San Francisco discrimination lawyer. Murlene Randle is an attorney, currently in private practice. Her law firm, Law Offices of M. J. Randle, specializes in Litigation in the areas of Civil Rights and Employee Discrimination, additionally Ms., Randle provides expert trial attorney services to other law firms.  

Murlene served the City and County of San Francisco as a prosecutor for 22 years. During that time she was appointed to lead several departments, among them were the Head of the Sexual Unit, Head of the Homicide Unit, Chief of the Division Prosecuting Crimes Against Women, Children and the Elderly, Chief of the Criminal Division, and ultimately Chief Assistant District. Murlene has tried many, jury trials, and supervised many trial attorneys. In January, 2004, I left the District Attorneys Office to become Director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, under the current Mayor, Gavin Newsom. After working on a special project as a Chief Negotiator during the City's contract negotiations from January, 2006 through July, 2006, Murlene retired from city service.

Murlene is very active in the legal community and is a member of San Francisco Trial Lawyers Association, The Consumer Attorneys of California, The American Association for Justice, The American Bar Association, among many others.  

Murlene have worked on various political campaigns, the most recent being her personal campaign for the Democratic County Central Committee in June, 2006. She is a member of the African American Democratic Club, The San Francisco Women Political Committee, The National Women's Political Caucus, The Chinese American Democratic club, and many others.

Murlene received a B. S. Degree in Business from Jackson State University, in Jackson, Mississippi, and a Jurist Doctorate Degree from Santa Clara University, in Santa Clara, California.

What cases would you say made the biggest impact on the community in San Francisco as a discriminatin lawyer?

There were so many cases that I prosecuted in my 20 plus year career, that to decided that one is more important than another, is  like asking me to choose between my children.  They were all important, and every case I prosecuted was for the benefit of the community.  However, I believe that the cases that the cases described below presented issues that were unique to the needs of the community, and may have restored faith in the system, and/or made some progress in breaking ground in urgent social issues.

This is a hard question.  How do I determine if was the homicide case were a teenage mother was shot by her estranged boyfriend – who stalked her throughout the night- while their baby was a few feet away from her in a walker?  I took over this case from another prosecutor after it had languished for a couple of years; so the minority family of the victim suffered from a lack of faith in the legal system.  I was able to reach out to them in their home, restore their confidence in my intentions to treat them and the memory of their loved one with respect they were due.  Consequently, I was able to successfully prosecute the homicide defendant, and received a first murder verdict after the jury deliberated for less than an hour. 

Or, was it the rape case of epileptic, homeless women who was new to San Francisco? Many, including some prosecutors, described her case as hopeless, because she was “a homeless women” who no one really cared about and nor would member of the jury.  I prosecuted this case to a jury.  The victim walked to court in the pouring rain to testify.  The jury could see that she was soaking wet, but still there to tell them what happened to her at the hand of the defendant.  They convicted the defendant of all the counts presented to them – including, rape, assault and burglary.  

Or was it the case of the domestic violence victim who was beat, and stomped by her boyfriend? During the pendency of the case, she reconciled with him; and, unbeknown to me she was sending love letter to him while he awaited trail in the jail.  I was shocked and surprised when the Defense introduced the letters into evidence in front of the jury.  I persevered, nonetheless, and through the presentation of expert testimony on the “battered women syndrome” and other evidence, I secured a guilty verdict in spite of the love letters.  

Or was it the white police officer I prosecuted for the sexual assault of his immigrant ex-wife and a fellow female officer?  This prosecution was particularly difficult, because according to the law enforcement group, who were once my comrades, I was now on the wrong side of the law – a traitor.  Through threats, sleepless nights and efforts of sabotage, and the courage of my ex-wife victim, we successfully prosecuted this case, and the officer was sentenced to prison.  The victim ex-wife has gone on to have a successful life and to work with victims of domestic violence.   

Or was it the case of the gay man who was wearing chaps while walking on a street in San Francisco with a friend?  He was struck in the head by a stranger, and then assaulted while on the ground.  This case was referred to by the media and many fellow prosecutors as a “One Punch” case.  These types of cases are notoriously hard to prosecute as murders.  In spite of that knowledge, I felt that the evidence revealed a malicious act that was based on “hate” toward gays.  So in addition to charging him with murder, I included an additional “hate crime” allegation.  The trial resulted in a hung jury (8 for guilty of murder, 4 for not guilty); however, the defendant ultimately plead guilty to a homicide as a manslaughter, and equally as important to me personally and to the community, was the fact that he admitted to the “hate crime” charge.  

During your career as a Prosecutor in San Francisco what was the most difficult case you encountered and how you over came those obstacles?  PLEASE SEE THE ABOVE.

Is there a way to help prevent civil rights discrimination?

Perseverance through righteous litigation, legislation and social activism.

What are the steps you should take if you feel that you civil rights were violated?

First, you should not fail to act because you fear that it will create more harassment/discrimination.  You should also not voluntarily leave your job.  You, as an employee, you are expected to use any available reporting mechanism to attempt to resolve your employment issues before quitting.  If these efforts fails, and the treatment continues, an employee may quit and seek damages, but they may also continue working at their place of employment and seek damages.  You should first make a WRITTEN report on the situation to the appropriate supervisor or manager (be sure to keep a copy for yourself). Always follow your company’s reporting requirements whenever possible.  If you have already reported the harassment/discrimination and it has continued, you should immediately contact me at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it for a free case consultation.

You should also know that you have a LIMITED TIME PERIOD TO BRING YOUR CLAIM OF HARASSMENT/DISCRIMINATION/RETALAIATION.  In most situations you have one year to file a formal complaint with the appropriate governmental agency, in most cases, The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH)) before you can sue your company. The Law Office so Murlene J .Randle can help you with this process.  Getting a law firm involved early is often the best course of action. After filing this formal complaint with the government, you or your legal representatives may obtain a "Right To Sue" letter, which is necessary before being able to file a complaint in the court system.

You should immediately contact The Law Offices of Murlene Randle if you think you are a victim of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.  This conduct is not tolerated by our society and the lawyers at The Law Offices of Murlene Randle are passionate about protecting the rights of anyone that is being treated differently or unfairly because they may be perceived as "different" by others.  We will zealously seek damages against those responsible to see to it that the contact is stopped and that you are compensated for what you have been forced to endure.  Contact The Law Offices of Murlene J. Randle today for a free evaluation and to speak to one a qualified attorney.  

Who is liable for a discrimination case in San Francisco?

An individual or a group of individuals can be responsible for harassing and discriminating against co-workers that are perceived as different.  In some instances, your company can be held responsible for allowing this type of conduct to continue.

Companies are liable for harassment that they know or should have known about. Under California law, an employer has an affirmative obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent harassment from occurring. Usually, this takes the form of an anti-discrimination and harassment policy and/or training. These are often contained in a company handbook or orientation packet. If an employer does not have a policy or program designed to prevent harassment, they may be held liable for failing to take steps to prevent harassment from occurring.

Companies function through employees, supervisors and managers. If an employee, not a supervisor, engages in harassment, the company must have actual knowledge of the harassment before it can be held liable for damages. Therefore, before liability can attach to your company in a co-worker/co-worker situation, the conduct must be so open and obvious that your company should have known about it, o, because it was reported, your company had actual knowledge of the conduct.

Knowledge is required because the law wants to provide a business protection from conduct that it does not know about. The law wants to give the company a chance to remedy the conduct once it finds out about it. If the company is knowledgeable of the conduct due to its obvious nature, or because of a complaint, the company must take prompt and sufficient remedial measures to try and stop further harassment from occurring. If nothing is done by the company, or too little is done, and the conduct happens again, the company may be liable for the co-worker’s conduct.

If the harassing conduct is engaged in by a supervisor, foreperson, manager, owner, officer or director of the company the company is automatically liable for any unlawful harassment. This is because the company’s eyes and ears are its supervisors and managers. If they engage in unlawful conduct, it is presumed that the company knows about it.

What is the expected procedure for a San Francisco discrimination case once I decide to get a lawyer?

As stated above, getting a law firm involved early is often the best course of action. After filing a formal complaint with the government, (described above).  You or your legal representatives may obtain a "Right To Sue" letter, which is necessary before being able to file a complaint in the court system.   Once the “Right To Sue letter is obtained, the attorney will work with you to gather all the necessary information and documents for the preparation of a civil complaint.  This complaint may be filed in either State Court or Federal Court, depending of the unique facts and circumstances of your case.  Once a complaint is file the litigation process begins. Your attorney will be your representative throughout these proceedings.

What are the ramifications that I could expect from filing a San Francisco discrimination against someone? Such as an employer, boss, business?  

The law protects you from retaliatory actions from your company, boss or business, once you have filed a discrimination claim against a co-worker or your company.  You cannot be fired, harassed or discriminated against based solely on the fact that you filed such a claim.