On September 30, 2002, the San Francisco District Office and San Jose Office of the EEOC filed suit against the integrated farming business Harris Farms Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging discrimination on the basis of gender, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On September 29, 2003, the farm worker subject to harassment joined the suit as an intervenor plaintiff. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiff, asserted five claims: (1) supervisor hostile-environment from 1993 to 1999; (2) co-worker hostile-environment in 2001; (3) retaliation in response to a complaint filed in 1999; (4) retaliation in response to a complaint filed in 2001; and (5) a constructive discharge claim.

Following discovery, the case was tried before a jury in November 2004, with District Judge Anthony W. Ishii presiding, and concluded in January 2005 with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, who was awarded $ 994,000 encapsulating lost wages, future economic loss, non-economic damages, and punitive damages.

Plaintiff EEOC moved to include equitable relief in the judgement, and on September 30, 2005, and the Judge Ishii awarded relief, which enjoined the defendant and their agents from retaliation against employees that testified in the matter, mandated additional sexual harassment prevention and deterrence training, mandated record keeping of sexual harassment complaints, equal employment opportunity for employees, and posting a notice of employment rights. Defendant was required to bear the cost of these measures.

The defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for: (1) failing to dismiss the plaintiff’s request to intervene; (2) denying motion for a new trial as a matter of law over admissibility of witness testimony; and (3) the sufficiency of the evidence required for the punitive damage award. The complaining party appealed the decision shortly afterwards regarding denied attorney fees. The parties argued the matter in front of Circuit Judge Procter Ralph Hug, Pamela Ann Rymer, and Johnnie Blakeney Rawlinson on March 11, 2008. On April 17, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s decisions regarding the defendants three counts and finding in favor of the plaintiff regarding assignment of attorney’s fees. 274 F. App'x 511. The question of fees was referred to the mediation unit, where it was resolved by October 29, 2008.

The matter was closed following the satisfaction of the judgement, costs, and attorneys’ fees on December 2, 2008.

Kevin Wilemon - 04/28/2008
Edward Cullen - 11/01/2018


compress summary