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.

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act specifically prohibits harassment based on “race, religious creed, color, and national origin.” Hostile work environment claims based on racial harassment are reviewed under the same standard as those based on sexual harassment. Thus, allegations of a racially hostile workplace must be assessed from the perspective of a reasonable person belonging to the same racial or ethnic group as plaintiff.

The California Standard of Conduct for Racial Harassment
To constitute racial harassment, the conduct must be sufficiently “severe” or “pervasive” to later the conditions of the victim’s employment. The victim of the racial harassment must show a concerted partner of harassment of a repeated, routine or a generalized nature” and that the conduct constituted an “unreasonably abusive or offensive work-related environment or adversely affected the reasonable employee’s ability to do his or her job.”

Although occasional, isolated incidents are usually not enough to create hostile work environment, even a single act by a supervisor may be severe enough to alter the conditions of employment. Thus, while the co-workers single racist remark may not be sufficient to constitute harassment, the same statement by the victim’s direct supervisor might be actionable, due to the authority that the supervisor has over a victim and the increase stress/injury resulting as a result of being subject to harassment by the person in a position of authority.

Employer’s Duty to Prevent Harassment
As with sexual harassment claims, an employer has a duty to prevent and remedy instances of racial and national origin harassment. An employer who fails to remedy problems of which it has actual or constructive knowledge may be held liable for harassment despite the existence of a formal policy against harassment.

Harassment by Member of Same Race At least one federal court held that racial slurs may constitute harassment even if made by one member to another member of the same race, as the court held in Ross v. Douglas County (8th Cir. 2000).

When Racial Harassment is Aimed at OthersBecause the injury from harassment focuses on the workplace environment as a whole, a hostile environment may exist even if some of the hostility is directed at other workers. Thus, where racial slurs have been directed at a minority race of which plaintiff is a member, similar slurs directed at other minorities may contribute to the overall hostility of the working environment.

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.