|
3497 REVIEW GRANTED The fact that an employment supervisor favored female employees with whom he was having sexual affairs was not sufficient to support a claim for sexual harassment brought by other female employees who did not claim that they were treated differently from male employees; since such favoritism does not violate FEHA, an action does not lie for retaliation based complaints of such favoritism.CitationMACKEY v DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS (Warden's Lovers) 105 CA4 945 [See: GovC 12940 etseq; Proksel v Gattis 41 CA4 1626, T/AT 2/96; DeCintio v Westchester 807 F2 304]
|
|
