Ventura
Ventura v. ABM Industries Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Armstrong, J.
ABM Industries Incorporated, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc., and American Building Maintenance Company appeal from the judgment entered against them and in favor of respondent Sylvia Ventura, on Ventura’s complaint. We affirm.
FACTS
Ventura worked for defendants 1 as a janitor. In December of 2004, Carlos Manzano became her supervisor. In 2007, she filed this lawsuit. 2 The case went to the jury on causes of action for negligent supervision and hiring, and violation of Civil Code 3 section 51.7, subdivision (a), which provides that “All persons within the jurisdiction of this state have the right to be free from *261 any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of’ specified characteristics, including sex.
The complaint alleged a history of harassment by Manzano and an act of violence by Manzano, ratified by defendants. Through her own testimony, the testimony of coworkers, and other evidence, including tapes of voice mails left by Manzano, Ventura produced evidence in support of her allegations.
That evidence was that within a few weeks of becoming Ventura’s supervisor, Manzano began flirting with her and…
Concurrence in Part
Mosk, J.
Plaintiff Sylvia Ventura originally alleged battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and ratification, all arising out of claims that one of the defendants—a supervisor—had been sexually pursuing plaintiff and made physical, unwanted advances toward her. Plaintiff did not assert any claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), which requires an employer to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (j)(l)), and under which attorney fees are available (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (b); Chavez v. City of Los Angeles (2010) 47 Cal.4th 970 [ 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 710 , 224 P.3d 41 ]). Plaintiff, instead, turned to a novel and unprecedented avenue for attorney fees and penalty awards by successfully invoking Civil Code section 51.7.
I would affirm the judgment as to all claims except the section 51.7 claim and the awards of attorney fees and a penalty based on that section. The jury found defendants’ conduct towards plaintiff was culpable. There were adequate causes of action to vindicate plaintiff’s right to be free from such unacceptable conduct.