IV. RETALIATORY DISCHARGE:

A. The Commission Established a Prima Facie Case of Retaliatory Discharge:

1. The Complainant Took Action To Lawfully Oppose Sexual Harassment:

58. Complainant Hoffman lawfully opposed sexual harassment at Respondent Mama Lacona's-West in two ways. First, as previously noted, Complainant Hoffman complained to managers David Lihs and Joe Lacona, general manager Jim Lacona, and president Charles Lacona. See Findings of Fact Nos. 36-38, 45.

59. Second, her response to the harassment by Respondent Lopez and the other kitchen staff members made it clear that she was strongly opposed to their harassment. Initially, Complainant Hoffman tried to "laugh off" or ignore the harassment in the hope that her harassers would tire of it. She then began to repeatedly tell them to stop the harassment. (Tr. at 58). Her repeated objections to Respondent Lopez's harassment on October 15th, which culminated in her yelling at him to stop, have already been noted. See Finding of Fact No. 32. As previously noted, Lopez's harassment of her on the 15th, and her "blow-up" in response to the harassment, led to an altercation between Lopez and kitchen manager Lihs. This incident resulted in a loud encounter between David Lihs and Jim Lacona, who sent both Lihs and Lopez home. See Findings of Fact Nos. 32, 40-43.

2. The Complainant Was Discharged From Her Food Server Position at Respondent Mama Lacona's-West:

60. It is undisputed in the evidence, and admitted by Respondent's Mama Lacona's-West and Jim Lacona on brief, that Complainant Hoffman was discharged from her position as waitress or food server with Respondent Mama Lacona's-West by president Charles Lacona. (Respondent 's Brief at 13-14). See Findings of Fact Nos. 4, 7. See Conclusion of Law No. 5.

3. The Complainant Has Established a Causal Link Between Her Discharge and Her Lawful Opposition to Discrimination:

61. Complainant Hoffman has established causal links between her discharge and her lawful opposition to sexual harassment in four ways. The first and second are most directly related to the sexual harassment. First, her opposition and her discharge were close in time. Complainant Hoffman was informed of her discharge one day after the disruption of October 15, 1993. While the exact dates of her prior complaints to management and her protestations to the harassers are not known, it may be reasonably inferred that some of them were made in the previous three to four months when the harassment escalated. (Tr. at 128). Second, since Complainant Hoffman worked in an atmosphere where sexual harassment was overlooked and unpunished by her employer, the likelihood of retaliation for her opposition to such harassment is increased. See Conclusion of Law No. 51.

62. Third, the discharge of Complainant Hoffman, purportedly for an incident involving rudeness to customers, did not follow the procedures normally taken concerning complaints about rudeness by food servers. There appears to have been no other instance where a food server was directly discharged for such actions. (Tr. at 187, 310-11). No other food server was discharged for rudeness to customers in 1993. (Tr. at 281). See Finding of Fact No. 75. While Jim Lacona claimed such an incident would result in immediate termination of a waitress or any employee in the restaurant, he did not immediately terminate Complainant Hoffman. (Tr. at 301, 309). According to him, when he or Charles Lacona faced such a situation in the past, they would keep cutting the hours of the food server until he or she quit. (Tr. at 310-11). This procedure was not followed with respect to Complainant Hoffman. A similar difference in treatment of the Complainant and other employees with respect to the reason actually given her for her discharge is discussed below and reinforces the conclusion that there is a link between her discharge and her lawful opposition to discrimination. See Findings of Fact Nos. 82-84A.

63. Fourth, due to weaknesses in their testimony set forth more fully below, the testimony of Charles Lacona and Jim Lacona to the effect they were not aware of complaints about sexual harassment or of Complainant Hoffman's involvement in the events of October 15th prior to her discharge are not credited. See Findings of Facts Nos. 71-73, 77, 79-81, 89. Such false testimony tends to establish that the real reason for discharge is retaliation. See Conclusion of Law No. 51. By proving that the Complainant lawfully opposed discrimination; that she was discharged; and that there was a causal link between these two events, the Commission has established a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge. See Conclusion of Law No. 49.

B. Respondent Mama Lacona's-West Has Articulated a Legitimate Non- Discriminatory Reason for Complainant Hoffman's Discharge:

64. Respondent Mama Lacona's-West has produced evidence indicating that Complainant Hoffman was discharged for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, i.e. that she was rude to a customer. Charles Lacona testified that he discharged the Complainant because there had been an incident when a customer complained that Hoffman was very rude. The customer had asked him for a new waitress. (Tr. at 260-61, 307-08). Although Charles Lacona testified that he had relied on other instances of rude conduct and customer complaints concerning the Hoffman, these instances were not set forth in any detail. (Tr. at 261-62, 274). On brief, Respondents Mama-Lacona's- West and Jim Lacona have taken the position that this one incident "was the basis for Charlie Lacona terminating the complainant's employment." (Respondents' Brief at 14). Therefore, Respondents cannot assert that any other legitimate reason served as a basis. See Conclusions of Law Nos. 6-7.

C. The Commission Has Established That Respondent Mama Lacona's Reason For Complainant Hoffman's Termination Is A Pretext For Retaliation:

1. Although The Incident Given As A Reason for Complainant Hoffman's Discharge Actually Happened, The Greater Weight of the Evidence Demonstrates That This Reason Is A Pretext For Retaliation:

65. The incident given as a reason for her discharge occurred two weeks prior to the time Complainant Hoffman was informed of her discharge. (Tr. at 66-67). The details as to exactly what the Complainant did are unclear. According to Complainant Hoffman, she may have aggravated the customer by saying "okay" in a rude or abrupt manner when she was interrupted while trying to talk to customers at another table. (Tr. at 67). According to Valerie Lacona, she may have refused to take food back to the kitchen which was cold or otherwise improperly served. (Tr. at 232).

66. While the complaining customers spoke to Charles Lacona, Jim Lacona was able to hear their complaint, as they were yelling at his father and were very mad. (Tr. at 308). The customers complained that "[t]his woman is being rude to us, and we're leaving if you don't get us another waitress." (Tr. at 301). Jim Lacona directed his sister, Valerie Lacona, who worked as a waitress, to take over the table. (Tr. at 67, 220-21, 232, 235, 301-02, 308).

67. The Commission, on brief, and Complainant Hoffman, in her testimony, admit that the incident given as the reason for her termination actually happened. (Commission's Brief at 6; Tr. at 66-68). These admissions are binding on the Commission and the Complainant. See Conclusions of Law No. 5. Despite this, the preponderance of the evidence supports the proposition that the reason given by the Respondent for Complainant Hoffman's termination is a pretext for retaliation.

2. The Lack of Credibility of Respondent Jim Lacona and of Charles Lacona is Fatal to the Respondent Mama Lacona's Explanation As to Why Complainant Hoffman Was Discharged:

a. The arguments of the Commission and Respondent Mama Lacona's West:

68. The Commission's and Complainant's argument is, in essence, that once Jim or Charles Lacona became aware that the altercation of October 15, 1993 came about after Complainant Hoffman "blew up" at Lopez because of his harassment, they were faced with the choice of either discharging Lopez to end the harassment or discharging Lihs and Hoffman. (Tr. at 78). See Commission's Brief at 6-7. See Findings of Fact Nos. 32, 41-42. Since the Respondent was concerned that the termination of Lopez might result in the rest of the kitchen staff leaving, it decided to terminate David Lihs and Complainant Hoffman. See Finding of Fact No. 52.

69. The Respondent's strongest argument against this scenario is that when Charles Lacona discharged Complainant Hoffman, he did not know about the disruption of October 15th and certainly did not know Complainant Hoffman was involved in these events. This is based on the propositions that (a) Charles Lacona was not in the restaurant at the time of the disruption, (b) Jim Lacona did not know of Complainant Hoffman's involvement, and (c) Jim Lacona did not communicate with Charles Lacona about the altercation until after Complainant Hoffman's discharge. (Respondent's Brief at 15).

b. Charles Lacona was not present at the restaurant during the disruption:

70. It is reasonable to conclude that Charles Lacona was not at Mama Lacona's-West at the time of the disruption on October 15th, 1993. He testified that he had left by 8:30 p.m., before the altercation. (Tr. at 259, 266, 300). Complainant Hoffman did not know if Charles Hoffman was there, but did note that sometimes he left early. (Tr. at 97).

c. Jim Lacona's testimony:

71. The remainder of the Respondent's argument relies almost exclusively on the testimony of Jim Lacona and Charles Lacona. If the testimony of Jim and Charles Lacona was credible, the Respondent's argument would be convincing. Their credibility, however, is so damaged by the weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, and internal and external contradictions in their testimony, with respect to the discharge and related material matters, that it is fatal to the argument. Jim Lacona's testimony may be summarized as follows:

a. on October 15th he did not know what had happened or what had precipitated the altercation between Lopez and Lihs. (Tr. at 296-98).

b. he was too busy on the night of October 15th to fully investigate the altercation between Lihs and Lopez, because he acted as the cashier and had to get back to work so customers could pay their bills. His discussions with employees that night indicated only that Lopez had swung at Lihs, who pushed him away. (Tr. at 298-99).

c. he does not recall Complainant Hoffman's name being mentioned to him that night. He was not informed of her involvement at that time. (Tr. at 298, 299).

d. he did not become aware that Complainant Hoffman had anything to do with the altercation until after Charles Lacona had informed her of her discharge. (Tr. at 299, 303-04, 311-12).

e. he did not communicate at all with Charles Lacona about the altercation between Lihs and Lopez from the time of its occurrence until the Complainant was informed of her termination. On Saturday, October 16, 1993, he was not even aware that Charles Lacona was going to or had terminated Complainant Hoffman. (Tr. at 300-01, 303, 314).

f. in the week following her discharge, some persons, whose identity he does not now recall, told him that the altercation began after Complainant Hoffman had thrown dishes on the table in the kitchen or splashed water on Lopez. Lopez had then yelled at her or threw something at her or did something else to her which caused Lihs to yell at him. (Tr. at 311-12, 314).

g. he never heard any complaint from Hoffman or any other waitress to the effect she or any other waitress had been sexually harassed by Lopez or other kitchen staff, either on October 15th or at any other time. (Tr. at 291, 298-99, 305). He first became aware that she had a concern with sexual harassment when he received the complaint filed with the Commission. (Tr. at 305). He did get complaints from a specific waitress, whose identity he does not recall. It is possible this person was Complainant Hoffman. This waitress, and possibly others, complained about being annoyed by the kitchen staff in ways other than sexual contact or sexual remarks, such as having water thrown on them or having their cigarettes taken. This resulted in general admonishments to the kitchen staff to stop bothering the waitresses on ten or fewer occasions. (Tr. at 293-94).

h. he was aware that, when this incident of rudeness had occurred, Complainant Hoffman had been sick. He had spoken to her after the incident and had been assured that it wouldn't happen again. There had been prior incidents of rudeness by the Complainant which had also been discussed with her. (Tr. at 309-10).

72. There are several problems with this testimony. Jim Lacona could not recall the identities either of the people who gave accounts of the events of October 15, 1993 or of the waitress who came to him with complaints about the kitchen staff. It seems likely, under these circumstances, that his recollection of the accounts of what happened on October 15th and of the waitresses' complaints is also incomplete.

73. Respondent Jim Lacona's assertions, that (a) he had received no complaints from waitresses about sexual harassment and (b) that he had no knowledge concerning sexual harassment of the Complainant or others until he received the complaint filed with the Commission, are incredible in light of the contrary and far more credible testimony of Robert Novak, David Lihs, Amy Tobey and Complainant Hoffman. While it is possible that some of these assertions may be the result of a lapse in memory, it is more likely than not that some of Jim Lacona's testimony on this issue is willfully false. It is very unlikely that Jim Lacona would forget his inquiry to Robert Novak about sexual harassment and all the complaints made by Complainant Hoffman, Amy Tobey, and David Lihs. See Findings of Fact Nos. 37-44, 54.

74. The Complainant's testimony about the incident of rudeness at Mama Lacona's-West agrees with Jim Lacona's to the extent that this incident had been discussed with her and that she had been ill when it occurred. It was her impression that this conversation with Jim Lacona had resolved the matter. She heard nothing further about it until her discharge. She also testified, however, that she had not been disciplined for any prior rudeness nor for any other cause. (Tr. at 66-67, 339-40). This testimony contradicts Jim Lacona's assertion that he had previously counseled her about rudeness. (Tr. at 309-10). Her testimony appears to be more credible given Jim Lacona's inability to recall when any of these prior incidents occurred. (Tr. at 302). There are no details of these alleged prior incidents in the record.

75. It should be noted that Robert Novak believed Complainant Hoffman was a good waitress, who gave good service to her customers. He noted that there were some customer complaints about the Complainant, as there were about all or most of the food servers, including himself. Such customer complaints about service were an expected daily occurrence in restaurants. Often such complaints do not warrant discipline of a waitress. He did not have her disciplined for any such complaints. (Tr. at 39, 44-45, 47, 49). When Venessa Devine was manager of the Southwest Ninth location, she heard one complaint about rudeness concerning Complainant Hoffman when Hoffman worked there. Ms. Devine did not hear of any complaints concerning Hoffman at the Mama Lacona's-West location. (Tr. at 164-65). There is no evidence that Complainant Hoffman was counseled about these specific complaints or that they were reported to Jim Lacona or Charles Lacona.

76. The contradictions between the procedures which Jim Lacona testified were followed with respect to rude behavior by employees toward customers and the actual practices followed with respect to the Complainant have been previously noted. See Finding of Fact No. 62.

77. Given the false assertions concerning his lack of knowledge of sexual harassment, and the other weaknesses, contradictions, and implausibilities in his testimony, it may be reasonably inferred that Jim Lacona's assertions concerning his knowledge of the events of October 15 and 16, 1993 and his communications with Charles Lacona are also false or unreliable.

d. Charles Lacona's testimony:

78. Charles Lacona's testimony on the events leading up to Complainant Hoffman's termination is also filled with contradictions, weaknesses, and implausibilities.

79. Charles Lacona's testimony on the question of whether he was informed by Jim Lacona about the incident of the 15th prior to informing Hoffman about her termination on the 16th is equivocal. It initially indicates that he believes he was so informed, but subsequently indicates that he doesn't know when he was informed of the disruption:

Q. Were you made aware that Dave Lihs had been sent home by Jim Lacona on October 15th?

A. The following day, or-- Yeah.

Q. You knew that had happened, at some point, correct?

A. Well, sure.

. . .
Q. Did your son, Jim, or somebody else, bring you up to speed on those events at some point?

A. I imagine.

Q. So you knew about them before the next day's--before the restaurant opened, then, the following day?

A. I believe so. I don't know.

Q. Did you know about those, then, before you met with Debra Hoffman that day?

A. I don't even know that. I don't time things.

(Tr. at 264, 266).

80. At hearing, Charles Lacona replied in the negative to a question which asked if his decision to discharge Complainant Hoffman had "anything to do with the altercation that had occurred between David Lihs and the complainant?". (Tr. at 264). However, this testimony is meaningless as the facts indicate there was no altercation between David Lihs and the Complainant. The altercation was between David Lihs and Respondent Lopez. See Finding of Fact No. 41.

81. At the time of her discharge, Complainant Hoffman asked Charles Lacona if she was being discharged due to events that happened the previous night. He said "no." (Tr. at 62). His denial is questionable, however, because during this same conversation he gave her a reason for her termination which was not the "rudeness to customers" reason given at hearing. He admitted the reason he gave her was false. (Tr. at 262, 274).

82. Charles Lacona initially admitted that when he informed Complainant Hoffman of her discharge, he gave her a reason which was false, i.e. it was not "the real reason" for the discharge. (Tr. at 262). He subsequently contradicted this statement by testifying that the reason given her was actually a factor in the decision. (Tr. at 263). He later again admitted, however, that the reason given the Complainant was not the "real reason" for her discharge, i.e. rudeness to customers. (Tr. at 274). The giving of inconsistent reasons for the discharge not only brings Charles Lacona's veracity into question, it also indicates that the reasons given are pretexts for retaliation. See Conclusion of Law No. 58.

83. The reason given Complainant Hoffman at the time she was informed of her discharge was that she was being discharged because she "harassed" Fred Ballard, who prepared rolls, by criticizing him about how slow he was in getting rolls to the waitresses and whether they were hot or not. (Tr. at 64-65, 78-79, 262-63).

84. At different points in his testimony, Charles Lacona indicates that this "harassment" of Ballard either was or was not a factor in Complainant's discharge. (Tr. at 262, 263, 274). If this actually was a factor in Complainant Hoffman's discharge, she was treated differently than other employees who complained about Fred Ballard. Although it was common for employees to make such complaints, there is no evidence in the record that any employee other than the Complainant was disciplined for making them. (Tr. at 78-79, 263, 268). Charles Lacona admitted that Ballard told him that both Complainant Hoffman and another waitress had complained about him. He also admitted that two waitresses had complained directly to him about Ballard being slow with the rolls. (Tr. at 267-68). Charles Lacona had responded to these complaints by talking to Ballard about this problem, but concluded Ballard was doing the best he could. (Tr. at 268-69).

84A. The inconsistent testimony, the difference in treatment of the Complainant and other employees who complained about Ballard, and the marked contrast in the severity of discipline administered to Complainant Hoffman as compared to those to those who harassed her and other waitresses indicates Charles Lacona's testimony that this reason was a factor in her discharge is not credible and that this reason is, at best, a pretext for retaliation.

85. Charles Lacona testified he did not tell Complainant Hoffman that she was being terminated due to rudeness to customers because this would hurt her feelings. His actions were supposedly based upon an illogical proposition. On the one hand, informing an employee that she is being discharged because a customer (whom she may have never met before) is upset with her conduct will hurt her feelings On the other hand, informing her that she is being discharged because a coworker (with whom she worked everyday) is upset with her conduct will either not hurt her feelings or hurt them to a lesser degree. (Tr. at 262, 280-81). This testimony is implausible.

86. Charles Lacona testified that the accumulation of complaints from customers played a role in his decision to discharge Complainant Hoffman. (Tr. at 274). However, there is no detail given on any of these complaints other than the one incident that occurred during the two week period prior to the Complainant's discharge. See Finding of Fact No. 64. He testified only that, while there had been other occasions of rudeness, it wasn't routine. (Tr. at 278).

87. Charles Lacona further testified that he liked to try to work out problems, such as customer complaints, with the waitresses. (Tr. at 261). This practice was not followed with Complainant Hoffman, however, as Charles Lacona also testified that he had never talked to her about these problems until the day he informed her of her discharge, but had "just accepted it." (Tr. at 281).

88. It has already been noted that the discharge of the Complainant for rudeness did not conform to the usual or past practices at Mama Lacona's-West or practices implemented by Jim Lacona and Charles Lacona for dealing with such conduct. See Finding of Fact No. 62, 75..

89. Charles Lacona testified that he did not recall either Complainant Hoffman or Bev Erskine complaining to him about sexual harassment in 1993. (Tr. at 255-56). This testimony is effectively contradicted by Complainant Hoffman, who clearly recalled that she and Ms. Erskine made such complaints. (Tr. at 58). Charles Lacona's memory seemed to be foggy during his testimony. Jim Lacona noted that, because of his age, Charles Lacona will forget things. (Tr. at 286).

90. Given the unreliable and contradictory testimony of Jim Lacona and Charles Lacona concerning the Complainant's discharge and the events associated with it, as well as evidence demonstrating that Complainant Hoffman was not treated in accordance with established practices at Respondent Mama Lacona's-West and was treated differently from similarly situated employees who engaged in similar or worse conduct, it is concluded that the reasons given for her discharge are unworthy of credence. The combination of these factors and the inference of retaliation remaining from the establishment of the prima facie case demonstrates that the reason given by Respondent Mama Lacona's-West for Complainant Hoffman's discharge a pretext for retaliation. See Conclusion of Law No. 60.

3. Other Factors Which Indicate That Retaliation For Refusing to Accede to Sexual Harassment Is the True Reason For Complainant Hoffman's Discharge.

91. It was previously noted that, when Complainant Hoffman informed Respondent Jim Lacona about being sexually harassed by the kitchen staff, he expressed a concern that, if he discharged a member of the kitchen staff, the entire kitchen staff might leave as they were all either related or friends. See Finding of Fact No. 52. The Respondent's treatment of David Lihs lends credence to the theory that the Complainant was discharged in order to avoid discharging Joel Lopez and possibly losing the entire kitchen staff.

91A. The alleged prior and subsequent terminations of Joel Lopez do not negate this theory. Charles Lacona testified that, at some prior date, he had terminated Lopez for failure to show for work. He subsequently rehired him. (Tr. at 265, 269-72). It is not shown in the record, however, if this first termination occurred before or after the time when the kitchen staff became predominantly composed of a group of Hispanic employees, many or all of whom were related. The composition of the kitchen staff became more Hispanic over a period of time, as other employees quit and were replaced by new members of the family. (Tr. at 289). See Finding of Fact No. 11. Therefore, at the time of the first termination, the impact of Lopez's discharge on other members of the kitchen staff may not have been a concern as the staff may not yet have been primarily composed of his family members.

91B. Jim Lacona also testified that, approximately one month after Complainant Hoffman's discharge, he discharged Joel Lopez. According to him, this occurred immediately after Joe Lacona and Robert Novak informed him that Lopez was found in the food cooler with his pants down. (Tr. at 305-06, 327-29). This testimony is not consistent with Robert Novak's. Novak, who quit shortly after this incident, indicated that Lopez was still employed at Mama Lacona's when Novak left. (Tr. at 38-39). Novak's report must have been made prior to the end of his employment because he left Mama Lacona's to begin serving a sentence for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. (Tr. at 48). Even if Jim Lacona did terminate Lopez, this may only indicate that management would risk upsetting the kitchen staff by discharging Lopez for this behavior, while it would not take such a risk to stop sexual harassment of waitresses or to punish swinging at a supervisor who tried to end the harassment.

92. After the altercation of October 15th, Lihs and Lopez were sent home until the following Tuesday by Jim Lacona. See Finding of Fact No. 42. On that following Tuesday, David Lihs called Charles Lacona. Charles Lacona told Lihs that he was discharged because Mama Lacona's could no longer afford to keep him because the payroll was too high. (Tr. at 122, 126, 131, 133). Although he was informed that the payroll was too high, the next day an ad appeared in the newspaper where Respondent Mama Lacona's-West was hiring a line cook. (Tr. at 122-23). Lihs's job at Mama Lacona's prior to becoming kitchen manager was line cook. See Finding of Fact No. 10. Jim Lacona acknowledged that Lihs had been a very good cook. (Tr. at 324).

93. Although Lihs was terminated, Joel Lopez was not discharged. Jim Lacona asserts that Lopez was not terminated because he did not know if he had been provoked to swing at Lihs. (Tr. at 122, 132-33, 304, 317, 326).

94. Lihs was informed by a bartender at Mama Lacona's-West that the management had informed him they would rather lose Lihs than terminate a Mexican member of the staff and lose the whole kitchen staff. (Tr. at 123-24). This is reminiscent of what Complainant Hoffman was told by Jim Lacona when she complained about sexual harassment. See Finding of Fact No. 52. Not surprisingly, Mr. Lihs does not believe the explanation given by Charles Lacona for his discharge. He believes he was discharged "[b]ecause I stood up for the waitresses." (Tr. at 122).

95. Charles Lacona and Jim Lacona disagree with Lihs's testimony on his termination. Charles Lacona denies that he discharged David Lihs. (Tr. at 264). He maintains that Lihs was discharged by Jim Lacona when he did not show up for work. (Tr. at 265). Jim Lacona testified that, on Tuesday, Charles Lacona suspended David Lihs until the following Friday as punishment for yelling at Jim Lacona in the dining room. According to him, when David Lihs did not show for work the following Friday, he was considered a voluntary quit. (Tr. at 315-16, 319-20).

96. David Lihs's version of events is considered more credible for two reasons. First, the less than credible testimony of Charles Lacona and Jim Lacona on other material facts has already been noted. Second, Complainant Hoffman credibly testified that in the week following October 16, 1993, she talked to David Lihs. He told her that he had been discharged on Tuesday because the payroll could not cover his wages anymore. (Tr. at 66). This contemporaneous account by a credible witness supports David Lihs assertion that he was terminated on Tuesday, October 19, 1993.

97. There is a common theme that ties together the discharges of Complainant Hoffman and David Lihs. Both were discharged shortly after the disruption of October 15, 1993. The disruption began when Complainant Hoffman was sexually harassed by Respondent Lopez. After she objected to the harassment, David Lihs attempted to stop it. Joel Lopez responded by swinging at David Lihs. Respondent Lopez, an employee who sexually harassed his coworker and who swung at his supervisor when he tried to stop the harassment, was retained. The coworker, who was harassed, and the supervisor, who tried to stop the harassment, were, however, both discharged. Under these facts, and the facts previously discussed, it is more likely than not that both Complainant Hoffman and David Lihs were discharged by Respondent Mama Lacona's-West in order to avoid discharging Lopez for sexual harassment and thereby possibly losing the kitchen staff.

Findings of fact continued