Harris Farms considers appeal of sexual harassment verdict
Harris Farms considers appeal of sexual harassment verdict
A federal-court jury in Fresno, CA, found Coalinga, CA-based Harris Farms Inc. liable for sexual harassment and awarded one of its employees nearly $1 million, a verdict that has outraged Harris Farms " one of California?s larger agricultural businesses.
The verdict was handed down Friday, Jan. 21. Sylvia Gomez, human resource director for Harris Farms, told The Produce News Monday, Jan. 24, that Harris Farms likely would appeal the verdict.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Harris Farms on behalf of fieldworker Olivia Tamayo, 45, who filed a charge with the federal agency against her employer in 1999, claiming she was raped and threatened by a supervisor. Ms. Gomez said that Ms. Tamayo simply lacks credibility and that the EEOC painted an inaccurate picture of the circumstances that the jury bought into.
Linda Li, a spokeswoman in the EEOC?s San Francisco office, said that the EEOC is "a neutral agency? that tries to "reach out to employers as much as workers since these are the two parts of the equation to ending employment discrimination."
Ms. Li also said that the EEOC offers opportunities for employers to get educated about their legal responsibilities, such as providing seminars and training, she said.
?We [EEOC] aren?t gunslingers or mudslingers, we just enforce the laws as mandated by Congress to try to end discrimination," Ms. Li said. "It doesn?t have to be a polarized relationship."
Ms. Gomez said that from all appearances, Ms. Tamayo and the "supervisor? in question " Rene Rodriquez " were having an affair and that the sex was consensual. Ms. Gomez said that some 30 or so employees interviewed supported this view. She added that Ms. Tamayo never came forward to Harris Farms with her complaints until 1999. She noted that a sheriff investigating Ms. Tamayo?s claims back in 1999 didn?t find her credible. Ms. Gomez said that in 1999, Mr. Rodriquez told Harris Farms that he and Ms. Tamayo " both of whom were and still are married " were having an affair that had carried on for years. While Mr. Rodriquez never changed his story, Ms. Tamayo constantly changed her version of events over the years, Ms. Gomez said.
?We [Harris Farms] did an extensive investigation, and her [Ms. Tamayo] story kept changing and changing," Ms. Gomez said. In addition, the company issued a walkie-talkie to Ms. Tamayo, suspended Mr. Rodriquez without pay while it investigated the claims, and both Mr. Rodriquez and Ms. Tamayo were issued temporary restraining orders to stay away from each other, Ms. Gomez said.
Ms. Gomez said that Ms. Tamayo?s description of the first alleged rape suggests a near physical impossibility that a rape could have occurred. Mr. Rodriquez retired from the company in December 1999. The company suspended Ms. Tamayo for a day in March 2001 and she subsequently quit the company, Ms. Gomez said.
John Harris, president and owner of Harris Farms, shared with The Produce News an e-mail he sent to his employees on Jan. 24 regarding the case. In it, he wrote, "The problem we were faced with was that she [Ms. Tamayo] did not report these alleged rapes, which she said occurred from 1993 until 1996, until after she had a verbal altercation and she claimed hair pulling by Rodriquez in July 1999. At that time, our human resources department extensively investigated the case. Tamayo in the initial investigation made no mention of any rapes. She just said that she didn?t want Rodriquez talking to her. We hired her an attorney to get her a temporary restraining order requiring he [Mr. Rodriquez] not be near her. When Rodriquez was served this, he also hired an attorney and said that the relationship they had was a consensual sexual affair. This statement by Rodriquez was sent to Tamayo?s home, and once her family heard that version, she changed her story to now say that her relationship with Rodriquez was actually a series of rapes. At that point, we were faced with conflicting stories and continued our investigation. That investigation, which included interviews of them both by a Fresno County Sheriff?s Department deputy, concluded that her story was not true. Tamayo never attempted to even contact any law enforcement agency to make any sort of charges against Rodriquez. There were numerous witnesses that said that it was highly believed that these two people had had a consensual affair over a period of years, including documentation of gifts and money given from him to her and notes being passed between them."
Evangelina Hernandez, a senior trial attorney for the EEOC who was involved in the case, disputed numerous Harris Farms? assertions, including that the plaintiff lacked credibility. Ms. Hernandez said that there were two instances in 1996 substantiated by Harris Farms? human resources department where Mr. Rodriquez had made blatant sexual overtures to two married women linked to the company. She also said that Harris Farms picked a deputy of its choice who was friendly to the company to investigate Ms. Tamayo?s claims.
The 10-member jury in the Harris Farms case consisted of six men and four women; four of the jury members were Latino.
Ms. Tamayo is a mother of five and a Mexican immigrant who began picking crops for Harris Farms full time in 1985. She testified that Mr. Rodriguez forcibly raped her several times between 1993 and 1995, then threatened her to keep quiet about it.
Ms. Gomez said that back in 1999, Ms. Tamayo claimed she was raped by Mr. Rodriguez twice in 1993 and once in 1994 and that he attempted to rape her in 1996. Ms. Gomez said that Mr. Rodriquez admitted to an incident in July 1999 when he pulled Ms. Tamayo?s hair in anger when he saw her talking with another male employee. Harris Farms responded by reassigning Mr. Rodriguez to irrigation duties that removed him from contact with Ms. Tamayo on the job. In August 1999, Ms. Tamayo told management about the alleged rapes.
Ms. Gomez said that the EEOC painted an inaccurate picture of an uneducated field worker " Ms. Tamayo " being taken advantage of by a supervisor. In fact, Ms. Tamayo was a tractor driver who also supervised a weeding crew, Ms. Gomez said. Mr. Rodriquez " whose job at the time was to move around portable toilets " was not a supervisor during the years in question at trial nor during his apparent involvement with Ms. Tamayo, Ms. Gomez said.
Ms. Gomez said that the last year Mr. Rodriquez had been a supervisor for Harris Farms was in 1987-88. She said that the EEOC was able to produce documents at trial that showed Mr. Rodriquez listed as a supervisor with the company, but said that the paperwork likely was made out by a human resources assistant no longer with Harris Farms. Ms. Gomez began work at Harris Farms in 1999, and the circumstances that led to the sexual harassment court case preceded her start with the company.
Ms. Tamayo testified that other employees continued to harass her until she was forced to resign her job in March 2001. The federal lawsuit was filed in 2002. Dean Callender, executive director of Salinas, CA-based Agricultural Personnel Management Association, said that California has the most complete sexual harassment law in the United States. APMA is a non-profit professional organization dedicated to the advancement of human resource management in the agricultural industry.
?If a supervisor did it [rape], then the company is liable," Mr. Callender said. But back in 1999, if Harris Farms had training on sexual harassment, then Ms. Tamayo?s lack of bringing allegations to Harris? human resources department covers the company, he said.
Ms. Gomez said that Harris Farms had sexual harassment training in place dating back before Ms. Tamayo?s allegations, and that Ms. Tamayo had even taken part in sexual harassment training prior to coming forward with her allegations.
Though California sexual harassment law has protections in place to protect an underling from a supervisor, those provisions were not in place in 1999, he said. Back then, in the eyes of the law, Ms. Tamayo and Mr. Rodriquez would have been regarded as co-workers.
Mr. Callender said that California companies are in a predicament when it comes to sexual harassment lawsuits. "It costs so much more to fight it," Mr. Callender said. "Insurance companies many times will force companies to settle " they force companies to take the least expensive route."
The issue comes down to whether a company can afford to clear its name, Mr. Callender said. Typically, an insurance policy that covers sexual harassment claims " known as employment practices liability insurance " stipulates that insurance will cover an out-of-court settlement offer and will not cover any amount above that when a company chooses to battle in court, Mr. Callender said.
Ms. Hernandez of the EEOC said that rejecting an out-of-court settlement and instead choosing to fight the case in court on principle can be very expensive. "If people are going to take a risk, they have to be very sure of the facts [of the case] and how the law applies to the case," Ms. Hernandez said. Harris Farms " which rejected the EEOC?s offer to settle the case before taking it to court " does not have insurance coverage to protect it against sexual harassment claims, Ms. Gomez said. The company instead has chosen to utilize sexual harassment training, she added. Mr. Callender said that perhaps 50 percent of agricultural companies in California carry insurance coverage for sexual harassment claims.
Mr. Harris said that the cost of insurance protection may be prohibitive for Harris Farms and that the company?s focus will be to "maintain personnel practices."
Regarding the nearly $1 million judgment against Harris Farms, Mr. Harris said, "It's something we can withstand, but it's something so unjustified."
Mr. Harris said that he is frustrated in part because he thinks his company?s human resources department did a good job in handling the situation. "She [Ms. Tamayo] never had made charges to the police," Mr. Harris said, adding that hopes of a large settlement motivated Ms. Tamayo and the EEOC.
Mr. Callender said that he has a list of 26 names of female human resources managers working for agricultural companies in California. On that list, there only are a couple of women who would be predisposed to speaking to the media " and whose companies would allow it " on sexual harassment cases such as the one with Harris Farms, he said.
?The other women won?t talk because they are afraid the EEOC will come after their company," Mr. Callender said. "They [EEOC] are going after companies that are innocent."
In California, the EEOC?s San Francisco office has filed nine sexual-harassment lawsuits against agricultural employers in federal court since 1998, including the one against Harris Farms. All were settled before reaching trial. In the biggest case, Salinas-based Tanimura & Antle agreed in 1999 to pay nearly $1.9 million to settle allegations of sexual harassment. The EEOC?s Los Angeles office has filed one case since 2001.
As one of several measures of injunctive (non-monetary) relief, the EEOC has requested that the court order Harris Farms to post the EEOC?s contact information at its field sites.
Privately held Harris Farms is a diversified farming operation spread across 14,000 acres of land in the Fresno, CA, area. It produces a wide variety of vegetable, fruit and nut crops, including tomatoes, onions, garlic, broccoli and almonds.
The verdict was handed down Friday, Jan. 21. Sylvia Gomez, human resource director for Harris Farms, told The Produce News Monday, Jan. 24, that Harris Farms likely would appeal the verdict.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Harris Farms on behalf of fieldworker Olivia Tamayo, 45, who filed a charge with the federal agency against her employer in 1999, claiming she was raped and threatened by a supervisor. Ms. Gomez said that Ms. Tamayo simply lacks credibility and that the EEOC painted an inaccurate picture of the circumstances that the jury bought into.
Linda Li, a spokeswoman in the EEOC?s San Francisco office, said that the EEOC is "a neutral agency? that tries to "reach out to employers as much as workers since these are the two parts of the equation to ending employment discrimination."
Ms. Li also said that the EEOC offers opportunities for employers to get educated about their legal responsibilities, such as providing seminars and training, she said.
?We [EEOC] aren?t gunslingers or mudslingers, we just enforce the laws as mandated by Congress to try to end discrimination," Ms. Li said. "It doesn?t have to be a polarized relationship."
Ms. Gomez said that from all appearances, Ms. Tamayo and the "supervisor? in question " Rene Rodriquez " were having an affair and that the sex was consensual. Ms. Gomez said that some 30 or so employees interviewed supported this view. She added that Ms. Tamayo never came forward to Harris Farms with her complaints until 1999. She noted that a sheriff investigating Ms. Tamayo?s claims back in 1999 didn?t find her credible. Ms. Gomez said that in 1999, Mr. Rodriquez told Harris Farms that he and Ms. Tamayo " both of whom were and still are married " were having an affair that had carried on for years. While Mr. Rodriquez never changed his story, Ms. Tamayo constantly changed her version of events over the years, Ms. Gomez said.
?We [Harris Farms] did an extensive investigation, and her [Ms. Tamayo] story kept changing and changing," Ms. Gomez said. In addition, the company issued a walkie-talkie to Ms. Tamayo, suspended Mr. Rodriquez without pay while it investigated the claims, and both Mr. Rodriquez and Ms. Tamayo were issued temporary restraining orders to stay away from each other, Ms. Gomez said.
Ms. Gomez said that Ms. Tamayo?s description of the first alleged rape suggests a near physical impossibility that a rape could have occurred. Mr. Rodriquez retired from the company in December 1999. The company suspended Ms. Tamayo for a day in March 2001 and she subsequently quit the company, Ms. Gomez said.
John Harris, president and owner of Harris Farms, shared with The Produce News an e-mail he sent to his employees on Jan. 24 regarding the case. In it, he wrote, "The problem we were faced with was that she [Ms. Tamayo] did not report these alleged rapes, which she said occurred from 1993 until 1996, until after she had a verbal altercation and she claimed hair pulling by Rodriquez in July 1999. At that time, our human resources department extensively investigated the case. Tamayo in the initial investigation made no mention of any rapes. She just said that she didn?t want Rodriquez talking to her. We hired her an attorney to get her a temporary restraining order requiring he [Mr. Rodriquez] not be near her. When Rodriquez was served this, he also hired an attorney and said that the relationship they had was a consensual sexual affair. This statement by Rodriquez was sent to Tamayo?s home, and once her family heard that version, she changed her story to now say that her relationship with Rodriquez was actually a series of rapes. At that point, we were faced with conflicting stories and continued our investigation. That investigation, which included interviews of them both by a Fresno County Sheriff?s Department deputy, concluded that her story was not true. Tamayo never attempted to even contact any law enforcement agency to make any sort of charges against Rodriquez. There were numerous witnesses that said that it was highly believed that these two people had had a consensual affair over a period of years, including documentation of gifts and money given from him to her and notes being passed between them."
Evangelina Hernandez, a senior trial attorney for the EEOC who was involved in the case, disputed numerous Harris Farms? assertions, including that the plaintiff lacked credibility. Ms. Hernandez said that there were two instances in 1996 substantiated by Harris Farms? human resources department where Mr. Rodriquez had made blatant sexual overtures to two married women linked to the company. She also said that Harris Farms picked a deputy of its choice who was friendly to the company to investigate Ms. Tamayo?s claims.
The 10-member jury in the Harris Farms case consisted of six men and four women; four of the jury members were Latino.
Ms. Tamayo is a mother of five and a Mexican immigrant who began picking crops for Harris Farms full time in 1985. She testified that Mr. Rodriguez forcibly raped her several times between 1993 and 1995, then threatened her to keep quiet about it.
Ms. Gomez said that back in 1999, Ms. Tamayo claimed she was raped by Mr. Rodriguez twice in 1993 and once in 1994 and that he attempted to rape her in 1996. Ms. Gomez said that Mr. Rodriquez admitted to an incident in July 1999 when he pulled Ms. Tamayo?s hair in anger when he saw her talking with another male employee. Harris Farms responded by reassigning Mr. Rodriguez to irrigation duties that removed him from contact with Ms. Tamayo on the job. In August 1999, Ms. Tamayo told management about the alleged rapes.
Ms. Gomez said that the EEOC painted an inaccurate picture of an uneducated field worker " Ms. Tamayo " being taken advantage of by a supervisor. In fact, Ms. Tamayo was a tractor driver who also supervised a weeding crew, Ms. Gomez said. Mr. Rodriquez " whose job at the time was to move around portable toilets " was not a supervisor during the years in question at trial nor during his apparent involvement with Ms. Tamayo, Ms. Gomez said.
Ms. Gomez said that the last year Mr. Rodriquez had been a supervisor for Harris Farms was in 1987-88. She said that the EEOC was able to produce documents at trial that showed Mr. Rodriquez listed as a supervisor with the company, but said that the paperwork likely was made out by a human resources assistant no longer with Harris Farms. Ms. Gomez began work at Harris Farms in 1999, and the circumstances that led to the sexual harassment court case preceded her start with the company.
Ms. Tamayo testified that other employees continued to harass her until she was forced to resign her job in March 2001. The federal lawsuit was filed in 2002. Dean Callender, executive director of Salinas, CA-based Agricultural Personnel Management Association, said that California has the most complete sexual harassment law in the United States. APMA is a non-profit professional organization dedicated to the advancement of human resource management in the agricultural industry.
?If a supervisor did it [rape], then the company is liable," Mr. Callender said. But back in 1999, if Harris Farms had training on sexual harassment, then Ms. Tamayo?s lack of bringing allegations to Harris? human resources department covers the company, he said.
Ms. Gomez said that Harris Farms had sexual harassment training in place dating back before Ms. Tamayo?s allegations, and that Ms. Tamayo had even taken part in sexual harassment training prior to coming forward with her allegations.
Though California sexual harassment law has protections in place to protect an underling from a supervisor, those provisions were not in place in 1999, he said. Back then, in the eyes of the law, Ms. Tamayo and Mr. Rodriquez would have been regarded as co-workers.
Mr. Callender said that California companies are in a predicament when it comes to sexual harassment lawsuits. "It costs so much more to fight it," Mr. Callender said. "Insurance companies many times will force companies to settle " they force companies to take the least expensive route."
The issue comes down to whether a company can afford to clear its name, Mr. Callender said. Typically, an insurance policy that covers sexual harassment claims " known as employment practices liability insurance " stipulates that insurance will cover an out-of-court settlement offer and will not cover any amount above that when a company chooses to battle in court, Mr. Callender said.
Ms. Hernandez of the EEOC said that rejecting an out-of-court settlement and instead choosing to fight the case in court on principle can be very expensive. "If people are going to take a risk, they have to be very sure of the facts [of the case] and how the law applies to the case," Ms. Hernandez said. Harris Farms " which rejected the EEOC?s offer to settle the case before taking it to court " does not have insurance coverage to protect it against sexual harassment claims, Ms. Gomez said. The company instead has chosen to utilize sexual harassment training, she added. Mr. Callender said that perhaps 50 percent of agricultural companies in California carry insurance coverage for sexual harassment claims.
Mr. Harris said that the cost of insurance protection may be prohibitive for Harris Farms and that the company?s focus will be to "maintain personnel practices."
Regarding the nearly $1 million judgment against Harris Farms, Mr. Harris said, "It's something we can withstand, but it's something so unjustified."
Mr. Harris said that he is frustrated in part because he thinks his company?s human resources department did a good job in handling the situation. "She [Ms. Tamayo] never had made charges to the police," Mr. Harris said, adding that hopes of a large settlement motivated Ms. Tamayo and the EEOC.
Mr. Callender said that he has a list of 26 names of female human resources managers working for agricultural companies in California. On that list, there only are a couple of women who would be predisposed to speaking to the media " and whose companies would allow it " on sexual harassment cases such as the one with Harris Farms, he said.
?The other women won?t talk because they are afraid the EEOC will come after their company," Mr. Callender said. "They [EEOC] are going after companies that are innocent."
In California, the EEOC?s San Francisco office has filed nine sexual-harassment lawsuits against agricultural employers in federal court since 1998, including the one against Harris Farms. All were settled before reaching trial. In the biggest case, Salinas-based Tanimura & Antle agreed in 1999 to pay nearly $1.9 million to settle allegations of sexual harassment. The EEOC?s Los Angeles office has filed one case since 2001.
As one of several measures of injunctive (non-monetary) relief, the EEOC has requested that the court order Harris Farms to post the EEOC?s contact information at its field sites.
Privately held Harris Farms is a diversified farming operation spread across 14,000 acres of land in the Fresno, CA, area. It produces a wide variety of vegetable, fruit and nut crops, including tomatoes, onions, garlic, broccoli and almonds.
