When the Boss Is the Harasser: What Can a California Employee Do After Years of Sexual Harassment by a Company Owner?
/
A California appeals court ruling in a storage company case puts a spotlight on one of the most difficult dynamics in employment law — what happens when the most senior company officer is also the harasser, and when the employee who finally takes action finds herself facing a lawsuit from the very person who harassed her. The underlying story of 14 years of alleged sexual harassment by a company's CEO toward his own COO is one that California employees in positions of trust and responsibility need to understand.
Case: Guardian Storage Centers, LLC v. Simpson
Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three
Case No.: G064847
Get to Know the Plaintiff: Guardian Storage Centers v. Simpson
Julie Simpson served as the Chief Operating Officer of Guardian Storage Centers, LLC, a position she held while working alongside the company's CEO and co-owner, John Minar. Simpson alleges that Minar subjected her to sexual harassment over the course of 14 years of employment. According to her cross-complaint, the alleged harassment escalated in the weeks before her termination, during which she was also raising concerns about the company's direction and management. Simpson was terminated, and Minar immediately sued her for breach of contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, breach of fiduciary duty, and misuse of company property. Simpson cross-complained against Guardian and Minar, alleging wrongful termination, sexual harassment over 14 years, and retaliation.
Other employees were also caught up in the fallout. Tracie Dotterer, Guardian's CFO, was terminated or constructively discharged after raising concerns about harassment and other issues at the company. Rhiana Davis and her boyfriend Gustavo Amezola also worked at the company in non-executive roles. Davis alleged she was harassed by another Guardian executive named Piccio; when Amezola complained on Davis's behalf about Piccio's conduct, he was terminated as well.
Get to Know the Defendant: Guardian Storage Centers v. Simpson
Guardian Storage Centers, LLC is a California storage company owned and operated by John Minar and his son Eric Minar. John Minar served as CEO and co-owner throughout the period at issue. The case reached the Court of Appeal not on the merits of the harassment and wrongful termination claims — those remain to be litigated — but on a significant discovery dispute involving privileged attorney-client communications that Simpson and other employees had taken from the company and shared with their lawyers.
What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?
The employment-side allegations in this case, as set out in Simpson's cross-complaint and the related complaints filed by Dotterer, Davis, and Amezola, include:
John Minar subjected Simpson to sexual harassment over approximately 14 years of her employment as COO
Simpson was terminated following the escalation of harassment and her raising of concerns about the company; Minar immediately filed suit against her
Dotterer, the company's CFO, was terminated or constructively discharged after she reported harassment allegations and other employee complaints to the company's third-party payroll company, which indicated it would conduct its own investigation
Davis alleged she was sexually harassed by Guardian executive Piccio; when Amezola complained about Piccio's treatment of Davis, Amezola was terminated
The complaint against Guardian and its principals alleges wrongful termination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and failure to prevent harassment and retaliation
What Was the Main Question in the Case?
The Court of Appeal's published opinion focused on a critical discovery dispute: during litigation, Simpson produced emails that contained confidential attorney-client communications between Guardian's own legal counsel and company personnel. Simpson had taken these emails during her employment and shared them with her attorneys. When Guardian's counsel learned of the disclosure, they asked that the emails be returned and not used further. Instead of returning them, the employees' legal team reviewed them in depth, failed to notify Guardian initially, and indicated an intent to use them to support the employees' claims.
Guardian moved to disqualify the employees' attorneys. The trial court denied that motion, but the Court of Appeal reversed — holding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to appreciate the full scope of the prejudice caused by the disclosure and the employees' lawyers' use of the privileged communications. The attorneys were ordered disqualified from the case.
This ruling carries a vital secondary lesson for employees considering legal action: taking confidential company documents — even documents that might support your own claims — and sharing them with your attorneys can have serious legal consequences, including the disqualification of your own legal team.
Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?
This is a California case involving California employees and California employment law, and it matters on two levels — the underlying harassment story and the practical lesson about handling employer documents.
California law provides strong protections for employees who report and take action against sexual harassment, including at the most senior levels of a company — a CEO's rank does not exempt him from FEHA's prohibitions
Retaliation against employees who raise harassment concerns — whether through termination, litigation, or other adverse action — is prohibited under California law regardless of the victim's position in the company
This case illustrates that employer-initiated litigation against a former employee who filed harassment claims can itself constitute retaliation — a theory California courts take seriously
On the document issue: employees who believe they have been harassed or wrongfully terminated should speak with an employment attorney before taking any company records, emails, or documents. Sharing privileged employer communications with your own lawyers can backfire severely, up to and including the loss of your legal team
A Brief Overview of the Case
14-year period: Simpson serves as Guardian's COO while allegedly enduring sexual harassment by CEO John Minar
Approximately 6 weeks before termination: Events at Guardian escalate; Simpson raises concerns; other employees also report harassment and misconduct
Simpson's termination: Guardian terminates Simpson; Minar immediately sues her for breach of contract and related claims
Simpson cross-complains: Simpson files cross-complaint alleging wrongful termination, 14 years of sexual harassment, and retaliation
Other employees sue: Dotterer, Davis, and Amezola file separate complaints alleging harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination
March 2024: Dotterer, Davis, and Amezola file their lawsuit following their terminations
Discovery dispute: During litigation, Guardian learns Simpson produced privileged attorney-client emails to her lawyers; Guardian's counsel requests return; employees' attorneys decline and indicate intent to use the documents
Trial court: Denies Guardian's motion to disqualify the employees' attorneys
March 24, 2026: The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reverses the trial court, ordering disqualification of the employees' legal team; the underlying harassment and wrongful termination claims continue in the litigation
FAQs: Guardian Storage Centers v. Simpson
Q: Can an executive-level employee like a COO claim sexual harassment under California law?
A: Yes. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act protects all employees from sexual harassment regardless of their position in the company. A CEO, owner, or other high-ranking executive who harasses a subordinate — even a senior executive — is subject to liability under FEHA.
Q: Is it legal for an employer to sue a former employee who has filed a harassment complaint?
A: Employer-initiated litigation against a former employee can constitute retaliation under California law if it is filed in response to the employee's protected activity — including reporting harassment or filing a lawsuit. California courts have recognized retaliatory lawsuits as a form of adverse action subject to anti-retaliation protections.
Q: Why were the employees' lawyers disqualified in this case?
A: The Court of Appeal found that the employees' legal team received confidential attorney-client communications belonging to Guardian, reviewed them in depth without promptly notifying Guardian, and indicated an intent to use them. This conduct was found to constitute a breach of professional responsibility standards that warranted disqualification.
Q: Can I take my employer's documents or emails to support my harassment claim?
A: This is one of the most important practical questions in employment cases. California law does not give employees an unlimited right to take confidential employer documents, even if those documents would support a harassment or retaliation claim. Before taking any company records or sharing employer communications with your attorney, get legal advice about what is permissible in your specific situation.
Q: What should I do if my employer files a lawsuit against me after I report harassment?
A: Document the timeline carefully — particularly the relationship between your protected activity (the harassment report or complaint) and the timing of the employer's lawsuit. Contact an employment attorney immediately. Retaliatory litigation by an employer is prohibited under California law and may itself form the basis of additional legal claims.
Q: Do harassment protections apply when the harasser is also part-owner of the company?
A: Yes. Ownership of a company does not exempt an individual from personal liability for sexual harassment under California law. Harassers can be held individually liable alongside the company itself.
Facing Harassment or Retaliation From Someone in Power at Your Company?
Guardian Storage Centers v. Simpson is a reminder that no title or ownership stake places a person above California's prohibition on sexual harassment — and that employees at every level of a company deserve protection. If you have experienced sexual harassment, wrongful termination, or retaliation from a company owner, officer, or senior executive, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.
