City seeks trainer for avoidance of harassment cases.

THE city of Los Angeles, seeking to comply with a new state law requiring the schooling of its 10,000 supervisors on avoiding sexual harassment, is looking for a firm to do the training.

The request for proposals comes in response to requirements outlined in a bill signed into law last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Under the law, which became effective Jan. 1, employers of 50 or more people must provide supervisors with two hours of training on sexual harassment issues. Similar training must be completed every two years thereafter.

Marie O' Kelly-Green, senior investigative analyst at the city's personnel department, said existing sexual harassment training programs did not comply with the new law.

"Our sexual harassment and discrimination training is in an eight-hour, general 'equal employment opportunity for supervisors' course, but there's no way to extract two hours of that eight-hour course and suggest it is solely for sexual harassment," she said.

The preference would be electronic-based training programs because so many supervisors must be trained over such a short time frame, she said. The deadline to submit proposals is Feb. 28. The value of the contract is unclear.

"We don't have an estimate," O'Kelly-Green said. "We want to see what comes in. But in theory, it doesn't really matter because we have to get it done."

Wrong Number

An appellate panel reinstated a proposed class action of customers alleging SBC Communications Inc. deceptively and illegally billed them for '900' calls they did not make.

The suit was filed by a local resident who sued on behalf of all customers who received similar charges beginning in March 1999. The class has not been certified.

In the suit, Marie Coolman claims she was charged $15 in January 2003 for two calls made to "900 Romance." She says she did not make those calls and sued, claiming violations of the state's Public Utilities Code and unfair business practices law.

Adding charges illegally onto a customer's bill, called "cramming," and switching their services illegally, called "slamming," have cost phone companies millions in fines in recent years. In 2003, Qwest Communications International Inc. paid a $20 million fine for illegally switching California customers' long distance phone service.

In August 2003, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge threw out Coolman's suit, stating it should have been filed with the California Public Utilities Commission. A panel of three judges in 2nd Appellate District disagreed, saying the suit is an appropriate redress.

James Flynn, a partner at Weehsler Harwood LLP representing Coolman said, "The decision is squarely in the hands of consumers. They should be entitled to bring any action that they're capable of using. That's what the PUC said and that's what the Court of Appeal said."

Jason Frank, a lawyer at Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker LLP representing SBC, declined to comment about the case, which returns to Los Angeles Superior Court.

Staff reporter Amanda Bronstad can be reached at [phone], ext. 225, or at [e-mail].