Blog

Don't Ask Don't Tell About To Be Repealed By President Obama

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 22:04:00 GMT

President Obama is set to repeal the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy put into place by President Clinton. Angela Alioto, who has been a long time advocate for equality, sees this as another important step in the fight for gay rights. In Angela's words, ""Equality of all of the men and women who serve our country and risks their lives on a daily basis for us to have our freedom not only deserve complete and absolute equality but our total and absolute appreciation for their huge sacrifice".

Million Dollar Settlements in a Pair of Sexual Harassment Cases

Fri, 28 May 2010 04:57:00 GMT

2010 has seen some big-time settlements and judgements in cases involving sexual harassment, gender bias and discrimination. In cases across the United States, judges and juries are sending a clear message that these kinds of behaviors in the workplace will not be tolerated. So it's no wonder many companies and organizations are choosing to pay out large settlements before things get ugly and reputations get destroyed. These settlements not only prevent the victims of sexual harassment from reliving the often traumatic experiences in a courtroom but they can help the accused businesses avoid a public relations nightmare. Two recent cases show that settling out of court in sexual harassment cases can be beneficial for all parties involved.

Earlier this month, an employee at Washington's Western State Hospital, who said she was sexually harassed while on the job, received a nearly $1 million settlement. The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) and the Washington Federation of State Employees agreed to settle before the case went to trial. The DSHS said that the state will pay $795,000 while the union will pay $200,000. Neither establishment has admitted guilt or wrongdoing in the case, but has agreed upon the total settlement instead of going to trial.

In April, another big settlement in a sexual harassment case was awarded to two female sheriffs in New Jersey. Litigation in the case dragged on for nearly seven years after the two women filed a sexual harassment lawsuit in 2006; the lengthy paper trail led investigators back to March 2002, when the initial complaints were filed in Middlesex County. One day before the case was scheduled to go to trial, the lawyers for the Middlesex County Sheriff's Department decided to settle, paying out $1.59 million to the former sheriffs. Both women complained of a sexually charged and hostile work environment. They claim to have endured years of lewd comments, indecent propositions and lewd behavior from fellow officers and supervisors. Like the previous case, Middlesex has admitted to no wrongdoing despite agreeing to pay the $1.59 million settlement.

Novartis Ordered to Pay $250M to Female Employees

Fri, 21 May 2010 04:03:00 GMT

Pharmaceutical giant Novartis has been ordered by a New York federal court to pay $250 million in punitive damages to a group of 5,000 former and current women employees of the drug company. The award comes after Novartis lost a gender bias lawsuit, producing the second-largest verdict of 2010.

On Wednesday, a federal jury in Manhattan found Novartis liable for discrimination and ordered it to pay $3.3 million in damages to the 12 women plaintiffs. These women are part of the Novartis' 14,000 U.S. workers. Based in Basel, Switzerland, the company once was heralded as one of the top work environments for women by Working Woman Magazine.

One by one, women who worked at Novartis testified in court during the five week trial and told a very different story. One woman testified that her male manager suggested she have an abortion when she was pregnant. Other employees testified that they were scrutinized by the company managers while male employees were not. Another woman said she was not included in the "boy's club" type camaraderie that took place at Novartis where executives partied with doctors at strip clubs. Still another woman testified that she was denied access to the flexible hours of the job share program after she requested to work part-time to care for her newly-adopted daughter. Jurors listened to women like Holly Walters, who described in detail being passed over for promotions because they were women. Walters told jurors that she was fired by Novartis even though she had not received any formal complaints about her performance. She says she was let go by the company when she was seven months pregnant after taking a few weeks off of work upon a doctor's recommendation who was concerned about her health. After days in court, the jury was convinced: Novartis was guilty of discrimination.

Judge Colleen McMahon is expected to make a ruling next week on whether or not Novartis paid women employees less than men. If she decides that it has, the drug giant will be ordered to shell out even more money in compensatory damages. The company, which produces top-selling drugs like Lamisil, Theraflu and Ritalin, was ordered to pay $3.3 million to the twelve plaintiffs earlier this week. The $250 million will go to current and former employees of the company. Novartis also has been ordered by Judge McMahon to undergo thorough and on-going investigations to see if the company has changed its standards and practices in regard to women employees.

Construction Foreman Files Wrongful Termination Suit

Wed, 19 May 2010 07:40:00 GMT

The backbreaking work of the construction world isn't for everybody. The hours are long and unpredictable, the clients can be demanding and the physical nature of the job is often dangerous and taxing. Underneath the piles of plywood and stacks of drywall, the construction industry hides a history of employee discrimination, wrongful termination and wage and hour disputes. With tougher nationwide labor laws being currently enforced, however, many construction businesses are under fire. Individual lawsuits have targeted the industry, blowing the whistle on unfair labor practices.

Micheal Robertson of Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., worked as a construction foreman for Miron Construction for two years. Making $33 dollars an hour from 2007-2009, it was a pretty good gig. Miron is a reputable company in Wisconsin that worked on Wisconsin Public Service's power plant in the small town of Weston. But things went sour for Robertson, he claims, when his supervisors asked him to falsify his time sheets. After he denied the request, Robertson says he was fired. He filed a wrongful termination suit earlier this month in Wisconsin Federal Court.

Robertson was called on to perform maintenance on one of the plant's cooling towers that was in dire need of a de-icing after one of the region's typically-brutal winters. Initially, he called in 20 workers for the project, but after more closely inspecting the state of the tower, he determined that fewer men were actually needed to get the job done. In his complaint, Robertson says that his supervisor, Steven Miller, said to go ahead and bill Wisconsin Public Service for labor previously predicted. When Robertson flatly refused, Miller threatened him and told him he could lose his job for not falsifying the time sheets. Miller went ahead and filed the false time sheets himself and Robertson was fired for taking company property home. When Robertson contested this charge, stating his job required him to take some equipment home, Miller told him he was actually being fired for not getting along with co-workers. Robertson struck back and filed a complaint with his labor union.

Robertson's lawsuit against Miron Construction is seeking unspecified punitive damages for wrongful termination.

Nursing Moms Protected Under New Healthcare Plan

Mon, 17 May 2010 08:55:00 GMT

The hot-button issue of breast feeding breaks at work recently has been pushed into the national spotlight with new legislation and a high-profile lawsuit.

An obscure provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act championed by President Obama requires employers to provide reasonable unpaid breaks for nursing mothers to express milk for their newborns. No time limit is set on the number of breaks; in companies with 50 or more employees, employers must provide a private space that locks that is not a restroom and not visible to the public. The breaks aren't required to be paid unless required by state law or perhaps by an employee's exempt status. The United States Department of Labor is expected to issue additional regulations to implement this new rule. Nearly half the states already have in place rules requiring the accommodation of nursing mothers.

Although from an unlikely source, the protection for breast feeding mothers is long overdue. A New York woman recently filed a lawsuit alleging that she was fired from her job for breast feeding. Yardiris Rivera says after giving birth to her daughter Erin, she intended to breast feed as long as she could. According to Rivera, her employers had other plans. Rivera alleges her breast feeding created tension at her work place, Medical Imaging of Manhattan. When she returned from maternity leave, her bosses told Rivera to stop breast feeding at work. After she refused to stop, her bosses made it increasingly more difficult for her to pump breast milk while she was at work. Rivera says that she was made to pump milk in a dirty restroom stall that was tiny and unsanitary. As a final blow, Rivera was laid off in February. She contacted an attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union who filed a state and federal complaint against Medical Imaging of Manhattan. The company claims Rivera was part of a layoff that had nothing to do with her breast feeding.

Unpaid Overtime Costs Gas Company $4M

Mon, 17 May 2010 08:47:00 GMT

Here's a story that proves it's easier and cheaper to pay employees for overtime while it happens vs. paying for it in court.

Raceway, a petroleum company based in Piscataway, N.J., promises its customers low prices at the gas pumps at their locations throughout the state. Its website claims the company is famous for its "fast, friendly service," but employees in a class action lawsuit claim that Raceway didn't pay their employees for working overtime.

In April, the U.S. Department of Labor settled a case against Raceway to the tune of $3.9 million in unpaid overtime for six years and more than 700 former and current employees. Raceway, who continues to deny the charges, nonetheless has agreed to pay damages and $100,000 in civil penalties as well as hiring an independent monitor to survey the company's time clocks. $1.95 million will go to overtime compensation and another $1.95 million will go toward damages.

The lawsuit, which lasted for three weeks and involved more than 25 witnesses, claimed that many Raceway employees, most of them gas station attendants, worked as many as 100 hours a week and were docked two hours for breaks even though the breaks were less than 90 minutes long. Many employees testified that Raceway gave them less than 30 minutes for breaks on long shifts. The settlement resolves a 2006 lawsuit filed by the Department of Labor. An investigation by the Wage and Hour dispute division discovered that Raceway violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) starting in June 2002. The company, according to the investigation, failed to pay employees time-and-a-half their regular hourly rates when they worked more than 40 hours in one workweek. The Wage and Hour Division also found that Raceway didn't keep accurate time and payroll records. It was later revealed that Raceway failed to comply with the Wage and Hour division's recommendations through December 2009.

The FLSA requires that employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour as well as overtime pay of one-and-one-half times their regular rates.

Sexual Harassment Case may Jeopardize a Superintendent's Future

Sun, 16 May 2010 20:35:00 GMT

In the southern Los Angeles community of Lynwood, school board officials are still trying to decide if they should hire Edward Velasquez, the current superintendent in the nearby Montebello Unified School District. Board members recognize Velasquez's experience but many are feeling apprehensive. Even normally complacent high school students have shown up at school board meetings to voice their concerns. Why? Edward Velasquez is currently the target of an explicit lawsuit filed against the Montebello Unified School District in March by former employee Irving Bartikofsky. The suit claims that Bartikofsky was the victim of employment discrimination, sexual battery, retaliation, wrongful termination and hostile work environment. Many folks in Lynwood are unsure if they want to be associated with Velasquez and a lawsuit that has the potential to get really ugly.

According to the lawsuit, working at the Montebello Unified School District as a former administrator in the district's special education department was a nightmare for Irving Bartikofsky. Bartikofsky claims that Velasquez stuck a wet finger in his ear and grabbed his genitals. Reportedly, Velasquez made numerous sexual remarks to Bartikofsky and told him he wanted to kiss him. Bartikofsky formally filed a complaint with the school board who dismissed his allegations and denied him a claim for damages in 2009. To make things worse, the lawsuit alleges that Irving Bartikofsky's job was eliminated after he filed the complaint and was replaced by Velasquez's friend and divorce attorney. Shortly after being fired, Bartikofsky was sent back to working in the classroom. Finally, Bartikofsky's complaint was approved by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing in a letter from June 2009 which stated he had the right to sue the school district. Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court last month, the lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

Meanwhile, the members of the Lynwood school board are expected to make a decision on whether or not they will hire Edward Velasquez as Superintendent in the next few days.

Fired For Having the Cancer Gene?

Mon, 10 May 2010 20:56:00 GMT

No employer would possibly let go an employee with a stellar record simply because of genetic test results. Or would they?

Pamela Fink of Hartford, Conn., says that's exactly what happened to her. Fink, 39, claims that her supervisors at MXenergy practiced disability discrimination when they first demoted her and eventually dismissed her after she underwent a voluntary double mastectomy. Fink went through the grueling operation at the suggestion of physicians who found that she possesed a gene implicated in breast cancer. Pamela Fink and her two sisters each were tested in 2004 and all three tested positive for the breast cancer gene, BARC2. Fink's sisters were both diagnosed with cancer and both survived after receiving treatment.

MXenergy, a natural gas and electricity supplier, previously had promoted Pamela Fink, who had received glowing reviews during her time at the company. Fink claims that MXenergy's attitude changed, however, once she informed her bosses of her test results. According to her complaints filed with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission and the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights, she was relieved of her duties as public relations director at MXenergy in March about a year after her double mastectomy. Fink was shocked that the consultant MXenergy had hired while she was in recovery was now her boss when she returned back to work. Her title, most of her responsibilities and her office all had been taken from her after the first surgery. Six weeks after her second mastectomy, Fink was fired and escorted out of the MXenergy office building.

Both commissions are interested in Fink's case because it is the first known case in the country to be filed based on the Federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which went into effect last November. The law strictly prohibits health care providers as well as employers from practicing discrimination based on a person's genetic information. Fink's lawyer claims that under the new laws, MXenergy's treatment of her was absolutely unlawful. MXenergy denies the allegations and has yet to release a formal statement related to Fink's charges.

Arizona Immigration Law Spurs Controversy and Lawsuits

Mon, 10 May 2010 20:50:00 GMT

Everyone, it seems, has an opinion about the recently-signed Immigration Law in Arizona. From Columbian pop sensation Shakira and New York Times columnist Frank Rich to Colorado governor Bill Ritter and Tucson-native, Grammy-award-winning singer Linda Ronstadt, liberal-leaning folks have spoken up against the new policies, which they fear may cause discrimination, racial profiling and unfair employment practices. Right-winged types, however, are applauding the decision of Governor Jan Brewer for finally handling the rampant illegal immigration policy. The new law requires state and local law enforcement to question people about their personal immigration status if there is probable cause to suspect they are in the country illegally, therefore making it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

Set to take effect this summer, the law is being challenged by a lawsuit filed by 15-year police veteran Martin Escobar, who claims the law is unconstitutional. Escobar claims that there is no possible legal way for officers to confirm immigration status without impeding investigations and thus violating constitutional rights. Escobar is an overnight patrol officer in a heavily Latino community in Tucson whose own parents immigrated from Mexico when he was five years old. According to his lawsuit, the law “is the product of racial bias aimed specifically at Latinos.” Escobar asserts that questioning people based solely on their skin color, proximity to the border and linguistic characteristics is a sure-fire way to endorse harassment and profiling. Officer Escobar believes the state law will place Latinos in danger of losing their constitutional rights.

Governor Brewer has publicly acknowledged that racial profiling is illegal in the United States and not practiced in Arizona. She contends that the new law will not condone racial profiling.

Martin Escobar’s lawsuit, which was the first of two filed last Thursday, is thought to be the first of many involving Arizona’s new immigration laws. So it looks like we’ll be talking about Arizona for quite some time.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011740327_azimmig30.html

California Racial Discrimination & Harassment Attorneys

Detective Awarded $225,000 in Disability Discrimination Case

Mon, 10 May 2010 20:43:00 GMT

It was English poet, painter and thinker William Blake who once said, "It is easier to forgive an enemy than to forgive a friend." But it is Baltimore police detective William Blake (no relation) who has to put these words into action. He was awarded $225,000 by a jury last week after suffering disability discrimination doled out by his friends at the police department.

Detective Blake, 40, suffered a seizure in 1996 while on the job. A proud officer since 1987, Blake returned to his duties and has lived seizure-free since the incident in 1996. It was the Baltimore Police Department who had a hard time forgiving and forgetting Detective Blake's seizure, however. In 2006, a decade after the seizure took place, Blake was ordered to submit to neurological and fitness tests despite other evidence that the officer had been healthy. Col. Terrence B. Sheridan ordered that Blake be given an electroencephalogram to measure electrical activity in the brain along with other tests to determine if he was fit to serve as a police officer. The problem with the ordered fit-tests? They violated the Americans with Disabilities Act which penalizes discrimination against anyone with a disability.

Blake took his friends at police department to court. According to the lawsuit, Sheridan's order for the tests came on the heels of a colleague who was forced into retirement by Sheridan because he too had suffered from "potential seizures." That officer, Phillip Crumbacker, challenged Sheridan's decision. Human resources officers also questioned the order for Blake's electroencephalogram as he had already been declared fit for duty.

A six-day trial and hours of testimony later, a federal jury found that Blake was indeed discriminated against. The detective, who still works for the police department, was awarded $225,000 in damages. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in January that it was conducting a full-scale investigation into whether Baltimore County officials violated the rights of other employees under the ADA.

Women Employees Marked Down by Wal-Mart

Tue, 04 May 2010 08:42:00 GMT

Sometimes evidence of the still-omnipresent glass ceiling pops up in unlikely places, like your local discount store. Massive chains like Wal-Mart are known for great deals and low prices that drives competitors out of business while shoppers flock to pick up incredible values. Thousands of female Wal-Mart employees, however, say the super store also is famous for gender bias and discrimination.

This week, the largest class-action employment lawsuit filed in U.S. history was granted class action status by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The 6 to 5 ruling will give more than 1 million former and current female employees of Wal-Mart their day in court. By achieving class-action status, the lawsuit could cost Wal-Mart billions of dollars in damages, legal fees and projected settlement costs.

The massive discrimination lawsuit claims that women workers of the world's largest retail chain were paid lower and given fewer management opportunities than their male co-workers. The plaintiffs claim that men employed by Wal-Mart systematically earn higher wages and receive promotions despite the sheer number of women Wal-Mart has in its workforce. According to the lawsuit, the company sent a clear message to their female employees: management is for men and not women. Betty Dukes of Pittsburg, Calif., is named as the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. Dukes first filed a suit against Wal-Mart in 2001 with six other Wal-Mart employees who worked at 13 of the company's 3,400 nationwide stores. Dukes and her co-plaintiffs are seeking back pay and punitive damages.

Wal-Mart adds its name to a shameful list of national businesses accused of gender bias and discrimination in 2010. Banking giant Goldman Sachs, airline Jet Blue and Bank of America are among the companies facing high-profile gender discrimination lawsuits.

Guests of Luxury Hotel Demand Whites Only Staff and Ritz-Carlton Allegedly Grants Their Request

Tue, 04 May 2010 08:34:00 GMT

Five-star hotels and resorts aim to cater to their guests' every whim and desire. From specially-prepared menus and requested thread counts in bedding to demands for exotic flowers and expensive wines, there is nothing luxury hotels won't do to keep their guests happy. So when a British couple requested being served only by white employees who looked and sounded American, The Ritz Carlton of Naples, Fla., allegedly obliged. The request, like all special demands made by guests of the hotel, reportedly was entered into the hotel's computer system last month, stating that the guest and his family were not to be served by "people of color" or staff members with a "foreign accent." Did the Ritz Carlton go too far by agreeing to such a demand?

According to Wadner Tranchant, a waiter at the hotel, they did. Tranchant has filed a discrimination suit against the hotel, claiming the hotel denied him of opportunities and income by not allowing him to serve the family. Tranchant also alleges that the Ritz Carlton created a hostile work environment and that working conditions were "abusive." Of Haitian descent, Tranchant claims in his lawsuit that he "was humiliated, embarrassed, frightened, intimidated, subject to undeserved shame and suffered severe emotional distress" after being prevented from serving the couple when they came to dinner at the Ritz Carlton's Grill Restaurant. Tranchant claims that the Ritz Carlton Naples has a long history of discrimination and is seeking $75,000 in damages.

The family, who spent roughly $8,000 during their stay at the Ritz Carlton Naples, won't be returning any time soon. According to the Ritz Carlton, they have been banned from checking into any of the hotels facilities worldwide. The chain is currently reviewing the company's anti-discrimination policies and taking the charges extremely seriously. Spokespeople for Ritz Carlton maintain that while granting their guests' every wish is part of what makes the hotel unique, they would never condone discrimination from their guests or employees.

Softball Players Call Foul on Discrimination

Tue, 04 May 2010 08:20:00 GMT

When it comes to treating all softball players fairly, the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance has struck out, according to a lawsuit filed on Tuesday. The suit, filed on Tuesday in federal court, claims that three bisexual men were discriminated against and treated unfairly by the organization during the 2008 Gay Softball World Series. The alliance allegedly decided the players were “not gay enough” after receiving complaints from another lower-ranked team, eventually stripping the men and their team of their second-place title. The complaints lead to member outrage and even a series of small-scale protests during the series, which stopped play several times.

Plaintiffs Stephen Apliado, LaRon Charles and Jon Russ say they were privately grilled in a conference room during the tournament in suburban Seattle. The men were privately asked about their sex lives, personal attractions and current relationships. This personal line of questioning was only directed at the three men and was highly inappropriate, according to the lawsuit. The alliance was quick to disqualify the team after the men had answered that they were attracted to both men and women. The plaintiffs and their lawyer claim that the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance is a public organization and therefore violated Washington’s anti-discrimination law. Each of the men is seeking $75,000 in damages as well as a second-place trophy and standing reinstatement for their team. A removal of the organization’s limit on straight players also is being requested by the plaintiffs.

But the alliance claims they are a private organization and thus are allowed to enforce their own regulations. North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance rules clearly state that no team will be allowed to have more than two non-gay players. The alliance notes that other private organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America also have set guidelines for membership.

Related Content: Discrimination Law Overview

Black Factory Workers Threatened, Harrassed at Work

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:05:00 GMT

Racial slurs and images of burning crosses at the workplace in 2010? It does not seem possible. After all, we are the Obama nation and change has finally happened.

Regrettably, this story out of East Texas proves that workplace discrimination is alive and well.

Last week, in a press conference launched by employees and civil rights advocates, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) unveiled a horrifying tale of black factory workers who reportedly were harassed with nooses, confederate flags and death threats. White employees who refused to take part in the racist activity were fired. Terms like "coon" and "colored boy" assaulted black employees as did images of swastikas while working at Turner Industries, a pipe and industrial metal company based out of Baton Rouge, La. Some even had their lives and the lives of their families threatened.

Based on the findings of the EEOC, current and former employees of Turner, their representatives, and company management are first required to sit down and reach a settlement; if that stalls, the agency promises the employees will have an option of filing a civil rights lawsuit. The EEOC began receiving complaints about Turner over a year ago but some claim Turner has a long history of abuse. In interviews conducted by the agency, some report incidents of racial discrimination and abuse as far back as 2006.

Civil rights leaders claim that East Texas has been a hotbed of this kind of activity for decades. Last month, eight employees had their complaints upheld by the EEOC as their attorneys have identified harassment, discrimination and threatening behavior in other Turner locations throughout Texas. Turner management, according to the complaints, repeatedly limited blacks to low-wage positions while promoting less qualified white workers. Lawyers and representatives for the EEOC conclusively found that Turner did nothing to stop the discrimination or to protect their employees.

Turner has issued a statement via their website to their employees that states the company does not agree with the EEOC's findings at the Paris, Texas, facility. Furthermore, Turner is quick to note that they have complied with federal laws concerning workplace diversity for many years. In a note to their clients, Turner assures their customers that the company will cooperate with the EEOC's demands.

John Jay College Accused Of Discrimination

Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:10:00 GMT

Immigration and the rights of noncitizens continue to be a much-discussed issue on the campaign trail, in the media and in courtrooms. Taking a stand to protect immigrants from discrimination, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against John Jay College on Friday. In the first lawsuit of its kind filed by the department in many years, John Jay College of Criminal Justice is accused of creating a pattern and criteria of job discrimination against noncitizens who are authorized to work in the United States.

Allegedly, the college is said to have demanded further documentation, like a driver’s license and social security card, from prospective workers who already possessed the proper work eligibility requirements necessary under federal law. The school popped up on the department’s radar when a woman complained in 2008 that she was fired from her part-time job as a computer lab assistant at the college. According to her complaint, the woman was fired from John Jay for not producing a green card as required by John Jay even though she had previously given them copies of her driver’s license and social security card. An employee of John Jay since 2004, the woman has asked to remain anonymous in fear of further damage to her professional career.

This prompted an investigation of the John Jay College, which is a subsidiary school of the City University of New York.

The lawsuit is seeking penalties of $1,100 for the woman and other individuals and undetermined measures to correct the current practice of discrimination. The college, the Justice Department claims, violated the provisions of the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act, which prohibits employers from imposing different standards on noncitizens than on citizens.

John Jay College has said in a statement that it fully intends on settling the lawsuit while immediately implementing new training programs to prevent employee discrimination in the future.