A judge has ruled that a security guard who worked the graveyard shift at Los Angeles City Hall and is suing the company that employed her, alleging she was forced to resign in 2023 due to sexual harassment and retaliation, will not have to arbitrate her claims.
Chandi Davis alleges in her Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit against Platinum Security Inc. that her male boss once asked her if she was on her monthly menstrual cycle. Her complaint alleges sexual harassment, gender discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation, constructive discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Platinum Security filed court papers asking Judge Peter A. Hernandez to order Davis to take her claims before an arbitrator rather than a jury, noting the language of the plaintiff’s April 2022 employment agreement. But the judge ruled Jan. 7 that Davis’ allegations concern “conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute” as defined by the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act.
According to her lawsuit, Davis was hired in April 2022 and patrolled the City Hall parking structures by car from midnight to 6 a.m. She was the sole provider for four young children, was the only female at her work site and she was happy to have a stable and secure income source.
Davis initially paid little attention to the gender disparity, but biases “brimmed underneath the surface” and one of her supervisors began to question her job capabilities, saying she was “too emotional,” the suit states.
The same boss later questioned another guard, who was married, as to whether he and Davis were intimate while on duty, according to the suit, which further states the supervisor shrugged off the plaintiff’s concerns when she complained.
The alleged harassment continued when a female guard from another firm told Davis she had also heard that a Platinum woman guard with the same nickname as the plaintiff was sexually promiscuous, the suit states.
“Plaintiff was shocked and embarrassed to find out that sexually inappropriate, humiliating and false rumors had been spread about plaintiff within and also outside of Platinum,” the suit further contends.
Another supervisor who overheard Davis once again protesting to the first boss about the alleged promiscuity rumors asked Davis, “What, are you on your period? You’re so emotional, calm down, it’s not that serious,” the suit alleges.
Exacerbated by the thought of having to see and continue working with the alleged harassing supervisor, she reached out to the human resources department directly, but the unsympathetic response left her even more distraught and concerned, the suit alleges.
In retaliation, the supervisor began giving her duties that required her to get out of her company car to perform without anyone to back her up for her safety, duties that were not asked of her previously, the suit states.
“It became clear that (the supervisor) purposefully placed plaintiff in a position where she had inadequate protection and refused to provide an adequate amount of security to protect her in the dangerous job she performed,” the suit alleges.
Platinum cut Davis’ weekly hours from 42 to 30 and the boss “continued to poison her male colleagues against her for reporting his sexual harassment,” the suit brought last May 31 states.
The allegedly hostile work environment was so unbearable that Davis was forced to quit in January 2023, according to the suit.