News & Updates: To Prevent Harassment, Look At Workplace Culture

In Caldera v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, the Court of Appeals has confirmed that in addition to adopting legally mandated policies, employers have an obligation to take steps to prevent and address harassment in the workplace.

Caldera makes clear that the most effective—and legally compliant—approach to addressing harassment is prevention. In preventing harassment, however, the court held that implementing legally mandated anti-harassment policies and training is not enough, and that employers may be required to take affirmative steps to ensure that harassing conduct does not occur.

Caldera, which involved harassment based on an employee’s disability, is also a reminder that at a time when much national attention is on sexual harassment, employers must remain vigilant in addressing all types of harassment, whether based on sex, disability, age, race, or any other protected category.

The Caldera Decision

As a correctional officer at a state prison in Chino, California, Officer Augustine Caldera endured mocking and mimicking of his stutter by a supervisory employee and other coworkers on at least a dozen occasions over a two-year period. In one instance, the supervisor, who did not directly supervise Officer Caldera, imitated Caldera’s speech impairment over the prison’s radio system such that approximately 50 employees heard it. Another time, the supervisor mocked Caldera in front of about 24 other correctional officers during a shift change.

After the shift-change incident, Caldera filed a complaint against the supervisor, and on the same day as his complaint, the employer issued a “cease and desist” letter to the supervisor. Nonetheless, Caldera learned that the supervisor continued to mimic him, including during a training class for supervisors less than a month later.

Caldera sued alleging disability harassment and failure to prevent harassment, among other causes of action. At trial, he testified that the supervisor’s conduct was demeaning, embarrassing, harmful, and hurtful. A psychologist testified that Caldera had suffered psychological disorders due to the supervisor’s conduct. A jury determined that Caldera had been subjected to harassment based on his disability and that his employer “had failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the harassment,” ultimately awarding Caldera $500,000 in damages.

Caldera’s employer appealed, arguing that Caldera had presented insufficient evidence to allow the jury to find that the harassment was “severe or pervasive” or that it had failed to prevent the harassment. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that there was enough evidence to find the harassment to be both severe and pervasive. In assessing whether the conduct was pervasive, the court considered the number of times the supervisor engaged in the harassing conduct and the fact that it occurred over two years, but seemed most persuaded by the evidence that indicated that this type of conduct was part of the culture at the prison.