loading

Former Supervisor Awarded Damages for Reporting Harassment

It takes real courage to do what is right and an employee should be protected from retaliation or wrongful termination for reporting misconduct or an illegal activity.

After standing up for the rights of female corps members who were allegedly sexually harassed and abused, a former California Conservation Corps supervisor who suffered retaliation at the hands of her superiors was awarded damages by a Sacramento Superior Court jury after she was wrongfully discharged.

Margaret Grodzik, who previously worked at CCC’s Tahoe Basin Center from 2007 up until she was terminated in 2007, claimed that she was fired when she reported to her superiors that female corps members were mistreated by their male counterparts.

Grodzik, who was fondly called “Grandma” by a lot of corps members who loved her, stated in her suit that female corps members were subjected to “rape, harassment and retaliation” and that many of them suffered injury.

Allegedly, a male corps member has already been previously fired from the program but was reinstated and continued to harass co-corps members.

The verdict awarded $159,000 to Grodzik, $59,000 were for her past and future economic losses and $100,000 for pain and suffering.

According to Grodzik’s lawyer, the verdict should send a message to the management that female corps members should be protected and that complaints of sexual assault and harassment should be promptly investigated and offenders should be disciplined.

Laws against employment retaliation and wrongful termination are meant to protect employees against the wrath of abusive employers as well as encourage them to report any illicit activity conducted by the employer such as harassment and discrimination.

If you, like Grodzik, experienced retaliation or illegal termination, you have to establish these four elements to build your case:

  • The employee was engaged in "participation" or "opposition" that is protected by Title VII.
  • The employer was aware of the employee’s participation.
  • The employee suffered an adverse employment action at about the time the company became aware of the protected activity.
  • The company took action against the employee because of said protected activity.
| More
First Name  
Last Name  
City  
State  
Phone  
Email  
Type  
Details  
Join Our Mailing List

  Type the letters below:  

Captcha Image
Follow us on Twitter
Facebook
Avvo Profile
Linkedin Profile
Rodney Mesriani on

Follow us on Twitter
Facebook
Avvo Profile
Linkedin Profile