San Francisco Workplace Harassment Suit Settled for $125K
Table of Contents
Case Background
Katrina Baptiste filed a civil lawsuit against her employer, The City and County of San Francisco, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. Filed on August 23, 2023, the case, identified as CGC-23-608576, centered on severe allegations of workplace misconduct and employment law violations that Baptiste claimed she endured while working for the municipality. The City and County of San Francisco, along with unnamed individuals listed as Does 1 through 20, stood as the Defendants in the action.
Cause
The core of the complaint alleged that the City had failed to maintain a safe and non-discriminatory workplace, leading to multiple violations of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Plaintiff asserted that she had been subjected to sexual harassment and racial harassment during her employment, creating a hostile work environment. Furthermore, the complaint included claims of outright racial discrimination, alleging that the City had treated her differently based on her race in terms of employment conditions and opportunities. These discriminatory actions and harassment, the complaint detailed, had been ongoing and severe.
A pivotal claim in the lawsuit was retaliation. Baptiste asserted that after she reported the harassment and discrimination, the City took adverse action against her to punish her for speaking out. Her claim of Failure to Prevent Harassment rounded out the employment violations, suggesting the City had knowledge of the toxic environment but did not take reasonable steps to stop it. Finally, a claim under the Business and Professions Code § 17200 for unlawful business practices was also included in the petition.
Injury
The alleged injuries stem from the cumulative effect of the hostile work environment, discrimination, and subsequent retaliation. While the specific details of Baptiste’s personal suffering were reserved for a potential jury trial, the claims indicated that she suffered significant general and specific damages, including emotional distress, professional setback, and financial loss. These damages reflected the substantial negative impact the City’s alleged actions had on her overall well-being and career stability.
Damages Sought
In her formal complaint, Katrina Baptiste sought considerable financial relief. She had asked the Court to award her general and compensatory damages to cover her documented losses and pain. She also sought lost wages, arguing that the discrimination and subsequent environment had impacted her ability to earn income. Additionally, the complaint requested punitive damages, a type of penalty intended to punish the City for particularly egregious conduct and deter similar actions in the future. Finally, Baptiste demanded the recovery of the legal costs and attorneys’ fees she had accrued in bringing the action against the City.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The lawsuit moved through the early stages of litigation under the supervision of the Honorable Rochelle East in Department 610. The filing of the complaint and the City’s official response defined the battle lines for the potential trial.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Katrina Baptiste
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Andrew A. Howard | Joshua M. Arnold | J. Bernard Alexander, III | Jacqueline Gil
Defendant(s): The City and County of San Francisco | Does 1 through 20.
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Peter A. Cownan | David Chiu | Jonathan C. Rolnick
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims:
The Plaintiff’s legal team had positioned the case as a clear-cut failure of management and oversight, asserting that the City had allowed a culture of discrimination and harassment to fester. Their filings made the argument that the City’s alleged conduct violated the most fundamental principles of non-discrimination in the workplace. They were prepared to present evidence that Baptiste had repeatedly been harmed by the City’s unlawful behavior and subsequent attempts to silence her through retaliation.
Defense:
The City and County of San Francisco, through its attorney, formally denied all of the Plaintiff’s allegations on November 14, 2023, just months after the complaint’s initial filing. The City’s answer to the complaint strongly contested the factual basis of the claims, asserting that it had properly addressed any complaints and had not engaged in illegal discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The City’s defense had essentially created a full denial of liability, preparing to challenge the Plaintiff’s narrative and evidence in Court.
Settlement
The legal battle between Katrina Baptiste and The City and County of San Francisco concluded far from a jury box. On June 12, 2025, the Court received a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case, confirming that the parties had reached a conditional resolution. The notice formally informed the Court that the Plaintiff and the City had resolved all outstanding issues and intended to file a request for dismissal of the entire case within 45 days.
The specific financial terms of the settlement, as documented outside the formal Court notice, established that The City and County of San Francisco had paid a total amount of $125,000 to Katrina Baptiste. While this settlement represented a substantial recovery for Baptiste, the City’s decision to settle does not constitute an admission of guilt or liability in the matter. This resolution allowed both parties to avoid the considerable financial risks and emotional toll associated with a prolonged and public jury trial, bringing an end to the employment dispute that had been pending for nearly two years. The settlement officially closed the case records in the Superior Court of California.