have known of the problem, but failed to take action to correct it. If the harasser is a supervisor, the employer will be liable for his conduct whether it knew about it or not. However, an employer that was unaware of supervisory harassment, and had promulgated and enforced effective anti-harassment policies, will likely avoid liability for punitive damages provided that it takes immediate and effective remedial action once it learns of the situation.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act also prohibits an employer from discriminating against any employee because of that employee’s National Origin. Because there is rarely “smoking gun” evidence of racial discrimination, circumstantial evidence will usually suffice. An inference of discrimination is usually raised by showing that the employee;

Belongs to a protected class (i.e., comes from a country different from that of the Company’s management or the majority of workers).
Was subjected to an adverse employment action (like termination, demotion, suspension).
Similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently and more favorably.
In addition to raising an inference of discrimination in the manner set forth above, an employee may do so via statistical evidence, comparative evidence, or direct evidence. Direct evidence, such as discriminatory comments made by the decision maker, is often the most persuasive.

However, in larger companies, it may be possible to use statistical analysis to demonstrate that the employer systematically discriminates against a particular group of people of a national origin in hiring, promotions, and terminations. Such evidence would raise an inference that the action taken against a particular employee of that national origin was also infected by animus or prejudice. Comparative evidence also raises an inference of discrimination by showing that different rules and standards were applied for persons of different national origin.

Because discrimination cases usually turn on specific facts, and there is usually a 1-year time limit for filing, it is important to consult with an attorney as soon as possible after a potentially discriminatory action has been taken.

Contact us today for a free case evaluation with no further obligation: (213) 213-2525 or info@GonzalezLawPC.com.

DISCLAIMER: This website is intended to provide general information only. Nothing contained in this article, or on this website, is intended to provide legal advice. By using this website you acknowledge and agree that you have not formed an attorney-client relationship with Gonzalez Law and will not rely on any information contained on this website without personally speaking with one of our attorneys. You further understand and acknowledge that Gonzalez Law strongly encourages anyone who believes they may have a claim to communicate directly with a lawyer, whether from Gonzalez Law or any other firm.