In 2024 she filed a lawsuit against SpaceX, under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Dopak v. SpaceX alleges sex bias, retaliation and harassment in violation of California labor law. SpaceX has faced similar sexual discrimination lawsuits in several jurisdictions.
SpaceX moved to compel arbitration, which likely would have ended her claim. The Court of Appeals decision is a significant victory for victims of sex discrimination and harassment in California. Michelle Dopak may win, or she may lose in court, but she will have her chance to present her claims to a jury.
Ugly facts
Dopak was hired as a Production Manager in 2017, at which time she signed an agreement to arbitrate disputes. In her lawsuit, she alleges that she was paid $5,000 less than a male colleague with the same job who was hired when she was. She and other female employees complained to HR about the discrimination that they were experiencing, including being passed up for job opportunities and being subjected to humiliating rumors spread by their male colleagues. She maintains she was repeatedly retaliated against after complaining of discrimination.
She further alleges that Anthony Brooks, a male supervisor, pressured her to have sex with him and eventually promoted her to a scheduler position in exchange for continued sexual relations. Dopak believed her career advancement depended on her continued compliance with his sexual demands. The demands for unprotected sexual relations began in 2019 and continued through 2022, when Brooks left SpaceX.
Dopak became pregnant with Brooks’ child in 2020. He offered to pay her $100,000 to terminate the pregnancy, which she refused. He allegedly transferred assets out of his name, with SpaceX’s apparent knowledge, to avoid child support obligations. Despite upper management’s knowledge of the pregnancy, no disciplinary actions were taken against Brooks, who was married. She believed that SpaceX had the supervisor’s proverbial back and that she needed to remain silent or risk losing her job.
California FEHA discrimination protection
Under FEHA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against employees based on sex. This includes:
- Sex and gender discrimination – treating employees differently based on their sex, gender identity or expression, or sexual orientation;
- Harassment – unwanted sexual advances, derogatory comments and creating a hostile work environment;
- Pregnancy discrimination related to hiring, promoting or continuing employment for pregnant women; and
- Retaliation against employees who report discrimination or harassment.
Many FEHA claims relate to the creation of a hostile work environment, which can turn on the fairly subtle question of whether a reasonable person would find conduct offensive. Quid pro quo, or ‘this-for-that” discrimination is relatively rare – but not at SpaceX, apparently.
Depending on the strength of the evidence, Michelle Dopak’s claim that she was pressured to have sex with her boss to protect her job could be a slam dunk. But Dopak, like many employees, had signed an agreement to arbitrate disputes with the company. Arbitration is where discrimination and harassment claims have historically gone to die.
Arbitration favors employers
Arbitration favors employers for many reasons. The arbitrator is sometimes hired by the employer and so has a vested economic incentive to render an employer-friendly decision. Arbitrators’ judgments generally cannot be appealed to state or federal court. The awards are also private. They keep workplace abuse out of the public eye, closing the courthouse doors and eliminating the power of juries or judges to stop, and to publicly rectify, violations of workers’ rights. When employees prevail in arbitration, their awards are generally much lower than awards given by juries.
READ MORE CALIFORNIA LABOR LAW LEGAL NEWS
To many, including federal lawmakers, requiring sexual discrimination complaints to be submitted to arbitration seemed particularly egregious. In 2021, Congress passed the EFAA, to permit survivors of sexual assault and discrimination to litigate their claims, even if they had previously signed a mandatory arbitration agreement.
Tricky timing issue under EFAA
But the EFAA applies only to conduct that occurred after its effective date on March 3, 2022. Dopak’s allegations of discrimination may go back as far as 2017, and the pressure to have sex with her boss dates back to 2019. The question is, when did it end.
In her amended complaint, Dopak alleges that between March 7 and March 11, 2022, Brooks continued to force Dopak to have unprotected sex with him. The Court of Appeals found her allegations credible enough to bring her claim under the protection of the EFAA. At this point, it looks like she will have a chance to present her case to a jury.
Source link
