III. SEXUAL HARASSMENT:
A. Complainant Is A Member of A Protected Class:
12. Complainant Debra Hoffman is a female and is, therefore, a member of a class protected from sex discrimination by the Iowa Civil Rights Act. (Tr. at 12-13, 36, 120). See Conclusion of Law No. 16.
B. Complainant Hoffman Was Subjected to Unwelcome Sexual Harassment,
i.e. Adverse Conduct Regarded By Her As Unwelcome and Reasonably
Considered to Be Undesirable or Offensive:
13. Complainant Hoffman and other female food servers were the subject of repeated verbal and physical sexual harassment perpetrated by Respondent Jose Lopez and other male members of the kitchen staff.
1. Verbal Harassment:
14. The verbal comments heard by Complainant Hoffman at Mama Lacona's-West were more extreme than anything she had heard in her prior employment, which included being a food server at three other establishments. (Tr. at 53, 54-55, 56-57). Beginning by May of 1993, at the latest, four male members of the kitchen staff including Respondent ("MInute") Lopez, and others named or nicknamed "Balls" (Adon), "Jose" and "Jose-B" would repeatedly make comments, "kissy noises," "smooching noises," and wolf whistles toward Complainant Hoffman and other waitresses. (Tr. at 10-12, 27- 29, 36, 42, 56, 59, 60, 61, 83, 85, 92, 93, 106-07, 116-17, 120, 125, 170, 179).
15. Two of the most frequent comments directed toward Complainant Hoffman, and other waitresses, such as Amy Tobey and Kerry Koonce (nee Rigg), by the kitchen staff were the Spanish slang phrases "chi-chi grandes" or "chi-chis" and "chupa mi verga, pichi cabron." (Tr. at 13, 18-19, 32-33, 56-57, 60, 116-17, 170-71, 179-80, 241). A shorter version of the latter phrase, i.e. "chupa mi verga" was also used (Tr. at 11, 13, 20, 60, 170). Complainant Hoffman heard Respondent Lopez, Pablo, and Jose repeatedly use the "chupa mi verga" phrase. (Tr. at 60). Kerry Koonce remembered this phrase because "[i]t was something that was said almost every night." (Tr. at 179).
16. The English translation of "chi-chis" or "chi-chi grandes" is "breasts" or "big breasts." (Tr. at 13, 19, 196-97, 292). The translation of "chupa mi verga, pichi cabron" is "suck my cock, you damn bitch." (CP. EX. # 1). The translation of "chupa mi verga" is "suck my cock." (CP. EX. # 1; Tr. at 20, 144, 197). Such comments were directed toward Complainant Hoffman and other females on a daily basis. (Tr. at 11, 13, 17-18, 56-57, 60, 106-08, 116-17, 179-80).
17. Some of the waitresses learned what these phrases meant from several sources. These sources included Bobby Carara, a waitress who spoke Spanish. (Tr. at 14). Some of the Hispanic staff members also informed David Lihs of the meaning of the "chupa mi verga" phrase. He, in turn, informed Complainant Hoffman and Amy Tobey. (Tr. at 14, 20, 32, 60). Complainant Hoffman, while not being initially aware of what these phrases meant, did learn their meaning while still employed at Mama Lacona's. (Tr. at 56-57, 60, 110). Although she had four years of high school Spanish, Kerry Koonce did not know the meaning of the vulgarism "chupa mi verga" because she does not know Spanish slang. Nevertheless, she could tell from the staff's groping hand gestures and body language, which occurred when the phrase was said, that it was a "very sexually degrading comment" which was intended to be offensive. (Tr. at 170-71, 179-80).
18. The accuracy of the waitresses and Mr. Lihs's understanding of the meaning of "chupa mi verga" is verified by the affidavit of Alfred A. Falconi, "an American of Latin American extraction," who "was raised in a bi-lingual household where both Spanish and English were used interchangeably." (CP. EX. # 1). Mr. Falconi is "fully bi-lingual (Spanish/English) as a result of [his] cultural background, visits and prolonged residence in Spanish-speaking countries and [his] education which includes high level course work in Spanish." (CP. EX. # 1). As an experienced interpreter and translator, Mr. Falconi is "conversant in both literary and textbook Spanish as well as the colloquial forms of the language." (CP EX. # 1).
2. Physical Harassment:
19. The kitchen staff also inflicted physical sexual harassment on Complainant Hoffman and other waitresses. The uniform dress initially worn by the waitresses included a wrap around skirt. (Tr. at 11-12). When the dress was untied, the strings would fall. While there was another part of the dress which prevented the underwear from showing, the strings would fall and the dress had to be retied. (Tr. at 12). Amy Tobey's uniform was frequently untied by members of the kitchen staff. (Tr. at 11). Debra Hoffman's dress was also untied by "Balls" on at least one occasion. (Tr. at 12, 91).
20. The kitchen staff also would grab Complainant Hoffman's hand and utter the objectionable phrases previously discussed when she reached for food under the warmer in the kitchen. (Tr. at 56-57, 60). These phrases were also said to Amy Tobey when she got her food from the line. (Tr. at 18).
21. Physical harassment also took the form of the Complainant and other waitresses being touched in other offensive ways by the kitchen staff. This included being grabbed by or patted on the rear, or being jabbed in the side. (Tr. at 12-13, 16, 27, 56, 57, 90).
22. One common occurrence for Complainant Hoffman, Amy Tobey, and Bev Erskine was for members of the kitchen staff to deliberately rub the front of their bodies against the back or side of these waitresses in the kitchen area. (Tr. at 13, 56-59, 117, 125). This often happened in an area in the back of the kitchen where the waitresses would stand to take a cigarette break or other momentary break from their duties. The dishwashers, such as Respondent Lopez, or other kitchen staff, such as Pablo, would do this while coming by to take clean plates back and stack them or to perform other functions. (Tr. at 57, 90).
23. David Lihs, the kitchen manager, observed this contact and noted that it appeared to be intentional and sexual in nature. (Tr. at 125, 134, 137). He noted that the staff members would utter some remark in Spanish when engaged in such body contact. (Tr. at 137). These contacts occurred when there was plenty of room for the staff member to pass the waitress without touching her body. (Tr. at 137-38).
24. One such rubbing incident occurred on October 15, 1993, while Complainant Hoffman was standing in the kitchen trying to get her tray arranged. Although there was sufficient room for Respondent Lopez to pass around her, he rubbed up against her and said something under his breath. (Tr. at 61, 79-80, 93). By the way it felt and the grunt and groan Mr. Lopez made while doing it, Complainant Hoffman concluded this rubbing was intentional. (Tr. at 79-80). She described it as a "full body rub contact." (Tr. at 80-81). This event was similar to other rubbing incidents involving Lopez, i.e. he would make a noise and rub up against the Complainant. (Tr. at 90). In addition to rubbing against her, Respondent Joel ("Minute") Lopez also wolf whistled at and patted Complainant Hoffman on the rear during her shift on October 15th. (Tr. at 13, 16, 27, 120). Lopez had been harassing her all day. (Tr. at 93).
25. Complainant Hoffman and these other waitresses did not invite or solicit the conduct of the kitchen staff. They tried to tell their harassers to stop this conduct and talked to some of their coworkers about it. (Tr. at 10, 14, 16, 36, 42, 57-58, 62, 90. 93, 107-08, 120, 171-73). They found it to be offensive, stressful, and to interfere with their work. (Tr. at 10, 54-55, 60-61, 62, 93, 108, 116-17, 120, 169-70). Any reasonable person, male or female, would also find such unwelcome verbal and physical sexual conduct to be hostile and abusive..
C. The Harassment of Complainant Hoffman and Other Female Food
Servers Was Based Upon Their Sex:
26. The offensive verbal and physical conduct directed at Complainant Hoffman and other female food servers was clearly based upon their sex. The comments on breasts and use of the phrase ending in the Spanish equivalent of "you damn bitch" are obviously directed toward women. See Findings of Fact Nos. 15-16. The "wolf whistle" was directed at the Complainant and other women. See Finding of Fact No. 14. It is a matter of common knowledge that the "wolf whistle" is a type of whistle used by men to denote the presence of an attractive woman. Official notice is taken of this fact. Fairness to the parties does not require that they be given an opportunity contest this fact. See Conclusion of Law No. 4.
27. Other evidence shows that this conduct was directed toward the Complainant and other females because of their sex. The offensive physical and verbal conduct was sexual in nature and directed either primarily or exclusively towards females. See Findings of Fact Nos. 14-16, 19-25. There is no evidence in the record indicating that any such physical conduct was directed toward males. David Lihs testified that he was not aware of any male employees encountering Spanish profanity, wolf whistling, or the body contact directed toward female waitresses by the kitchen staff. (Tr. at 117). With the exception of the short phrase "chupa mi verga," there is no evidence such verbal conduct was ever directed toward males. Kerry Koonce noted that this phrase was sometimes used by the male kitchen staff towards each other as well as towards the waitresses. (Tr. at 180).
D. The Harassment Affected A Term, Condition Or Privilege of
Complainant Hoffman's Employment:
28. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the harassment adversely affected Complainant Hoffman's working environment, which is a condition of her employment. See Conclusion of Law No. 20. The totality of the circumstances shown in the evidence, including the frequency of the conduct, its severity, it's humiliating nature, and its impact on the Complainant's work performance demonstrate the hostile and abusive nature of her working environment. See Findings of Fact Nos. 29-33. The presence of multiple harassers and multiple victims of harassment also shows the environment was abusive. See Findings of Fact Nos. 14-15, 19-23, 25, 33. See Conclusion of Law No. 25.
1. Frequency of the Harassment:
29. The working environment could and was reasonably perceived to be a hostile or abusive environment due to the pervasive sexual harassment endured by Complainant Hoffman and her female coworkers. The verbal sexual comments, wolf whistles, kissing noises, and sexual gestures occurred virtually every day and often several times a day. These acts were not merely part of casual conversation. (Tr. at 11, 13, 18, 20, 28-29, 32-33, 55, 59, 60). Various acts of physical harassment involving unwanted touching also occurred on a daily basis. (Tr. at 11, 56). These acts of verbal and physical harassment were neither accidental nor sporadic. As Kerry Koonce noted, "[i]t was . . . a general every night thing that they went after Debbie [Hoffman]." (Tr. at 172). Thus the frequency of these acts supports the conclusion that they resulted in an abusive or hostile environment.
2. Severity and Physically Humiliating Nature of the Conduct:
30. The severity of the acts also indicates the environment was abusive. The verbal demands for oral sex, stated in the crudest terms, could hardly be considered mere offensive utterances. See Findings of Fact Nos. 15-16. It is well recognized that physical harassment often has a more severe impact than verbal harassment. See Conclusion of Law No. 26. The untying of dresses, grabbing of hands, the patting or grabbing of the waitresses, and the rubbing of the harassers' bodies against the back and sides of the waitresses were physically humiliating and upsetting to these women. (Tr. at 10, 16, 42, 54-55, 58, 61-62, 90, 93-94, 120). These acts were severe enough to create a hostile working environment.
3. Interference With Work Performance Caused By the Harassment:
31. Finally, these acts made it more difficult for the complainant and other female food servers to do their job. Such acts would make it difficult for any reasonable person to perform their job. Complainant Hoffman knew when she went to work that she would have to deal with this harassment even though she did not want to face it. (Tr. at 54, 61). She noted that the more she said "stop" or "don't do that" to the harassers, the more they would persist in their behavior. (Tr. at 58, 172). When she told them that she knew what "chupa mi verga" meant, in an effort to get them to stop, they made it a point to use the phrase repeatedly. (Tr. at 106-07).
32. The grabbing, touching, and offensive remarks distracted Complainant Hoffman from her duties when she was busy trying to take care of customers. (Tr. at 54). On October 15, 1993, for example, Complainant Hoffman "blew up" under the stress of repeated harassment that day by Respondent Lopez. (Tr. at 93, 120). She yelled at him to stop. (Tr. at 16, 94, 120). He responded by standing there and laughing at her. (Tr. at 120). Previously, on that same day, she told him that she would find a way to make him stop and that she would sue him for sexual harassment. (Tr. at 62, 93).
33. Amy Tobey described the harassment as creating a stressful atmosphere. (Tr. at 10). She noted that, on October 15th, she also suffered interference from the kitchen staff in the form of the "chi-chi grandes" and "chupa mi verga" remarks whenever she went in to get food from the line. (Tr. at 17-18). Ms. Tobey responded to the verbal and physical harassment by telling the harassers to "stop" or "leave me alone.". (Tr. at 14). Like the Complainant and Ms. Tobey, another waitress, named Ellie, also tried to discourage the harassment, but without success. (Tr. at 172).
34. Given the frequency of the acts of sexual harassment, their severity, their physically humiliating nature, and their interference with work duties, these acts affected a condition of employment by creating a hostile and abusive working environment for Complainant Hoffman and some other female food servers at Respondent Mama Lacona's West.
E. Respondents Mama Lacona's-West and Jim Lacona Knew or Should
Have Known of the Sexual Harassment Either Through Observation
By Managers or Through Reports Made By Employees:
1. Manager David Lihs of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West Had
Actual and Constructive Knowledge of the Sexual Harassment Inflicted
on Complainant Hoffman and Other Female Food Servers:
35. David Lihs, in his position as kitchen manager, was a supervisory management employee with the power to hire, fire, and discipline employees on the kitchen staff. These facts were admitted on brief by Respondents Mama Lacona's-West and Jim Lacona. See Finding of Fact No. 10. These facts are binding as they are contrary to the interests of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West. See Conclusion of Law No. 5. These facts are contrary to the interests of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West because, if Lihs is a supervisor, he is, like any supervisor or manager for that employer, an agent of that employer. As such agent, any knowledge he may have of the harassment is imputed to Respondent Mama Lacona's-West. See Conclusion of Law No. 31.
36. There is absolutely no question that, during the last three to four months of his employment as kitchen manager, David Lihs was well aware of the verbal and physical sexual harassment directed toward Complainant Hoffman and other food servers by the Hispanic members of his kitchen staff. (Tr. at 116-17, 125). Not only did he receive complaints from Complainant Hoffman, he observed the kitchen staff engage in "speaking a lot of profanity in Spanish, wolf whistling, rubbing up against the waitresses." (Tr. at 58, 117). He informed Hoffman and Tobey of the meaning of the "chupa mi verga" phrase. See Finding of Fact No. 17. He was also aware of the use of other Spanish profanity which he could not recall how to pronounce. (Tr. at 117). He perceived the rubbing incidents to be deliberate and sexual in nature. (Tr. at 125, 134, 137). He witnessed Respondent Lopez's wolf whistling directed at Complainant Hoffman on October 15th and saw her "blow up" in response to his continued harassment. (Tr. at 120). Lihs would be in the kitchen for most hours of its operation. (Tr. at 128). Given the pervasive nature of the harassment in the kitchen area, it would be difficult for him, or any reasonably observant person who spent a significant amount of time in the kitchen, to not notice it. (Tr. at 21-22, 82, 91, 125-26, 183-84).
2. Manager Joe Lacona of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West Had
Knowledge of the Sexual Harassment Inflicted on Complainant Hoffman
and Other Female Food Servers:
37. Reports about the sexual harassment of female food servers were made to Joe Lacona by two persons whose testimony is uncontradicted on this point.. Complainant Hoffman complained to him. (Tr. at 58, 88-89, 91). Robert Novak also brought these problems to the attention of Joe Lacona, after he had been informed of them by Complainant Hoffman and Amy Tobey. (Tr. at 36, 37, 42). Mr. Novak was employed at Mama Lacona's-West during the period of January to November of 1993. He started out as a waiter but eventually also became responsible for scheduling the wait staff and "mak[ing] sure everything got done." (Tr. at 34, 41). At another time, Joe Lacona and Jim Lacona had asked him what was going on with respect to the harassment of waitresses. He told them what he knew. (Tr. at 40-41). He specifically told them that the Complainant and Amy Tobey thought the physical touching or bumping by the kitchen staff was done on purpose. (Tr. at 42-43).
3. Manager Jim Lacona of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West Had
Knowledge of the Sexual Harassment Inflicted on Complainant Hoffman
and Other Female Food Servers:
38. Complaints about or reports of sexual harassment of female food servers were made to Jim Lacona by at least three persons: Complainant Hoffman, Amy Tobey, and Robert Novak. (Tr. at 14, 15, 40-41, 42-43, 44, 58-59, 82, 88-89).
39. Complainant Hoffman and Amy Tobey each complained to Jim Lacona about sexual harassment on several occasions. (Tr. at 14, 15, 58-59, 82, 88-89). Robert Novak reported complaints of harassment by Hoffman and Tobey to Jim Lacona on the occasion previously described. See Finding of Fact No. 37.
40. It is more likely than not that, on the night of Friday, October 15, 1993, David Lihs also complained to Jim Lacona about Respondent Lopez's harassment of the waitresses. (Tr. at 121). The events of that night left a strong impression on Mr. Lihs. His memory with regard to those events appears to be clear.
41. After the Complainant "blew up" at Respondent Lopez that evening, David Lihs went to Pablo's son, Jose, and asked him to tell Lopez that he had to stop harassing Complainant Hoffman. Jose did so, and Lopez responded by laughing. (Tr. at 139). Mr. Lihs then told Lopez directly to stop bothering the waitresses. Lopez responded by taking a swing at Mr. Lihs. Mr. Lihs shoved Lopez away. (Tr. at 120-21, 129, 139-40). Mr. Lihs was upset and frustrated about the situation both with respect to the harassment and with being swung at by Lopez (Tr. at 131, 138, 140). He went out to the restaurant area and stated, among other things, to Jim Lacona that something had to be done about Lopez harassing all the waitresses. This statement was made in a loud voice. (Tr. at 121, 130).
42. Mr. Lihs also stated to Jim Lacona that if something was not done about the harassment, he was going to bring in the Department of Labor. (This had something to do with an allegation that employees were being paid in cash. Lihs apparently was threatening to take that matter to the Department if the harassment was not dealt with.) (Tr. at 132, 136). Jim Lacona responded to this by yelling at Mr. Lihs and taking him to the kitchen area. (Tr. at 132, 297). By this point, both Lihs and Lacona were shouting at each other. (Tr. at 130-32). Jim Lacona then told both Mr. Lihs and Mr. Lopez to leave the establishment until Tuesday, when he would deal with it. (Tr. at 131, 132-33, 298, 303). Both Mr. Lihs and Mr. Lopez left the restaurant. (Tr. at 131-32, 132-33, 298).
43. Jim Lacona's testimony emphasizes that he was more concerned that Mr. Lihs was loud in front of customers and was concentrating on getting him out of the dining area. (Tr. at 297). It is, however, more likely than not that Jim Lacona understood that David Lihs was expressing a strong concern about harassment of the waitresses since Lihs stated this concern directly and made the threat to go to the Department of Labor if something was not done. The fact that this threat elicited a strong response from Jim Lacona demonstrates that Lacona understood what Lihs was saying. See Findings of Fact Nos. 41-42.
44. Although Mr. Lihs's testimony that he informed Jim Lacona about the harassment on October 15th is credible, his testimony that he brought prior harassment to the attention of higher levels of management on three or four occasions is effectively contradicted by his earlier testimony that he did "not particularly" speak to management about it "face to face." (Tr. at 118-19, 140).
4. President Charles Lacona of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West
Had Knowledge of the Sexual Harassment Inflicted on Complainant
Hoffman and Other Female Food Servers:
45. Both Complainant Hoffman and Bev Erskine also complained to Charles Lacona about the harassment. (Tr. at 58).
F. Respondents Mama Lacona's-West and Jim Lacona Failed to
Take Prompt and Appropriate Action to Remedy the Sexual Harassment:
1. The Managers of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West Took No Disciplinary
Action To End Sexual Harassment Beyond Inadequate and Ineffective
Verbal Warnings:
46. As previously noted, David Lihs, Joe Lacona, Respondent Jim Lacona and Charles Lacona had the authority to discharge and discipline employees at Respondent Mama Lacona's-West. See Findings of Fact Nos. 7-10, 35. As Jim Lacona noted in his testimony, employee complaints should have been handled by David Lihs or Joe Lacona before they ever got to him. (Tr. at 292-93). Clearly, David Lihs, Joe Lacona and Jim Lacona were agents of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West who had the duty of resolving employee complaints as well as other duties normally delegated to supervisory personnel. See Findings of Fact Nos. 9, 10, 35. It may be reasonably inferred from Charles Lacona's position as president of the corporation and his involvement in the management of the business that he had the authority to handle employee complaints or to delegate these complaints to lower level managers. See Findings of Fact Nos. 7-8.
47. David Lihs was well aware of the nature and extent of the sexual harassment by the kitchen staff that occurred while he was kitchen manager. See Findings of Fact Nos. 35-36. The only action he took, however, over a three to four month period, to end the harassment was to tell the Spanish speaking workers, through translation by either Pablo, or his son, Jose, to stop their misconduct. (Tr. at 126-28).
48. On two or more occasions during this time, Jim Lacona also told certain members of the kitchen staff, through translation by Jose, to stop their misconduct. His directives to those individuals were, however, couched in general terms to the effect that the staff should stop bothering the waitresses and did not specifically identify acts of sexual harassment which must end. (Tr. at 127, 293-94).
49. These admonishments were very limited in their effectiveness. After one to four days, the acts of verbal and physical sexual harassment would begin again. (Tr. at 59, 127, 135).
50. It is possible, but not shown by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that Joe Lacona or Charles Lacona had some role in these warnings. Complainant Hoffman testified that, after she complained to Joe, Jim, or Charles Lacona, the harassment would die down for one or two days. Although Joe Lacona indicated he would talk to the staff, there is no evidence that either he or Charles Lacona ever did so or asked others to do so. (Tr. at 58-59).
51. No employee was ever given a written reprimand, suspended, discharged or otherwise seriously disciplined for sexual harassment. (Tr. at 142). This was true even though kitchen manager David Lihs "felt that two or three of them should have been terminated on the spot because they had been told over and over again to quit what they were doing." (Tr. at 135). He realized the harassment had "[e]scalated to [where] just everybody started getting sick of it." (Tr. at 128). Despite this, when verbal warnings were given by management, Joel Lopez and the other offending employees were only told to stop their misconduct. They were not told that failure to do so would lead to more severe discipline such as suspension or discharge. (Tr. at 126-129, 134-36, 293-295, 304, 313).
2. The Managers of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West Failed to
Take Appropriate and Effective Action to Remedy The Sexually Hostile
Working Environment:
52. The managers' responses to complaints raised by Complainant Hoffman and other female food servers were often inappropriate and failed to remedy the harassment. When Complainant Hoffman complained to Jim Lacona, he mentioned his concern that, if he discharged one of his kitchen staff, he might lose them all as they were either relatives or friends. She felt Jim Lacona seemed to be balancing this interest against resolving her complaint. (Tr. at 82-83). At other times, Jim Lacona would respond to her complaints by turning around and walking away with little verbal response. (Tr. at 89). Similarly, when Amy Tobey complained to Jim Lacona about the harassment, she was told not to speak to him. (Tr. at 14, 15).
53. Even when verbal warnings were given to the offending employees, there was a complete failure by managers to inform the Complainant or other complaining females that anything had been done or that their complaints had been followed up in any way. This was true with respect to complaints made to David Lihs, Joe Lacona, Jim Lacona, and Charles Lacona. (Tr. at 15, 24, 58-59, 89). Given this lack of communication, it is not surprising that there is no evidence in the record that any efforts were made by Respondent Mama-Lacona's West or its agents to have the harassing employees meet with and apologize to the victims of their harassment.
54. With the exception of Jim and Joe Lacona asking Robert Novak what he knew about sexual harassment of the waitresses, there is no indication of any thorough investigation to determine either the accuracy of the complaints made or the nature and extent of the sexual harassment. See Finding of Fact No. 37. The contacts by management with the complaining waitresses were brief encounters where management seemed to discourage the complaints. See Findings of Fact Nos. 52-53. Neither waitresses, such as Kerry Koonce, who did not complain to management, nor those who did complain, such as Amy Tobey, were ever questioned about sexual harassment by management. (Tr. at 19, 177). See Finding of Fact No. 52. It appears there were no communications with the accused harassers by management beyond telling them to stop bothering the waitresses. See Findings of Fact Nos. 47-48.
55. As set forth above, additional, reasonable steps for remedying harassment were available to the managers, but were not undertaken. These steps were warranted by the severe verbal and physical harassment inflicted on female employees and by the hostile and abusive nature of the work environment. These steps would include:
a. responding to internal complaints in a manner which would assure employees that their complaints would be taken seriously, thoroughly investigated, and, if found to be warranted, acted upon;
b. conducting a thorough investigation of complaints or reports of harassment ;
c. informing complaining employees of the status of any investigation or of steps taken to remedy their complaints;
d. warning offending employees that they would be subject to discharge if the harassment continued;
e. requiring offending employees to meet with and apologize to the employees they harassed;
f. requiring offending employees to commit to ceasing their sexual harassment of other employees;
g. suspending or discharging offending employees where warranted; and,
h. asking the complaining employees for suggestions on maintaining an harassment free environment.
56. The Commission has proved all the elements required to establish Complainant Hoffman's claims of sexual harassment against Respondents Joel Lopez, Mama Lacona's-West, and Jim Lacona. See Findings of Facts Nos. 4-55. See Conclusions of Law Nos. 15, 44-47. The Commission has established:
a. that Complainant Hoffman is a female and is therefore a member of a class protected against sex discrimination;
b. that she was subjected to sexual harassment by Respondent Lopez and other employees of Respondent Mama Lacona's-West. This was adverse conduct which she regarded as uninvited and offensive and which any reasonable person would regard as offensive;
c. that this harassment was based upon her sex, i.e. because she is female;
d. that this harassment created a hostile or abusive work environment; and,
e. that Respondent Mama Lacona's-West through its agents and managers, including but not limited to Respondent Jim Lacona, knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt, appropriate, and effective remedial action.
57. The proof of elements "a" through "d" establishes a case of individual sexual harassment against Respondent Lopez. The proof of elements "a" through "e" establishes a case of sexual harassment against the employer, Respondent Mama Lacona's and its agent, Respondent Jim Lacona. See Conclusion of Law No. 47.