Lead Employee May Be a Supervisor in California Sexual Harassment Case
Lead Employee May Be a Supervisor in California Sexual Harassment Case
“Lead Employee May Be a Supervisor in California Sexual Harassment Case”
In the case of Almanza v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a lead employee has been accused of sexual harassment. For three years Almanza worked for Wal-Mart as an unloader and worked with the lead employee which was responsible for making sure all the other unloaders moved freight quickly and efficiently and instruct them on where to take merchandise. The lead employee was also responsible for things such as approving vacation requests, sick leaves and late arrivals. These entire things combine proved to the court the said lead employee was in fact a supervisor under the FEHA guidelines.
Wal-Mart asked for the claim to dismissed on the basis the lead employee was in fact not a supervisor. The court rejected Wal-Marts argument. The court then stated the liability under the FEHA was effective whether the alleged harasser was a supervisor. If the lead was not a supervisor, Wal-Mart would only be liable if Almanza showed them they knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take appropriate corrective action. On the other hand if the lead was a supervisor then Wal-Mart is strictly liable for the harassment.
FEHA guidelines for a supervisor is defined as an individual with authority on behalf of an employer to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or discipline employees or to direct employees, resolve employee grievances, or to recommend such action, provided that employees exercise of authority requires the uses of independent judgment.
Both Almanza and Wal-Mart agreed that the lead employee was not a member of management and had no authority to hire, fire,