Rights in Sex Harassment Cases Extended : Law: A state court of appeal rules that employees who are not direct targets of abuse can seek damages if they are forced to work in a hostile environment.

Employees exposed to sexual harassment on the job can sue for damages even if they are not the direct victims of the abuse, a state appellate court has ruled in reviving a lawsuit by a nurse against San Pedro Peninsula Hospital and a staff gynecologist.

The precedent-setting decision last week by the 2nd District Court of Appeal means that Julie Fisher of Rancho Palos Verdes can refile her civil rights lawsuit against Dr. Barry Tischler and the hospital.

Fisher on Tuesday said she hopes the ruling will send a message that sexual harassment at work “should not go on. There is no reason that any woman should have to put up with sexual harassment.”

Tischler denies that he sexually harassed anyone, according to his lawyer, Pamela Dunn, who said she will appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court.

“We don’t tolerate sexual harassment and never will,” said hospital President John Wilson. “We will vigorously contest these allegations. They have no merit.”

The ruling is the first in the state to say that employees may recover damages if sexual harassment is pervasive in their workplace.

The U.S. Supreme Court two years ago found that a woman who is the target of sexual harassment can recover damages even if she does not suffer direct economic loss.

Last week’s decision in the Fisher case went a step further. The Court of Appeal said: “An employee who is subjected to a hostile work environment is a victim of sexual harassment even though no offensive remarks or touchings are directed to or perpetrated upon that employee.”

The case began in 1987, when Fisher filed suit in Long Beach Superior Court against Tischler and the hospital.

The operating-room nurse claimed that after she began working at the hospital in 1981, Tischler insulted her with sexual comments, touched her without permission and once hugged her so tightly that he separated cartilage from her ribs.

After she complained in late 1982, Tischler turned his attention to other nurses, Fisher said in an interview.

By the time she sued in 1987, the one-year statute of limitations had passed and it was too late for Fisher to allege that she was personally the target of the harassment. Instead, her lawsuit charged that the sexual harassment of other nurses from 1982 through 1986, when she quit, made it unbearable for her to work at the hospital.

The lawsuit accused Tischler of “pulling nurses onto his lap, hugging and kissing them while wiggling, making offensive statements of a sexual nature, moving his hands in the direction of a woman’s vaginal area, grabbing women from the back with his hands on their breasts or in the area of their breasts” and other offensive acts.

Fisher alleged the harassment had caused her panic attacks, stomachaches, headaches and other ailments.

In December, 1987, Long Beach Superior Court Judge James Sutton Jr. dismissed Fisher’s lawsuit, saying that the nurse did not have cause to sue just because she witnessed other nurses being subjected to Tischler’s alleged advances.

Sutton said that Fisher’s “vicarious reaction to the travail of others is not sexual harassment” for which she can sue. The judge went on to say that the world is full of “offensive jackasses, but there is no tort for being offensive.”

On Oct. 2, three appellate court justices unanimously rejected the judge’s ruling and said Fisher can win a judgment against Tischler and the hospital if she can prove that the doctor created a hostile work environment by sexually harassing other nurses and the hospital did not stop it.

Stringent Standard

The appellate justices, however, created a stringent standard for filing such claims.

In a majority opinion, two of the justices said Fisher’s lawsuit did not provide sufficient details of the alleged harassment of her co-workers to show that it was pervasive.

The new lawsuit must specify the frequency and intensity of the harassment, said the justices. They also asked Fisher to be more specific about where the incidents occurred and whether she witnessed them or just heard about them.

The ruling allows Fisher to amend the complaint so the lawsuit can return to Long Beach Superior Court.

Fisher’s lawyer, Patricia J. Barry, said she will provide enough detail to satisfy the court’s demands.

“The message is that employers in California must protect their women employees against any form of sexual harassment, even if they are not the direct targets,” she said. “They have to make sure that people behave properly toward women.”

Tischler’s lawyer, Dunn, said the appellate court went too far in permitting lawsuits by employees who have not themselves been the target of harassment.

“No court in the country has ever allowed someone who was not the victim to sue for hostile environment harassment,” Dunn said. “Our view is that if you are not the victim, you should not be able to sue.”