The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act is headed to the White House for Signature

The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act has been enrolled and is officially. The bill to #EndForcedArbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment claims is now headed to the White House for President Biden’s signature!


Bill Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Cases Awaits President Biden’s Signature

This is an important bill with bipartisan support that needs to be signed ASAP. #EndForcedArbitration #MeToo

House and Senate have passed legislation banning forced arbitration in employment sexual harassment and sex assault cases

The passing of this legislation is great news for workers and victims of sexual assault and harassment everywhere. Forced arbitration has, for years, effectively prevented victims of harassment and assault in the workplace from getting justice to address the wrongs they have suffered by forcing them into an unfair forum and depriving them of their constitutional right to trial by jury. #MeToo #EndForcedArbitration

PSA: COVID-19 paid sick leave law being renewed

PSA: If you work for a California employer that has more than 25 employees, you may be entitled to expanded COVID sick leave under a new law.  More information here:

PSA:  For those who have lost a loved one due to COVID-19, or know someone who has, FEMA may provide up to $9,000 to help offset funeral costs.  

PSA:  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may provide up to $9,000 to help offset funeral costs incurred due to Covid-19 related death.  To see if this assistance is available for your personal situation or to apply, please visit:

Coronavirus Picture

The alt text for this image is the same as the title. In most cases, that means that the alt attribute has been automatically provided from the image file name. Coronavirus Image

Top 100 Employment Lawyers for 2020 – The National Trial Lawyers

December 21, 2020

National Trial Lawyers has named Jason L. Oliver among 2020’s “Top 100” for Employment Lawyers!

Importantly, NTL’s award is by invitation-only.  Further, NTL requires each plaintiff civil litigator selected to meet stringent qualifications. NTL includes those it considers top employment trial lawyers in the United States.

New 2017 Sexual Harassment Law offering additional protections to LGBTQ employees is signed into law in California

On October 15, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law, SB 396 (Lara).  The new law requires the sexual harassment prevention training programs for employers of 50 or more employees to specifically include within their training the prevention of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation.  One section of the new law specifically states that an “employer shall also provide training inclusive of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation as a component of the training and education specified in subdivision (a). The training and education shall include practical examples inclusive of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation, and shall be presented by trainers or educators with knowledge and expertise in those areas.”  (Gov. Code §12950.1.)  This is a solid clarification of the laws protecting employees from unlawful harassment California.

The section amended by the new law also states that “abusive conduct” as referred to in the law, “means conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests. Abusive conduct may include repeated infliction of verbal abuse, such as the use of derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets, verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance. A single act shall not constitute abusive conduct, unless especially severe and egregious.”

The National Trial Lawyers – Top 100 Trial Lawyers for 2016


Jason Oliver and The Law Offices of Jason L. Oliver have made the National Trial Lawyer’s prestigious “Top 100” for Employment Lawyers for 2016!

The Top 100 Trial Lawyers is by invitation-only and is composed of premier trial lawyers across the nation who meet stringent qualifications for civil plaintiff trial lawyers.

Hostile Work Environment Sexual Harassment


Hostile work environment sexual harassment is different from quid pro quo sexual harassment (which requires that job benefits were conditioned, by words or conduct, on the worker’s acceptance of the harasser’s sexual advances or conduct).  In contrast, hostile work environment sexual harassment does not require the worker to show job benefits were conditioned on anything. Instead, the worker has to show only that he or she was an employee or a “person performing service pursuant to a contract” and that unlawful sexual harassment was directed at him or her and/or that he or she was aware that such harassment was being directed at other workers.  In addition the worker must also show the conduct was severe or pervasive. At trial in California, the jurors deciding the case will probably receive California’s Approved Civil Jury Instructions (“CACI”), number 2521A, which should state something similar to the following (modified to fit the facts of the case):

Plaintiff (“the Worker”) claims that she was subjected to harassment based on sex or her gender while working at Defendant (“the Company”), causing a hostile or abusive work environment. To establish this claim, Worker must prove all of the following:

1. The Worker was an employee of the Company or a person providing services under a contract with the Company;
2. The Worker was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct because of sex or her gender;
3. The harassing conduct was severe or pervasive;
4. A reasonable woman in the Worker’s circumstances would have considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive;
5. The Worker considered the work environment to be hostile or abusive;
6. A supervisor engaged in the conduct or the Company or its agents knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action;
7. The Worker was harmed; and
8. The conduct was a substantial factor in causing the Worker’s harm.

In future posts, we will explain some of the legal meaning behind some of the law’s legal terms, such as what a worker must show to prove “severe or pervasive” sexual harassment in the context of a hostile work environment claim based on sexual harassment.