Hart v. National Mortgage & Land Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiff could seek tort claim against employer 24 because his co-worker’s purported sexual harassment had “a questionable relationship to” and was 25 “neither a risk, an incident, nor a normal part of” his employment
• holding the 24 employer ratified the conduct and because a joint tortfeasor because it could be “charged with 25 knowledge of the acts by virtue of the fact [the plaintiff] allegedly reported them to [a supervisor], 26 and [the employer] failed to take action against [tortfeasor].”
• “there can be little doubt” that sexual harassment by a manager toward a lower level employee is not “a normal part of employment”
• plaintiff's allegations that superiors were aware of harassment but did nothing to discipline coworker sufficient to allege employer's ratification of coworker's misconduct
• plaintiff’s allegations that superiors were aware of harassment but did nothing to discipline coworker sufficient to allege employer’s ratification of coworker’s misconduct
• FEHA does not apply because plaintiff failed to allege he was harassed “because of sex.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).