A former employee of a Starbucks in north San Diego recently received a $250,000 judgment for sexual harassment.

The October verdict came as a result of a three-week trial in San Diego Superior Court.

What’s remarkable about the case is that the former employee, Sean Robb, alleged an assistant manager, Michael Sewell, harassed him during the course of Robb’s three months at Starbucks.

The events giving rise to the case occurred in fall 2004. Robb, 19 at the time, was an entry-level barista. And to his supervisor, Sewell, 28 at the time, “entry-level” may have meant something more. “Excuse me, Mr. Sewell, is that a biscotti in your pants or are you just happy to see me?”

According to a report in the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Robb sought to prove at trial that Sewell, who is openly gay, harassed Robb because Robb is gay. Robb also alleged that he complained about Sewell’s conduct and that Starbucks fired him in retaliation for complaining about it.

Under California law, it is possible for gay men to sue employers when gay or straight supervisors, co-employees or customers harass them because of their sexual orientation. “Sir, do you need a top?”

“Yes, and you’ll do just fine.”

“I’m referring to your coffee cup.”

The company may be liable, and the employee (or customer) may also incur personal liability for harassing. The Legislature intended the law to protect gay men and women from harassers in the workplace.

The unusual cases, thankfully, are those where straight men or gay men sue because gay men have harassed them.

Most states and federal law offer no such relief for harassed gay men on the job, regardless of whether the harassment is by fellow gays or by straight men or women who insult or degrade the gay employee. (Ironically, the “harassed” pages of former Rep. Mark Foley have no claim under federal law. That might actually help get the Employee Non-Discrimination Act passed.)

Robb claimed that Sewell referred to him as “bitch” and asked if he had dates with males. At the trial, 11 current or former Starbucks employees testified about Sewell’s behavior. Robb claimed that Starbucks was notified about Sewell’s behavior because Sewell had engaged in similar acts with other male employees.

Monica Taylor, a manager at a Starbucks in La Jolla, testified that Sewell leered at males and described some as “yummy.” He bragged of his sexual abilities and demonstrated the physical flexibility that enabled him to perform sexual acts. Other employees referred to Sewell as “the diva.”

Taylor said she counseled Sewell about his actions. However, Starbucks promoted Sewell to assistant manager and he wound up at a different store. That’s where he allegedly harassed Robb.

The law in California dealing with sexual harassment is constantly changing. But in general, when one employee harasses another employee, the harassed employee has to give notice to the employer, who then has the chance to correct the problem.

It’s also important to note that harassment doesn’t simply mean some occasional teasing. It has to be so severe and pervasive that it changes the working conditions and creates a hostile working environment. The reasonable gay man would have to find the workplace hostile.

Robb alleged that he complained about Sewell’s acts but the company told him Sewell’s conduct did not violate the company’s anti-harassment policy.

That may be understandable. There is a queer irony about the law. Someone can kill a gay man and allege that the victim tried to kiss him. So, naturally, that justified the killing. We call that “homosexual panic defense.” But in job bias cases, the victim of the harassment basically has to prove the perpetrator tried to rape him on numerous occasions. I’m only half joking, but trial lawyers will only take cases where the harassment is very severe.

What’s interesting about the case is that the jury awarded $250,000 in punitive damages. Punitive damages are damages designed to punish the perpetrator of intentionally or grossly negligent conduct.

Robb also received $7,500 for emotional distress and mental suffering.

Coronado lawyer Terry Chapko, of Chapko & English, represented Robb at trial. Starbucks was represented by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Field in Los Angeles.