As I meet more aggrieved employees, I notice a clear, repeating pattern - and employee works and performs well, enjoying working with his professional team and in his work environment, having a good relationship with his supervisor. At one point, his supervisors leaves or is being transferred to another department, and a new manager is being appointed to supervise the same employee. The new manager might be coming from outside, might not be experienced or even worse - might be having his first management position, upon receiving which he or she is eager to exercise his new power and control (what we commonly call as "power trip.")

Your new supervisor might have very different expectations from the previous one, which can be legitimate as every professional has different idea of what and how the performance of his or her subordinates should be. But when the new person abuses his power, nit-picking an employee, who has been working for the same company for much longer, this will necessarily cause undue stress and confrontation between the employee and his new manager.  This eventually leads to a range of legal claims by an employee - from harassment and hostile work environment, to retaliation (if the employee complains about his supervisor to the higher up, and as a result gets disciplined or terminated).

How can such problems at workplace and potential liability be effectively prevented and avoided?

One effective way to prevent this problem is to have the new manager undergo training and not only on discrimination, harassment and other laws that cover California workplace, but also generally on employee relations and on what makes a great manager who receives respect and admiration from his employees and who increases productivity, as opposed to one who creates bitterness, frustration and unnecessary stress on his employees. 

In addition, it is important to consider supervising closely the new manager and his ways of handling and communicating with his employees  - at least in the beginning stages of that new supervisor's job.

Under California law, an employer is required to promptly and thoroughly investigate any claim of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. The obligation to investigate arises out of the affirmative duty under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code section 12940(j) and (k) to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring. The duty to investigate a harassment claim promptly and throughly exists whether or not the claimant consents to an investigation or cooperates with one. Further, neither an employee’s failure to report harassment nor the fact that the harassment stopped before the investigation began conclusively absolve an employer from liability for discrimination and harassment. Moreover, it is not enough for an employer to conduct an investigation without also taking measure to protect the employee from retaliation.

Employer’s failure to investigate an employee’s complaint adequately may violate California anti-discrimination laws. To be adequate, the investigations should be commenced immediately, and be completed as soon as circumstances reasonably allow. Investigations commenced within a day or days of a complaint and completed within a two-week period have been routinely upheld as timely. Waiting until after the complainant has filed an administrative charge with DFEH or EEOC will be presumed inadequate.

While the complaint is undergoing investigation, the employer should take steps to prevent contact between the complaining employee and the alleged harasser, such as rescheduling or placing the alleged harasser on leave.

It is commonly known that sexual harassment at workplace involves unwelcome acts of sexual nature by a co-workers or a supervisor, such as unwelcome touching, repeated unwanted propositioning, conditioning employment or promotion on sexual favors, etc.

Offensive conduct, however, need not be sexual in nature to create a hostile work environment in the workplace. Hostile non-sexual conduct (or language) directed at an employee because of his or her gender may create an actionable hostile environment. A pervasive pattern of abuse violates Title VII even if not motivated by sexual desire to drive women out of the organization. Rude overbearing, loud, vulgar and generally unpleasant comments by a male supervisor toward female subordinates, coupled with physically aggressive (though non-sexual) actions, may constitute sexual harassment if male subordinates were treated with proper respect. Interestingly enough, the fact that there were more women than men in the office does not make a difference.

A non-sexual conduct that singles out an employee based on gender may also be actionable and constitute sexual harassment/hostile work environment. In one California case, a hostile work environment was shown by evidence that male police officers engaged in overtly hostile acts toward female police officer, including stuffing her shotgun barrel with paper so that the weapon would explode if fired, spreading untrue rumors about her abilities, singling her out for unfavorable work assignments and shifts, making false complaints about her performance, and even threatening to disrupt her wedding.

Even staring, coupled with other factors, can constitute sexual harassment hostile work environment. In one case, a female employee refused a male co-worker’s several requests for a date (which included divulges lewd fantasies about her). When she complained to her supervisor, the coworker stopped talking to her, but started staring at her in an intimidating manner. In light of his prior conduct, the coworker’s repeatedly staring at the female employee and the employer’s failure to stop it despite the employee’s complaints could constitute actionable hostile environment sexual harassment according to court.