[US] Employer liability for employee relationship denied by court of appeal

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) generally holds employers strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor, however, a recent decision from the California Court of Appeal has established a significant limitation for personal relationships between employees. JD Supra reports on the ruling.

In Atalla v. Rite Aid Corporation, the plaintiff, a pharmacist at Rite Aid, filed a FEHA sexual harassment claim against her supervisor, Erik Lund. The misconduct arose from a series of late-night text exchanges that ended with Lund sending a live photo of his genitals to Ms Atalla. 

Rite Aid reportedly disclaimed liability on the grounds that the interaction occurred outside of the workplace and that Mr Lund was not acting in the capacity of a supervisor when he sent the inappropriate text. Ms Atalla claimed that the text message - together with her friendship with Mr Lund - was related to the workplace because she “only interacted with him to advance her career.”

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Rite Aid. It found that the interaction “clearly did not occur at work or during normal working hours.” Mr Lund’s conduct in this context was not imputable to Rite Aid because he was not acting in the capacity of a supervisor when the text was sent. 

Rather, the interaction was “spawned from a personal exchange that arose from a friendship” between Ms Atalla and Mr Lund, and their personal relationship was “predated and independent of their respective employment with Rite Aid.” This relationship was reportedly demonstrated with a large volume of text exchanges, and many prior instances of socialising outside of the workplace. 

Ms Atalla claimed that her interactions with Lund were only motivated by the possibility of career advancement, however, the Court explained that it “does not change the fact of their personal relationship” or that she was “a willing participant in it.” 

JD Supra says the Atalla decision could provide protection for employers where the supervisor and employee’s personal relationship exists independent of their employment relationship. It advises that employers should continue to provide proper training and maintain policies and procedures to deter work-related misconduct and to deter personal relationships between supervisors and subordinates. 

However, when such a relationship arises, it said Atalla may help minimise the risk of liability if the harassment arises outside of the scope of employment. 

Source: JD Supra

(Link and quotes via original reporting)

California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) generally holds employers strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor, however, a recent decision from the California Court of Appeal has established a significant limitation for personal relationships between employees. JD Supra reports on the ruling.

In Atalla v. Rite Aid Corporation, the plaintiff, a pharmacist at Rite Aid, filed a FEHA sexual harassment claim against her supervisor, Erik Lund. The misconduct arose from a series of late-night text exchanges that ended with Lund sending a live photo of his genitals to Ms Atalla. 

Rite Aid reportedly disclaimed liability on the grounds that the interaction occurred outside of the workplace and that Mr Lund was not acting in the capacity of a supervisor when he sent the inappropriate text. Ms Atalla claimed that the text message - together with her friendship with Mr Lund - was related to the workplace because she “only interacted with him to advance her career.”

The Court of Appeal affirmed summary judgment for Rite Aid. It found that the interaction “clearly did not occur at work or during normal working hours.” Mr Lund’s conduct in this context was not imputable to Rite Aid because he was not acting in the capacity of a supervisor when the text was sent. 

Rather, the interaction was “spawned from a personal exchange that arose from a friendship” between Ms Atalla and Mr Lund, and their personal relationship was “predated and independent of their respective employment with Rite Aid.” This relationship was reportedly demonstrated with a large volume of text exchanges, and many prior instances of socialising outside of the workplace. 

Ms Atalla claimed that her interactions with Lund were only motivated by the possibility of career advancement, however, the Court explained that it “does not change the fact of their personal relationship” or that she was “a willing participant in it.” 

JD Supra says the Atalla decision could provide protection for employers where the supervisor and employee’s personal relationship exists independent of their employment relationship. It advises that employers should continue to provide proper training and maintain policies and procedures to deter work-related misconduct and to deter personal relationships between supervisors and subordinates. 

However, when such a relationship arises, it said Atalla may help minimise the risk of liability if the harassment arises outside of the scope of employment. 

Source: JD Supra

(Link and quotes via original reporting)