In plaintiff’s action against her former employer alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment because the acts of alleged harassment did not rise to the level of establishing a hostile work environment as a matter of law; 2) no evidence showed plaintiff suffered any adverse employment action because she complained about sexual harassment; 3) the trial court properly granted summary judgment as to plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as the record does not contain any evidence showing plaintiff was subjected to extreme or outrageous conduct by defendants as a matter of law.
Read Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. G041638 [HTML]
Read Haberman v. Cengage Learning, Inc., No. G041638 [PDF]
Appellate Information
Filed December 21, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Fybel
CounselFor Appellant: Law Office of Elva P. Kopacz and Elva P. Kopacz
For Appellee: Epstein Becker & Green, James A. Goodman and Tae Kim
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
