Finding the Facts - Disciplinary and Harassment Investigation

was no distinction between Kaiser’s assertion of the privileges in this case from their assertion in any other context in which such an assertion prevents disclosure. The Court drew a distinction between the investigation being done by a non-attorney as opposed to an attorney. When done by an attorney, and the adequacy of the investigation is raised as a defense, the attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine are waived as to the contents of the investigation filed. 228 Supervisor in Harassment Litigation Must Prove Subordinate’s Allegations Were “Frivolous” in Order to Recover His Defense Costs 229 A supervisor is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees for defending against an employee’s harassment lawsuit unless the supervisor proves that the lawsuit meets the “frivolous” standard. Specifically, individual defendants in harassment cases, like employers, must show that the employee’s harassment claims are “frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation” if they are to recover their litigation attorneys’ fees from an unsuccessful employee-plaintiff. Elisa Lopez, sued her employer, the City of Beverly Hills (“City”), and her supervisor, Gregory Routt, for harassment based on race and national origin. The jury found in favor of the City and Routt. At the conclusion of the trial, Routt sought to utilize a provision of the law decided under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) that allows a prevailing defendant to recover attorneys’ fees from an unsuccessful Plaintiff.

Disciplinary and Harassment Investigations ©2019 (e) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 136