No one can argue that it was fun to work for Ramez Suliman, the president and on-site manager of Fresno-based Artifer USA.
According to a decision issued this week by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), Suliman routinely harassed his female employees, relating his sexual escapades to them in graphic detail, commenting on their appearance and attire in a suggestive manner, and propositioning them to meet him for drinks or engage in sexual conduct.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
One of Suliman’s employees, Brooke Anderson, had had enough. After working for Artifer as a front office manager for only four months, Anderson resigned in protest of Suliman’s harassment, and filed a complaint with the DFEH. Her complaint alleged sexual harassment, sex discrimination against both the company and Suliman, and failure to prevent sexual harassment and discrimination against the company.
The DFEH found both Artifer and Suliman liable on all counts.
The DHEF found that there was no doubt, given the evidence uncovered by the agency’s investigation, that Suliman sexually harassed Anderson. In addition, the agency held the gravity of Suliman’s generally harassing and suggestive conduct in the workplace had a disparate impact of female employees, which amounts to sex discrimination. The agency held that fairness required that Suliman be held personally liable for his actions.
The agency also found that Artifer was liable for failing to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment and sex discrimination because the company:
- Failed to distribute an anti-harassment policy to employees;
- Failed to enforce its anti-harassment policy;
- Failed to post required DFEH notices regarding equal employment laws, and;
- Failed to provide managers and supervisors with the sexual harassment training.
Anderson was awarded more than $60,000 in back wages and emotional distress damages, and the agency imposed a $25,000 fine against the company.
We’ll have more on this decision, and how the company could have reduced its liability, in an upcoming issue of California Employer Advisor.