Does Sexual Harassment Include Sex?

There are two recent decisions that we believe may be very significant for Plaintiffs in wrongful termination actions, particularly gender-based claims.

In Miller v. Department of Corrections, California Supreme Court, July 18, 2005, No. 114097, the court was faced with a fact pattern wherein a prison warden promoted women who were having sex with him, but did not promote women who were not having sex with him. On those facts, the court held that the women who were NOT having sex with the warden, and were being denied promotions, had standing to sue for sexual harassment.

In Christopher v. National Education Association, 05 C.D.O.S. 799, the 9th Circuit reversed a lower court’s dismissal of an action wherein a manager was accused of “shouting, screaming foul language, invading employees personal space, and making threatening gestures,” and held that the manager may be sued for gender discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

When we look at these cases, in conjunction with the widely acknowledged truism that “Since 2000, California employment law has diverged from federal law even more dramatically with California law being more favorable to employees…” (Rutter, Employment Law), it begins to look very difficult for a Defendant to obtain summary judgment on a gender-related claim in Federal court, and even more difficult in the California court system. It does not take much of a logical leap to apply this same rationale to other well-settled protected classes.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

Adishian Law Group is a California law firm with a statewide practice in the areas of Corporate law, Employment law, Real Estate law and Mediation Services. Adishianlaw.com is one of the oldest continually operating law firm websites on the Internet. The firm serves its clientele via three offices located in the major business hubs of El Segundo, Palo Alto and San Francisco. As of March 2013, Adishian Law Group, P.C. has represented individual and corporate clients located across 20 California counties, 4 States outside of California and 9 foreign countries — in over 340 legal matters.

For more information about this topic or to speak with Chris Adishian:

Telephone: 310.726.0888 | 650.646.4022 | 415.955.0888
Email: askalg@adishianlaw.com
Social Media: @algpc |   LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube

Many venture backed (and other corporations) choose to incorporate in Delaware due to its well-developed law regarding various common corporate issues. One such issue is a shareholder’s right to inspection.

The controlling statute governing shareholder inspection rights is 8 Del. C. Sec. 220, which provides that :
“(b) Any stockholder, in person or by attorney or other agent, shall, upon written demand under oath stating the purpose thereof, have the right during the usual hours for business to inspect for any proper purpose, and to make copies and extracts from:
        (1) The corporation’s stock ledger, a list of its stockholders, and its other books and records; and
        (2) A subsidiary’s books and records….”
Heavy Procedural Requirements

In order to exercise their rights under Section 220, the shareholder must comply with each procedural requirement of the statute. Like many areas of law there are “procedural” requirements that must be satisfied in order for the individual or entity to receive access to the “substantive” benefits of the law. Here, a failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the statute could result in a delay or denial of an otherwise proper request.

Expedited Process Via Summary Proceeding

Delaware courts have a summary proceeding designed specifically for inspection demands brought pursuant to Section 220. The goal is to promote a quick resolution of any disputed inspection demand for both the company and the shareholder.

Each Case Unique

It is common for shareholders to want information about their corporate investments, and it is common for Company management to want to minimize the amount of information disclosed. Often these differences can be resolved informally, however there are many times where a compulsory court process is necessary. If you find yourself at a stalemate with an inspection demand to a Delaware corporation, we recommend that you contact an attorney promptly. Through our network of attorneys, we can refer you to competent, experienced Delaware co-counsel to advance your case.

About Adishian Law Group, P.C.

Adishian Law Group is a California law firm with a statewide practice in the areas of Corporate law, Employment law, Real Estate law and Mediation Services. Adishianlaw.com is one of the oldest continually operating law firm websites on the Internet. The firm serves its clientele via three offices located in the major business hubs of El Segundo, Palo Alto and San Francisco. As of March 2013, Adishian Law Group, P.C. has represented individual and corporate clients located across 20 California counties, 4 States outside of California and 9 foreign countries — in over 340 legal matters.

For more information about this topic or to speak with Chris Adishian:

Telephone: 310.726.0888 | 650.646.4022 | 415.955.0888
Email: askalg@adishianlaw.com
Social Media: @algpc |   LinkedIn | Facebook | YouTube