The renewed attention to sexual harassment in the State Capitol¹ includes scrutiny of settlements made by the California Legislature for harassment.

Reports on those settlements have been wildly inconsistent, to the point where media outlets widely disagree on even the total sum of payments.^{2 3 4}

Tuple Legal obtained and reviewed settlement records, court filings, historical news reports, and other documents to compile a database of the Legislature’s sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and gender discrimination settlements from the past 25 years.

This memo has two purposes:

1. It details all known settlements from the past 25 years. It is meant to serve as a resource for victims of sexual harassment in the Capitol to make informed decisions on how to proceed. (If you are reading for that purpose, I would advise you to consult a reputable employment law attorney before taking any other steps–especially before filing a report with your Rules Committee. Attorney consultations are often free.)
2. It presents new findings about the scope and handling of the Legislature’s sexual harassment settlements.

This memo does not account for the thousands of sexual harassment incidents in the State Capitol that have gone unreported. Nor does it account for complaints of harassment that did not result in a settlement. It only accounts for those incidents that resulted in a formal settlement.

Key Findings

Settlement Amounts

The Legislature has paid out at least $1.9 million for sexual harassment complaints in the past 25 years. In 2017 dollars, the amount is $2.8 million.⁵

In many cases it is not possible to verify that employees’ settlements involved claims of sexual harassment; they may have or may not have. In those uncertain cases, the Legislature paid out $306,000 over the past 25 years. In 2017 dollars, the amount is $360,000.

“No-reemployment” Clauses May Be Particularly Burdensome to Capitol Victims

Many of the settlement agreements Tuple Legal obtained contain a “no-reemployment” clause, which prevents victims from seeking employment with the Senate or Assembly in the future. Attorneys include those clauses in employee settlement agreements to keep disgruntled employees from obtaining settlements, subsequently reapplying for hire, and making a second claim against the employer for misconduct in the later employment application. (Though, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has called validity of those clauses into question.⁶)

Use of no-reemployment clauses may be appropriate in some employee separation agreements, but routine use of them for sexual harassment victims in the Capitol may be particularly burdensome to the victims. Employment positions in the Senate and Assembly represent a large portion of state-level political and policy jobs. Being banned from one of the chambers creates a significant disadvantage for political and policy staffers who endure sexual harassment.

Confidentiality Clauses Are Not Worth the Paper on Which They Are Printed

Many of the Legislature’s settlement agreements contain confidentiality clauses that purportedly bind legislative houses and aggrieved employees from disclosing the terms of a settlement. These clauses provide very little actual confidentiality.

The Legislative Open Records Act does not protect settlement agreements from public disclosure.⁷ Any member of the public may request and receive a copy of them. The only redactions in disclosed files are for signatures–not employee names. That is how reporters most often obtain and write stories about settlements. Settlements can generate media coverage of employees even in cases where reporters only know that an employee received a settlement–and no information as to why.⁸ As noted in the next section, settlements rarely name alleged perpetrators, thereby leaving only victims’ names in media reports.⁹

Including Only Limited Details in Settlement Agreements Shields Harassers from Scrutiny, Making the Legislature Complicit in Sexual Harassment Behavior

While the Legislature must disclose settlement agreements, it is not required to disclose details of sexual harassment investigations.¹⁰ Knowing that settlement agreements will be public–but not files pertaining to sexual harassment investigations–the Legislature routinely includes as few details as possible in settlement agreements. The agreements typically do not list the nature of complaints made by employees, nor the persons against whom complaints are lodged. At their essence, the Legislature’s settlement agreements only say: 1) an employee claims some type of workplace misconduct occurred, 2) the Legislature denies any misconduct occurred, but 3) the two sides will settle the matter for a sum of money.

This practice effectively shields offenders from scrutiny unless details of a given matter are leaked to the media or filed with another governmental agency ¹¹ In other words, our Legislature is doing what it can to actively hide harassers.

Legislature Payouts and Settlement Terms

Verified Instances of Sex Discrimination Claims

This table includes all known instances of employee settlements that involved a claim for sexual harassment. Included is detailed information on a given settlement, including gag clauses²³, no-reemployment clauses, information on whether an employee was moved to another office in the Capitol, and attorney fees.

Unverified Instances of Sex Discrimination Claims

This table lists details of employee settlement agreements that may or may not have included elements of sexual harassment. The records available are not complete enough to conclude one way or the other.

Changes

Dec. 6, 2017: Edited claim against Rusty Areias (D) and John Barry Wyatt for clarification that harassment charges were leveled against Wyatt.

Notes: