Let Us Help You Fight Back Against Sexual Harassment


Brian G. Hannemann

State Bar Association Information

Born and raised in the Inland Empire, Brian G. Hannemann graduated Summa cum Laude from Embry-Riddle Aero University, obtaining a Bachelor of Science Degree in Professional Aeronautics. He subsequently attended Southwestern University School of Law, graduating Magna cum Laude and earning his Juris Doctorate. Mr. Hannemann was sworn into the practice of law by the California State Bar Association in 1993.

A member of the highly prestigious American Board of Trial Advocates, Attorney Brian Hannemann is a seasoned negotiator and aggressive trial attorney who has handled cases in both State & Federal Courts.

Mr. Hannemann has been the recipient of numerous professional awards & honors, and is one of the area’s most highly respected Sexual Harassment Attorneys.

Dedicated to ensuring that victims of Sexual Harassment obtain justice, Lawyer Brian Hannemann possesses the skills required to obtain maximum monetary damages for the physical and emotional harms suffered. The Law Office of Sexual Harassment Attorney Brian Hannemann is located in Southern California in the city of Upland, and he proudly represents clients throughout the region.


Southwestern University School of Law – J.D., Magna Cum Laude
Embry-Riddle Aero University – B.S., Summa Cum Laude in Professional Aeronautics

Bar Admissions

State Bar of California
United States District Court for the Central District of California
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Professional Affiliations
American Board of Trial Advocates
Consumer Attorneys of Inland Empire
Consumer Attorneys of California
Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles
Western San Bernardino County Bar Association

Awards & Honors

Consumer Attorneys of Inland Empire – William M. Shernoff Trial Lawyer of the Year Nominee, 2011
Consumer Attorneys of Inland Empire – Presidential Award of Merit, 2010-2011
Consumer Attorneys of Inland Empire – Presidential Award of Merit, 2011-2012


Marc D. Mabile

State Bar Association Information

I am a native San Diegan, and I am the second generation in my family to live in San Diego following my grandparents immigration from Italy. After graduating from Mission Bay High School in 1981, I obtained my Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University of Southern California and I was an active member of Sigma Chi Fraternity. In 1989, I obtained my Juris Doctor degree from the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and was admitted to the California State Bar.

From 1990 to 1995, I was an associate at the law firm of Neil, Dymott, Perkins Brown & Frank where I focused on insurance defense in the areas of General Liability and Professional Malpractice Insurance. In 1995, I redirected my resources to become a sole legal practitioner where I have obtained millions in verdicts and settlements to protect the legal rights of my clients.

I have maintained memberships in the following: the California State Bar Association, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, American Trial Lawyers Association, Consumer Attorneys of San Diego and the San Diego County Bar Association. I am married and have three wonderful children. I enjoy surfing, tennis and snow sking. Yet, I never lose the focus on my work to protect the legal rights of people who experience personal injury.


Voted one of San Diego "Top Lawyers" by San Diego Magazine 2014.

Martindale-Hubbell AV Preeminent Peer Review Rating. The AV Peer Review Rating identifies lawyers nationwide that have the highest rating in legal ability and ethical standards.

10 female employees vs. Nationally Chicken Wings Restaurant Chain

Result: Settlement 5.6 million dollars.

Facts: The Kitchen Manager of a nation wide chicken wings and sports bar restaurant chain engaged in numerous, unwelcome and egregious acts of sexual harassment and sexual battery of subordinate female employees at the restaurant located in Sherman Oaks, CA from the time he was first hired until the time he was terminated in January 2015. The outrageous acts consisted of dry-humping the buttock while holding onto the female employees hips, hand slapping of the buttock while the employee was bent over picking an item up, rubbing up against the buttock of a female employee with his crotch multiple time while the employee was working at her station, lingering hugs from behind, kissing of the shoulders, hand and neck of a hostess, twisting of the nipples and punching a hostess in the arm and stomach. Some of the offensive statements the Manager made to the female employees he worked with included how he fantasized about engaging in anal sex with guests of the restaurants and the female employees; how he would fuck girls so hard they would cry and their tears would not be from pain but from the pleasure he gave them; how he would allow a female employee to perform oral sex on him and at the same time he would finger them and invite female employees he worked with to watch. While this Manager was working in the kitchen with the male cooks listening, he asked a female employee if he could give her a pearl necklace. The female employee was not from the United States and did not understand the sexual innuendo that was made in the statement. The Manager encouraged her to say "yes". When the female employee finally agreed that he could give her a "pearl necklace", The Manager grabbed his crotch with his hand and shouted "You would not be able to handle my dessert." All the male cooks began to laugh and the female employee became extremely embarrassed. As the case progressed, it was determined that the Regional Manager was also engaged in the same conduct as the Kitchen Manager with respect to the female managers of the Sherman Oaks restaurant. A separate lawsuit was filed against the Regional Manager and the case resolved shortly thereafter. Overall, 3 managers were terminated from their jobs due to unwanted acts of Sexual Harassment. During the discovery phase of the lawsuit, it was determined that this same Kitchen Manager had been fired from the Hard Rock Cafe for placing his hands up a female employees skirt while at work and Chili's Restaurant for inappropriately touching a female worked he managed. The Defendant never checked the Kitchen Manager's references he provided them when he was being considered to be hired as they were too busy expanding their restaurant chain.

John Doe vs John Doe

Result: Settlement 1 million dollars.

Facts: Plaintiff was hired in the position of Fire Watch by Transfield Services at the Phillips 66 oil refinery plant in Wilmington, CA. On her first day at work, her supervisor, Cruz Hernandez asked her out on a date, placed his hand on her leg and requested sex in exchange for hiring her onto his team. Hernandez continued to ask Plaintiff out on dates, sent her numerous text messages after work hours, drove to her residence and parked out front where she lived with her four children and husband and asked to be invited into her residence. After Hernandez concluded that Plaintiff was not going to engage in a sexual relationship with him, Hernandez requested that she be fired and he began to mistreat her while at work. After Plaintiff reported that she was being sexually harassed, she was transferred to a different oil refinery. She was fired 8 days after being transferred to the new facility. During the litigation, Melvin Felton, Esq. an associate employed by Littler Mendelson, a national and international employment defense law firm hired to defend Transfield, prepared a false declaration for the individual who fired Plaintiff in support of a motion filed with the court in an attempt to defeat Plaintiff's lawsuit. Attorney Felton forced the witness to execute the declaration when he knew if was not true and threaten that if she did not execute the declaration, her job would be in jeopardy. Reluctantly, the witness executed the declaration and 3 days later she was fired. The witness than prepared a 7 page declaration setting forth what the truth was and asserted that the attorney would not allow her to tell the truth in her declaration. The court during the hearing on the defendant's motion lambasted attorney Felton and the law firm Littler Mendelson for his conduct. The judge warned the defense attorney that if they were to call attorney Felton at the time of trial to discuss the differences in the two declarations filed by the same person, he would have no option but to admonish attorney Felton of his Miranda rights against self-incrimination. The case settled one week later for 1 million dollars. The last offer made at an all day mediation was in the sum of $30,000.

John Doe vs John Doe

Result: Confidential Amount in the High Six Figures:

Facts: Plaintiff was required to masturbate her boss, the owner of a construction company for 18 years. The acts of Sexual Harassment all occurred at work in the early morning after the work crew left for the job sites. The Defendant also would squeeze Plaintiffs breasts and buttocks and he would send her pornographic videos on his computer. The defendant attempted to give Plaintiff a dildo at work and she refused. The defendant attempted to give her bras with the nipple area cut and and instructed her to wear them at work and she refused. Plaintiff's boss told her that he thinks about her when he is masturbating in the shower at home. Plaintiff's boss would call her into his office and have her look at proposals on his computer screen and change the screen to show her pornographic videos which were running on another screen. The defendant instructed Plaintiff to wear low cut tops at work so he could look down her shirt to see her breasts. One day after arriving at work, Plaintiff found on top of her desk wadded up crusty tissue, a bottle of lotion and a pornographic magazine. She confronted her boss about what she found and his response was, "sorry, I was thinking of you when I was masturbating at your desk and and I forgot to clean it up". One day, someone left a series of photographs on Plaintiff's desk showing the Defendant masturbating while wearing crotch less female g-string underwear.

John Doe vs. John Doe

Result: Confidential Settlement:

Facts: The defendant groped Plaintiff's breasts and buttock multiple times at work despite Plaintiff's objections and complaints to the owner of the company. The defendant was terminated and defendant's employer agreed to resolve the matter for a confidential amount.

Employee v Employer

Results: Confidential six figure amount.

Facts: Long-time male sales manager sexually harasses brand new female sales assistant and the brand new female receptionist - Client gets hired on as new assistant to sales manager. The sales manager is a long time employee, with over 20 years at the company. The sales manager also happens to believe he can say and do whatever he wants, so he does. On the first day at the job, the client is sexually harassed by the sales manager, when he asks her if she wants to "go for a ride on my Harley and feel something exciting between your legs." He also has named pictures and sexually graphic images littering his email in box. He makes the Client read each email and then he asks how much she liked them. His coffee mug has naked women on it and he makes the Client fill the coffee cup every day. He mentions that one of the women co-workers is a lesbian, but that if he slept with her he would turn her straight and would "teach her a thing or two about licking pu***," This same sales manager also said similar things to the new receptionist who was hired at the same time as the assistant sales manager. The SHJC represented both Clients against the company. The case is resolved for a confidential six figure amount.

Employer v Employer

Result: Confidential six figure amount

Facts: Married male boss hires female intern for sexual affair, then threatens to fire her unless she keeps having sex with him - The female Client was a former student at a community college. She was working part-time as a bartender and going to school. A male customer asks her out. During the date, he tells her she can work for him as an "intern," at a mental health counseling center and get paid a lot to still go to school. He tells her she only has to enroll in a particular class at the community college and he will take care of the rest. She takes him up on his offer of employment and enrolls in the class. On the first day of class for the new semester, the boss asks the Client to skip the class and instead go to happy house. The Client agrees and skips class. They end up going to a Mexican restaurant, have drinks and end up at her apartment, where they begin having an affair. At work, there is gossip among staff and the rumors of the Client having an affair with the boss began taking a toll on the Client. Every day at work, the boss is asking to have sex with the Client. This pattern continues for months, until the mental stress causes the Client to break off the affair. The boss threatens the Client with her job, unless she continues to have sex with him. The Client has a mental breakdown and seeks help from the SHJC. We end up resulting the case for a confidential six figure amount.

Employee v University Administrator

Result: Confidential six figure amount.

Facts: 63 year old male carpenter asks director of admission for help filling out Medicare forms and gets groped and propositioned instead - Client is about to retire after a long career as a finish carpenter at a local university. Client wants help in filling out the Medicare paperwork. The client, a heterosexual married white male asks his friend for help. The friend is the Director of Admissions of the University who is also nearing retirement and who happens to be a gay black male. The Client makes and appointment and brings the paperwork to the Director of Admissions office. The Client sits at the desk and the Director of Admissions sits down next to the Client. The Director of Admissions then gropes and fondles the Client's genitalia and proposition the Client for sexual acts. The Client is shocked, confused and very frightened. The Client withdraws from hi family and friends and seeks counseling. Ultimately, the Client breaks down and tells his wife what happened. The wife called the SHJC for help after hours of listening and learning of what happened, we agreed to take the case against the prominent University and its Director of Admissions. The SHJC files a lawsuit and after months of contentious litigation, including depositions, the University agrees to pay a confidential six figure settlement, which included paid administrative leave for the Client until the Client officially went out on retirement.

City Employees v City Employer

Result: Confidential six figure amount.

Facts: The only two female employees in the entire department get sexually harassed by the same "macho" man - Female Client was an applicant for city working position and gets hired on to an all-male division. One of the workers is not happy about having to work with a female. He begins to sexually harass her with comments about his sexual prowess, his many affairs with local women and his talk of sex constantly. During their work shifts together, the male would comment to Client: "Hey Blondie, let me smell your laundry." Client reported sexual harassment, but nothing was done and the harassment kept on happening for another year. Client asked for raises, because she was paid less than all the other males in the same position and did not get equal pay. Gender discrimination was so rampant as to be unbelievable in this day and age. Client could not take it anymore and quit, even though the job paid well and even though Client had to take a pay cut. Client found and hired the SHJC and we filed a lawsuit. During the lawsuit, another victim emerged, with similar sexual harassment complaints and the SCHC represented her too by filing another lawsuit. Both cases settled after discovery and depositions for a confidential six figure amount.

Male Employee v Employer

Result: Confidential Amount and Employee Keeps Job

Facts: Sales manager wrongfully accused of sexual harassment by 19 year old female, who coincidentally was having an affair with married company owner; when the Client refused to violate company policy the Client was denied a promotion and threatened with termination - Client, a male sales manager of regional commercial beer brewery, was at an out-of-town sales and marketing event. The company owner, a married man, told Client to use a new girl to help Client at the sales event, which during included serving beer to customers. Sales event ended and the company owner told Client to take new girl to dinner and charge it to the company. Client refused, on company policy grounds. New girl ended up going out with her girl friends and got wasted drunk to the point of slurring and stumbling and was dropped off at Client's hotel room at 2:00 am by new girl's friends who did not want to deal with her. Client was shocked and upset at being awakened and confronted by the situation. Client felt obligated to take car of new girl, as she was a danger to herself. Client had niece the same age and did not want any harm to come to the new girl. After coming into the room the new girl vomited all over herself in the bathroom the passed out, stone cold drunk. Client wiped the vomit from her face, hair and cloths and put her in bed, while Client slept on a chair. At 6:00 am Client awoke and told new girl to call her friends to come and get her. New girl called company owner and told company owner that new girl had slept the night in the Client's room Company owner flew into jealous rage, thinking that Client had somehow engineered the whole thing. The next day the company owner told Client that he better not say anything or else. Company owner was mad and jealous that new girl had slept in Client's hotel room in retaliation, even though Client kept quiet the company owner rescinded Client's promotion, took away sales territory and spread rumors. The Client hired the SHJC who learned that the company owner had been having an affair with the new girl, who was only 19 years old and who should not have been serving bee. The case settled at mediation before a lawsuit was filed and the Client was able to keep his job.

First Grade Student v School District

Result: Jury verdict of over $250,000 against the defendants

Facts: Six year old student was bullied by older kids for months and the school administrators did nothing; six year old kid ends up getting sodomized in school bathroom - "The impossible, unwinnable case" is what other lawyers said. No one wanted it. They all said it could not be proven. One law firm took a chance and agreed to file a lawsuit. The school district engaged its law firm and defended the case on the grounds that "it did not happen." Everyone said the boy was a liar and that his parents were greedy, making the story up, trying to shake down the School District for money. The police officers who interviewed the little boy concluded he was lying. There was no physical evidence. The emergency room doctor said there was no evidence of trauma. The hired-gun experts from the defense said the little boy was lying, that the family was greedy. The school district administrators all said nothing happened, that the little boy was lying. The little boy's law firm stuck it out anyway, during discovery, getting the case ready for trial. The defense offered not one penny to settle. The case had to be tried in front of a jury, buy on the eve of the trial they realized they needed help and wanted the best trial attorney for the little boy the law firm called the SHJC to take a look at the case and take it to trial. They told us that no one wanted the case because it was unwinnable. The SHJC took a fresh look at the case anyway. We watched the videotaped deposition of the defense attorney grilling the little boy asking the little by to tell what happened. The little boy was crying, tears dripped from his face onto his t-shirt. The SHJC knew right then that the little boy was telling the truth. The SHJC could not let the defense get away with it. We jumped I and agreed to try the case. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of over $250,000 against the defendants.