|
the taxpayers could very well be responsible for any such judgment. Not knowing CA law, I will defer to yours and NSMA's legal expertise.
I will say though, that he would almost certainly be entitled to defense by the CA AG's office at taxpayer expense. It simply depends on the particulars of the insurance policy carried by the state or the governmental risk pool to which the state belongs. Most exclude acts outside the scope of employment or office held, but certainly not all. But keep in mind that his acts would probably not be considered outside the scope of employment either.
This is because in cases of harassment in the supervision of a subordinate, the acts ARE considered within the scope of employment for employment litigation purposes. Otherwise, NO EMPLOYER would ever be held liable for violations of Title VII, since it is obvious that illegal harassment is outside the normal scope of employment. But unfortunately, Title VII would prohibit suing him individually for harassment! However, a woman could get outside of Title VII if there was actual touching, since she could then bring a claim for state law sexual assault, and could then sue him personally. Of course, the California version of Title VII may also allow her to sue him personally (the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act would not).
BTW- In Texas, the governor would be entitled to a defense at my expense, and the judgment would more than likely be paid by the taxpayers through TML.
Sorry this is so sketchy- it's just a primer on verrry basic employment law!
|