Bailey asked the state Supreme Court to review the case after the First District Court of Appeal rendered a unanimous, unpublished opinion affirming summary judgement in favor of the DA’s office. The court of appeal held Bailey had not suffered a hostile work environment because the slur was lodged at her by a colleague, not a supervisor, and it was an isolated incident.
The state employee alleged in court filings that the human resources director for the DA’s office told her not to file an internal complaint against her colleague. After it was reported, Bailey said her supervisors became hostile towards her, prompting her to file a Fair Employment and Housing Act claim for racial discrimination and harassment, retaliation for having made a complaint, and failure to prevent discrimination.
In her petition for review, she argued that it is an employer’s obligation to address and solve issues of unlawful harassment in the workplace. “[It] requires more than merely addressing the perpetrator, but extends to ensuring the workplace as a whole sees and understands that the offending conduct will be taken seriously and not be tolerated,” Bailey wrote.
In response to the petition, DA’s office said the California Supreme Court is not the appropriate venue for the complaint and that the court of appeal correctly applied existing precedent in its decision.