A sexual harassment case filed by a California office worker was dismissed last week after a 12-person jury found that the case was filed past the one-year statute of limitations for such cases. According to the jury, which was composed of one man and 11 women, the plaintiff did experience harassing conduct, but because of the statute of limitations deadline, the jury never reached the decision-making stage on the essential issues of the case.

The female office worker filed the sexual harassment lawsuit in March of 2009, alleging that a supervisor "fostered a sexually charged workplace environment," that he made inappropriate comments and unwanted physical contact with the employee. The supervisor denied the allegations against him.

The jury made an initial finding that harassment occurred, but ultimately determined that the alleged misconduct occurred more than one year before the plaintiff filed her suit. Therefore, the jury never decided whether the harassment was severe or pervasive, an essential issue in such an employment case.

In addition to the supervisor, the plaintiff also filed suit against the employer, alleging that it was also liable for the harassment. The jury could not reach a verdict on that issue and the judge declared a mistrial. The plaintiff has vowed to retry the case against the employer.

Prior to the case going to trial, the supervisor made a settlement offer to the plaintiff. Because she turned the offer down, she may now be obligated to pay the supervisor's attorneys fees under Section 998 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. That regulation requires the plaintiff to pay the defendant's attorneys fees if the jury award does not exceed the pre-trial settlement offer. Since there was no jury award in this case, the plaintiff will likely be liable under that regulation.

Source: Sacramento Bee, "Teamsters employee loses out on award in sexual harassment case," Andy Furillo, 7 June 2011