Posts

Posted on

SHRM Hit with $11.5M Verdict: A Discrimination, Retaliation Case Study

Celebrating a victory for justice.

SHRM Hit with $11.5M Verdict: A Warning for Discriminatory Employers

It is the world’s largest Human Resources organization—the entity that sets the standards for workplace conduct across the globe. Yet, in a stunning courtroom defeat, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) was found liable for the very behaviors it advises against.

On December 6, 2024, a Colorado jury handed down an $11.5 million verdict against SHRM in a racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a former employee. For the HR community, this verdict is more than just a headline; it is a seismic event that exposes the dangerous gap between corporate policy and actual workplace culture.

The case of Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management serves as a stark reminder: no organization, regardless of its reputation or expertise, is above the law.

The Case Against SHRM

Rehab Mohamed, a brown-skinned Egyptian Arab woman, joined SHRM in 2016 as an instructional designer. For four years, she was a model employee, earning positive performance reviews and two promotions. By early 2020, she had risen to the role of Senior Instructional Designer.

However, the trajectory of her career shifted dramatically under a new supervisor, Carolyn Barley. Mohamed alleged that Barley systematically favored white employees while subjecting Mohamed to excessive scrutiny, micromanagement, and exclusion from meetings.

According to the lawsuit, when Mohamed attempted to address this disparate treatment, she was met not with support, but with retaliation.

A Pattern of Retaliation

The timeline of events presented during the trial painted a damning picture of SHRM’s internal response mechanisms:

  • June 2020: Mohamed formally complained to leadership about racial discrimination.
  • July 2020: Mohamed escalated her concerns to SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. and the Chief Human Resources Officer.
  • August 2020: Instead of a fair resolution, Mohamed was subjected to a flawed internal investigation that dismissed her claims.
  • September 1, 2020: Mohamed was fired, allegedly for missing a project deadline—a deadline imposed only after she complained, and for which white colleagues were reportedly given extensions without penalty.

Inside the Trial: Why the Jury Sided with the Employee

The five-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado revealed evidence that directly contradicted SHRM’s defense. The jury’s decision to award $1.5 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $10 million in punitive damages signals a rejection of SHRM’s narrative.

Flawed Investigations

One of the most critical failures highlighted during the trial was SHRM’s internal investigation. The judge noted that a jury could reasonably conclude the investigation was a “sham.” The investigator assigned to the case had minimal experience and admitted to receiving only one training session on HR investigations—details he could not recall on the stand. Furthermore, evidence suggested that termination paperwork was being drafted the same day Mohamed was still raising concerns about retaliation.

Disparate Treatment

Testimony revealed a clear double standard. White colleagues testified that missing deadlines was commonplace and rarely resulted in discipline. Yet Mohamed was terminated for missing a deadline shortly after engaging in protected activity. This disparity undermined SHRM’s claim that the termination was performance-based, especially given Mohamed’s history of “Role Model” performance reviews.

Reckless Indifference

The massive $10 million punitive damages award indicates the jury believed SHRM acted with “reckless indifference” to Mohamed’s federally protected rights. The court found that HR essentially provided cover for the discriminatory manager rather than protecting the employee.

Implications for HR Practices

This verdict sends a powerful message to employers everywhere: promoting best practices is not enough; you must live by them.

The Danger of Performative HR

SHRM’s defeat highlights the risks of “performative” diversity and inclusion. Mohamed met with the highest levels of leadership, including the CEO, yet the organizational machinery still moved to silence her rather than solve the problem. Organizations that claim to champion equity must ensure their internal actions align with their public messaging.

Accountability for Retaliation

Retaliation remains one of the most common—and costly—mistakes employers make. As this case demonstrates, the timing between a complaint and an adverse action (like firing) creates a “temporal proximity” that serves as powerful evidence of retaliatory intent.

Protection for Whistleblowers

This case reinforces the critical legal protections for employees who speak up. Under federal law, employees who report discrimination in good faith are protected from retaliation, even if the underlying discrimination claim is not ultimately proven.

Understanding Your Rights: The Legal Framework

The verdict in Mohamed v. SHRM was grounded in two key federal statutes that protect employees from workplace injustice.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Crucially, it also prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose discriminatory practices or participate in investigations.

Section 1981

Unlike Title VII, Section 1981 specifically prohibits racial discrimination in contracts, including employment contracts. A key distinction is that Section 1981 has no statutory cap on damages, allowing for potentially unlimited compensatory and punitive awards when egregious conduct is proven.

Strategies for Employees Facing Discrimination

If you suspect you are being targeted because of your race, it can feel isolating. However, there are steps you can take to protect yourself and build a potential case.

Document Everything

Paper trails are essential. Keep a detailed record of discriminatory comments, exclusion from meetings, or sudden negative shifts in performance reviews that contradict your actual output. In the SHRM case, the timeline of events—from the leadership change to the excessive scrutiny, micromanagement, arbitrary deadlines, and the flawed investigation—helped establish a pattern of behavior.

Conclusion

The $11.5 million verdict against SHRM is a vindication for Rehab Mohamed and a warning shot to corporations that prioritize reputation over rights. It demonstrates that juries are willing to hold even the most powerful “experts” accountable when they fail to protect their own people.

For employees, this case offers hope. It proves that with the right evidence and legal strategy, it is possible to stand up to systemic bias and win.

Disclaimer: While the parties in this case were not represented by Helmer Friedman LLP, the case offers crucial insights for employees facing similar situations.

 

 

Reps: SWAIN LAW, LLC, LOWREY PARADY LEBSACK, LLC (Case No. 1:22-cv-01625)

Posted on

The $103 Million Verdict: Age Discrimination in the Workplace

Laws protect against age, gender, race discrimination. Helmer Friedman LLP represents discrimination victims.

The $103 Million Wake-Up Call: Age Discrimination in the Workplace

For thirty-one years, Joy Slagel was a loyal employee. She built a career, managed cases, and even won awards for her customer service. But in the corporate world, three decades of experience doesn’t always guarantee respect—sometimes, it paints a target on your back. After a leadership change in 2012, the atmosphere at her workplace shifted. Older colleagues began disappearing, forced into resignation or fired outright. Slagel found herself isolated, criticized for “setting the bar too high,” and eventually terminated without explanation after returning from medical leave.

Her story isn’t an anomaly, but the outcome was historic. A Los Angeles jury recently ordered her former employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., to pay $103 million in damages. The verdict sends a thunderous message to boardrooms across America: discriminating against older workers is not just unethical; it is a massive financial liability.

Age discrimination remains a pervasive, often silent issue in the modern workforce. While we frequently discuss diversity in terms of race and gender, age bias often flies under the radar until it causes irreparable harm to careers and health. Whether it manifests as a subtle comment about “fresh energy” or a blatant firing of senior staff, ageism is illegal, harmful, and costly.

Federal Age Discrimination Laws

Understanding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

At the federal level, the primary shield against this bias is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). This law explicitly protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. It applies to both employees and job applicants.

Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. This is a broad umbrella that covers nearly every aspect of the working relationship, including:

  • Hiring: Employers cannot refuse to hire a candidate simply because they are over 40.
  • Firing and Layoffs: Targeting older workers for redundancy during restructuring is prohibited.
  • Compensation and Benefits: Older workers cannot be paid less or denied benefits offered to younger counterparts.
  • Promotions and Training: denying career advancement or upskilling opportunities based on age is illegal.

The law applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including employment agencies, labor organizations, and federal, state, and local governments. Additionally, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) amended the ADEA to prohibit employers from denying benefits to older employees, recognizing that the cost of providing benefits should not be used to discourage hiring experienced talent.

California Age Discrimination Laws

Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is a California law that offers strong protections against age discrimination for individuals aged 40 and older. Under FEHA, age discrimination occurs when an employer treats a job applicant or employee less favorably because of age. This can include actions such as denying promotions, terminating employment, or refusing to hire someone solely based on their age. FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees and requires that all workplace decisions be based on merit and qualifications rather than age. Additionally, FEHA prohibits practices like including age preferences in job advertisements or enforcing seemingly neutral policies that disproportionately affect older workers without legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. This law serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that older employees are treated fairly and have equal opportunities in the workplace.

While the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) offer similar federal safeguards, they aim to prevent age discrimination but differ in scope and application. FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees and includes broader protections against various types of discrimination beyond age discrimination. In contrast, the ADEA specifically addresses age discrimination and applies to employers with 20 or more employees, making its coverage threshold stricter.

Another key distinction between the two laws is the age group protected. Under the ADEA, the law specifically protects individuals aged 40 and older from discrimination. FEHA, however, doesn’t explicitly set a minimum age but prohibits age-based discrimination more generally, which may allow for a broader interpretation within California. Additionally, claims under the ADEA are typically filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), while FEHA claims are processed through the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). This emphasizes the overlap yet distinct processes these laws provide. Together, FEHA and ADEA establish a comprehensive framework to protect workers from age discrimination, especially in jurisdictions like California, where state and federal regulations intersect.

How Age Discrimination Manifests in Real Life

Bias rarely announces itself with a megaphone. Instead, it often creeps into the workplace through coded language and subtle exclusions. While the law is clear, the application of discrimination can be murky.

In hiring, it might look like job postings that seek “digital natives” or caps on years of experience, effectively filtering out older applicants before they even apply. In the office, it can be social exclusion—being left out of meetings, overlooked for challenging assignments, or subjected to “jokes” about retirement or adaptability to technology.

The most damaging forms often occur during restructuring. Companies looking to cut costs often target higher-salaried employees, who tend to be older workers with long tenure. If a layoff disproportionately affects those over 40, it may violate the ADEA.

Similarly, promotions may be withheld under the guise that an older employee “lacks long-term potential” or “isn’t a cultural fit,” phrases that often serve as smokescreens for bias.

Anatomy of a Verdict: The Liberty Mutual Case

To understand the severity of age discrimination, one need look no further than the recent case against Liberty Mutual. The details, as presented in court, paint a disturbing picture of a systematic effort to push out older workers.

According to court filings, the environment at Liberty Mutual shifted dramatically around 2012 following the promotion of a new regional claims manager, Ariam Alemseghed. The complaint alleged that a pattern emerged where employees in their 50s and 60s were forced to resign. Eventually, of the approximately 120 employees in the department, only two were over 40. Joy Slagel was one of them.

The harassment Slagel endured was calculated. Despite a spotless 30-year record, she was suddenly criticized for being a bad team player. The complaint detailed how she was ignored during morning greetings and singled out during meetings. When she won a customer service award and a $1,000 gift for her exemplary work, the regional manager allegedly undercut the achievement by telling her she “got lucky” and that it “would never happen again.”

The stress of this hostile environment took a physical toll. Slagel’s blood pressure worsened, forcing her to take a short-term disability leave. While she was away, the company sent a courier to retrieve her laptop—an unusual move that foreshadowed her fate. Upon her return, her access badge had been deactivated. She was called into a conference room and fired, effective immediately. She was replaced by a white male in his late 20s.

The jury’s verdict—$20 million in compensatory damages and $83 million in punitive damages—was a direct rejection of these tactics. Justin Shegerian, the lead trial attorney, stated that the verdict is a “resounding message” that juries will hold employers accountable for such harm.

Strategies for Employees Facing Discrimination

If you suspect you are being targeted because of your age, it can feel isolating. However, there are steps you can take to protect yourself and build a potential case.

Document Everything

Paper trails are essential. Keep a detailed record of discriminatory comments, exclusion from meetings, or sudden negative shifts in performance reviews that contradict your actual output. In the Liberty Mutual case, the timeline of events—from the leadership change to the specific comments made during the award ceremony—helped establish a pattern of behavior.

Know Your Rights Regarding Waivers

Employers sometimes ask departing employees to sign waivers releasing the company from ADEA claims, often in exchange for a severance package. Under the OWBPA, these waivers must meet strict standards to be valid. You must be given at least 21 days to consider the agreement and seven days to revoke it after signing. Most importantly, you should be advised in writing to consult an attorney. Do not sign away your rights without legal counsel.

Oppose the Behavior

Retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices is illegal. If you report age discrimination to HR or file a charge, and your employer punishes you for it, that retaliation is a separate legal violation.

For employers, the $103 million verdict against Liberty Mutual should serve as a stark warning. The costs of age bias extend far beyond legal fees; they damage reputation, morale, and institutional knowledge.

“This verdict is a resounding message to corporations nationwide: age discrimination is illegal, it is harmful and juries will hold employers accountable,” Justin Shegerian, lead trial attorney and founder of Shegerian & Associates, said in a statement.

Preventing discrimination starts with culture. Employers must ensure that performance reviews are based on objective metrics, not subjective feelings that can mask bias. Leadership training is crucial—managers need to understand that comments about “fresh blood” or “digital natives” can be evidence of discriminatory intent.

Furthermore, audits of hiring and firing practices can reveal statistical anomalies before they become lawsuits. If a reduction in force impacts 80% of your workforce over 50, you have a problem. Building an inclusive workplace means valuing experience as an asset, not a liability.

Upholding Dignity in the Workforce

Joy Slagel gave 31 years to a company that ultimately treated her as disposable. The jury’s decision to award her over $100 million restores a measure of justice, but it cannot undo the stress and indignity she suffered.

Age discrimination is not merely a legal issue; it is a human one. We will all age. Creating a workplace that respects tenure and experience protects everyone’s future. Whether you are an employee facing bias or an employer seeking to avoid liability, understanding the high stakes of age discrimination is the only way forward.

Posted on

Happy Hanukkah

Happy Hanukkah from Helmer Friedman LLP legal team.

As the days grow shorter and the nights longer, a celebration of light, resilience, and faith begins. Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, is a story passed down through generations, a testament to the enduring power of hope in the face of darkness.

More than two millennia ago, the land of Judea was ruled by the Seleucid Empire. Its king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, sought to suppress Jewish culture and religious practice. He desecrated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the center of Jewish life, and outlawed core traditions. In response, a small band of Jewish rebels, led by Judah Maccabee and his family, rose up against the powerful army. They were known as the Maccabees, a name meaning “the hammers.”

Happy Hanukkah!Against all odds, after a three-year struggle, this small group of fighters successfully reclaimed the Temple. Their victory was not just a military one; it was a triumph for religious freedom. When they entered the Temple to rededicate it, they found it in disarray. They worked to purify it and relight the menorah, a sacred candelabrum meant to burn continuously.

Here, a new challenge arose. They could find only one small jar of consecrated olive oil, enough to light the menorah for a single day. Yet, a miracle occurred. The small amount of oil burned for eight nights, the time it took to prepare new, pure oil.

This is why Hanukkah is celebrated for eight nights. Each evening, another candle is added to the menorah, symbolizing the miracle and the growing light that pushes back the darkness. We eat foods fried in oil, like latkes (potato pancakes) and sufganiyot (jelly-filled pastries like donuts), to remember the oil that burned so brightly. We play with the dreidel, a spinning top that recalls a time when studying the Torah was forbidden, and children would pretend to play games while secretly learning.

Today, the story of Hanukkah speaks to a universal human experience. It is a reminder that even in moments of profound adversity, faith and resilience can lead to miraculous outcomes. It teaches us that the light of a single candle, like a single act of courage or hope, can defy the shadows. As we gather with loved ones, the glow of the menorah is more than just a tradition; it is a symbol of hope for all people, a celebration of light’s enduring power to overcome darkness, and the quiet strength found in unwavering belief.

Posted on

Legal Implications of AI Conversations: Why Your Chats Are Not Private

Contrasting attorney-client privilege to AI chatbots.

Why Your AI Chatbot Could Be the Star Witness Against You

It starts innocently enough. You have had a difficult day at work, perhaps facing harassment from a supervisor or noticing financial irregularities you suspect are fraudulent. You sit down at your computer, open a chatbot, and type: “My boss is threatening to fire me because I reported a safety violation. What are my rights?”

The AI responds with a comforting, well-structured list of potential legal statutes. It feels private. It feels safe. It feels like you are venting to an impartial, digital confidant.

However, in the eyes of the law, you may have just handed the opposition a smoking gun.

As artificial intelligence becomes deeply integrated into our daily lives, many people treat tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini as surrogate therapists or legal advisors. But there is a critical distinction that every employee, whistleblower, and injury victim must understand: unlike a conversation with a lawyer, your conversation with an AI is not private. In fact, that digital transcript could be the very evidence that dismantles your case in court.

The Growing Use of AI and Emerging Legal Concerns

We are living through a massive shift in how information is processed. AI assistants now sit quietly inside our inboxes, browsers, and mobile apps, processing documents and answering questions with impressive speed. For individuals facing legal distress—whether it’s a wrongful termination, a personal injury, or workplace discrimination—the temptation to use these tools for research is overwhelming.

It is easy to see the appeal. AI is available 24/7, it doesn’t charge hourly rates, and it doesn’t judge. But this accessibility masks a severe legal vulnerability. When you type details of your situation into a generative AI model, you are creating a permanent, third-party record of your thoughts, inconsistent recollections, and admissions.

Legal professionals are raising the alarm: reliance on AI for sensitive legal research is creating a minefield for potential litigants. The technology has outpaced the law, leaving users exposed in ways they often do not anticipate until the discovery phase of a lawsuit begins.

Lack of Legal Protection: AI Conversations vs. Attorney-Client Privilege

The cornerstone of effective legal representation is attorney-client privilege. This legal concept ensures that frank, honest communications between you and your lawyer cannot be disclosed to the opposing party. It allows you to tell your attorney the “bad facts” along with the good, ensuring they can build a robust defense or case strategy without fear of those private admissions being used against you.

There is no such thing as “robot-client privilege.”

When you communicate with a chatbot, you are sharing information with a third-party corporation. Under the “third-party doctrine,” information you voluntarily share with a third party—be it a bank, a phone company, or an AI provider—generally loses its expectation of privacy.

If you are involved in litigation, the opposing counsel can subpoena your data. They can demand records of what you searched for, what you admitted to the AI, and how the AI responded. In this context, typing your case details into a chatbot is legally comparable to shouting your secrets in a crowded room.

Potential Risks: How AI Conversations Can Be Used Against You

The danger goes beyond a simple lack of privacy. The nature of how we interact with AI—often casually, emotionally, or hypothetically—can generate evidence that is damaging out of context.

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, has explicitly warned users about this reality. In a candid admission, he noted that if users discuss their most sensitive issues with ChatGPT and a lawsuit arises, the company “could be required to produce that.”

Furthermore, simply hitting “delete” on a chat history may not protect you. Due to ongoing high-profile litigation, such as The New York Times suing OpenAI, companies are often under court orders to preserve evidence, including deleted conversations. Your digital footprint is far more durable than you think.

Examples of Self-Incrimination: Revealing Inconsistent Statements

Why is this specific data so dangerous? Defense attorneys are skilled at finding inconsistencies to undermine a plaintiff’s credibility. Your AI chat logs can provide them with ample ammunition.

Contradicting Your Claims

Imagine you were injured in a slip-and-fall accident. In your lawsuit, you claim severe, debilitating back pain. However, weeks prior, you asked an AI, “Best exercises for mild back strain so I can go hiking next week.” A defense attorney will present this chat log to the jury to argue that you are exaggerating your injuries.

Inconsistent Narratives

Memory is fallible. When you first speak to an AI about a workplace incident, you might get a date wrong or omit a key detail. Months later, during a deposition, you testify to the correct timeline. The opposition can use your initial, flawed AI query to paint you as dishonest or unreliable.

Exaggerations and “Hallucinations”

Users often prompt AI with exaggerated scenarios to get a more comprehensive response. You might say, “My boss screams at me every single day,” just to see what the AI says about harassment, even if the screaming only happened once. In court, that hyperbole looks like a lie. Furthermore, if the AI provides false information (a “hallucination”) and you inadvertently incorporate that falsehood into your testimony, your credibility is shattered.

Data Privacy Concerns: What AI Providers Do With Your Data

Beyond the courtroom, there is the issue of corporate surveillance. Behind the helpful interface of an AI assistant lies a simple reality: every interaction feeds the system data.

What happens to that data—how it is stored, used, or shared—depends entirely on the provider. While companies often claim they prioritize privacy, a closer look at their policies reveals a complex web of data collection.

The “Black Box” of Retention

Most major AI providers collect prompts, uploaded files, and interaction logs. This data is not just floating in a void; it is stored on servers, often indefinitely unless specific settings are toggled. For individuals dealing with sensitive legal matters, such as whistleblowers reporting corporate fraud, this retention creates a significant security risk.

OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic: Comparing Data Policies

To understand the scope of the risk, we must look at how the major players handle your information.

OpenAI (ChatGPT)

OpenAI’s default posture favors collection. Unless you are an enterprise client or proactively opt out, your conversations can be used to train their models. While they offer a “temporary chat” mode where data is deleted after 30 days, standard chats are retained indefinitely until you delete them. Even then, as noted regarding recent lawsuits, “deleted” does not always mean gone forever.

Google (Gemini)

Google’s approach is bifurcated. For enterprise workspace users, privacy protections are robust. However, for consumers using the free or standalone versions, the policy is more invasive. Google may retain chats for up to 36 months. More concerningly, some conversations are reviewed by human contractors to “improve” the AI. While Google claims this data is anonymized, identifying details within the text of a legal query could easily unmask a user.

Anthropic (Claude)

Anthropic, often touted for safety, has shifted its stance. As of late 2025, they introduced a default opt-in model for training. If users did not explicitly opt out by a specific deadline, their silence was interpreted as consent. This means your queries could be used to train future models, stored for years.

Microsoft (Copilot)

Microsoft’s Copilot, particularly the version integrated into GitHub, stands as an outlier. It is designed to suggest code and then “forget” it, generally not retaining snippets for training. However, for general text-based queries outside of coding environments, users must still be vigilant about the specific privacy settings of their Microsoft account.

Expert Opinions and Warnings: Legal Professionals and AI Experts Weigh In

The consensus among legal professionals is clear: Do not use AI for research about your legal situation.

The risks of discovery, inconsistent statements, and lack of privilege far outweigh the convenience of a quick answer. Employment law attorneys emphasize that AI cannot understand the nuance of your specific jurisdiction, contract, or the psychological state of your employer.

Even AI executives agree. Sam Altman’s comparison of ChatGPT to a therapist highlighted the dangerous gap in privacy expectations. “We haven’t figured that out yet for when you talk to ChatGPT,” Altman admitted regarding legal privilege. He suggested that users deserve the same privacy clarity they get with a doctor or lawyer, but acknowledged that such protections simply do not exist yet.

The Need for AI Legal Framework: Calls for Privacy and Legal Privilege

The legal system moves slowly, while technology moves at lightning speed. Currently, there is a gaping hole in the legal framework regarding AI communications.

Advocates are calling for new laws that would extend evidentiary privileges to cover interactions with AI, similar to how doctor-patient or attorney-client confidentiality works. The argument is that if people are using these tools to navigate crises—mental health struggles, legal disputes, medical issues—society has an interest in allowing them to do so without fear of surveillance.

However, until legislators act, the “third-party doctrine” remains the law of the land. Courts will likely continue to view AI chat logs as fair game in discovery battles.

User Responsibility: Tips for Safe AI Usage

If you must use AI, you need to do so with a defensive mindset. Here is how to protect yourself:

  • Avoid Specifics: Never input real names, dates, company names, or specific fact patterns into a chatbot.
  • Check Your Settings: Go into the settings of any AI tool you use and disable “Model Training” or “Chat History” where possible.
  • Assume It’s Public: Write every prompt as if it will be read aloud in a courtroom by an attorney who is trying to discredit you.
  • Verify Everything: Never rely on AI for legal advice. It is often outdated or completely wrong regarding state-specific laws.

Conclusion: Navigating the Legal Landscape of AI Conversations

The allure of artificial intelligence is its ability to provide immediate answers. But in the realm of law, immediate answers are rarely the safest ones. The lack of attorney-client privilege in AI conversations creates a vulnerability that can be exploited by employers, insurance companies, and opposing counsel.

Your case deserves more than a predictive text algorithm. It deserves the protection of true confidentiality and the strategic thinking of an experienced human advocate. Don’t let a casual chat with a robot compromise your fight for justice.

When legal questions arise, the impulse to seek quick answers from AI is understandable. But as technology evolves, so do the methods of legal discovery. What you type into a chatbot today could become evidence in a courtroom tomorrow.

The digital age demands not only awareness but also caution. Protecting your legal rights means understanding the limitations of the tools you use. Before you turn to AI for legal guidance, consider the irreversible consequences of a conversation that is never truly private. Your case is too important to be compromised by a machine.

 

Posted on

Discrimination Against American Workers: Your Legal Rights

Nationality Discrimination & Harassment is illegal. Helmer Friedman LLP Los Angeles Nationality Discrimination lawyers.

Protecting American Workers from Discrimination

When we consider workplace discrimination, our thoughts often gravitate toward the challenges faced by minority groups in terms of race, gender, or religion. However, it’s important to recognize that the legal frameworks in place to ensure fair treatment in the workplace, especially Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, encompass much broader protections. One significant but frequently overlooked aspect of this law is the protection against national origin discrimination.

For many professionals, the painful realization that they have been overlooked, sidelined, or let go in favor of foreign workers can be devastating. This experience strikes at the very heart of their financial security and professional self-worth. It’s crucial to understand that the protections against national origin discrimination also extend to U.S. citizens. Acknowledging this can empower individuals to stand up against unjust bias and advocate for their rights with confidence.

What is National Origin Discrimination?

National origin discrimination is a pressing issue that affects many individuals in the workplace, often causing significant distress. It occurs when an employer treats an applicant or employee unfavorably solely because of the applicant’s or employee’s country of origin. While discussions around this topic often highlight the importance of protecting immigrants, it’s essential to recognize that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes it clear that these protections extend to all national origin groups, including those from the United States.

Under federal law, no one should face unfair treatment or preferential treatment in the workplace because of their background. This means it’s illegal for employers to favor foreign workers over American workers, including when decisions are made based on visa status. If an employer allows their preferences for workers from specific countries, or those holding certain visas like H-1B, to influence hiring, firing, or pay scales, they may unfortunately be violating Title VII. It’s crucial for everyone to be treated fairly and with respect, regardless of their origins.

Types of Discrimination Against American Workers

Discrimination can be subtle, hiding behind corporate jargon, or it can be brazenly open. For American workers, bias often manifests in specific patterns that disadvantage them compared to their foreign counterparts.

Discriminatory Job Advertisements

One of the most visible forms of discrimination appears before a worker is even hired. Title VII strictly bars discriminatory job advertisements. An employer cannot publish job postings that indicate a preference for or requirement of applicants from a particular country or with a particular visa status.

For example, advertisements that state “H-1B preferred” or “H-1B only” are red flags. These postings suggest that the employer has already decided to exclude U.S. workers from consideration, regardless of their qualifications. By actively discouraging American applicants, companies create an uneven playing field that violates federal law.

Unequal Treatment

Unequal or Disparate treatment refers to intentional discrimination where an employer treats individuals differently based on a protected characteristic. This often happens among American workers during recruitment or termination processes.

  • Hiring Barriers: Employers may erect artificial barriers to make it more difficult for American applicants to apply. For instance, during the PERM labor certification process—a step companies take to hire foreign workers permanently—some employers may subject U.S. workers to more burdensome application requirements than H-1B visa holders, effectively discouraging them from pursuing the role.
  • Termination and “The Bench”: Disparate treatment also occurs in firing decisions. In the IT and staffing sectors, workers often face time on “the bench” between assignments. Evidence of discrimination exists if a company terminates American workers on the bench at a much higher rate than it terminates visa guest workers in the same situation.

Harassment

Workplace harassment based on national origin is strictly prohibited. This goes beyond simple teasing; it becomes illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or abusive work environment, or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as being fired or demoted).

American workers might face unwelcome remarks about their work ethic compared to foreign nationals, or be subjected to derogatory comments about their “American” communication style or cultural background. When this conduct permeates the workplace, it creates an atmosphere of intimidation that the law does not tolerate.

Retaliation

Perhaps the most insidious form of misconduct is retaliation. Title VII prohibits employers from punishing an individual for engaging in a “protected activity.” Protected activities include:

  • Objecting to national origin discrimination.
  • Filing a charge with the EEOC.
  • Participating in an investigation.

If an American worker speaks up about a policy they believe favors foreign workers and is subsequently fired, demoted, or ostracized, the employer may be liable for retaliation. This charge can sometimes be easier to prove than the underlying discrimination itself.

What Doesn’t Excuse Discrimination?

Employers often attempt to justify discriminatory practices using business rationale. However, the law is clear that specific “business reasons” do not excuse hiring foreign workers over American citizens.

Customer Preference: An employer cannot claim that their clients prefer working with individuals from a specific country or those with specific visas. Customer bias is not a legal defense for discrimination.

Cost of Labor: The desire to save money does not override civil rights. Employers cannot justify displacing American workers simply because foreign labor is cheaper, whether that is due to abuse of visa-holder wage rules or “under the table” payments.

Stereotypes about Work Ethic: Beliefs that workers from a specific national origin are “more productive,” “harder working,” or possess a “better work ethic” than Americans are based on stereotypes. Using these generalized beliefs to make employment decisions is unlawful.

Real-World Examples: The Chivas USA Case

These protections are not theoretical; they are enforced in courts of law. A prominent example involving allegations of anti-American and anti-non-Latino discrimination is the lawsuit filed against the Major League Soccer organization, Chivas USA.

Two former youth academy coaches, Daniel Calichman and Theothoros Chronopoulos, filed a lawsuit alleging they were fired because they were “neither Mexican nor Latino.” The coaches, described in the complaint as “Caucasian, non-Latino Americans,” were former members of the U.S. National Team.

According to the complaint, after Jorge Vergara Madrigal acquired full ownership of Chivas USA, the organization began implementing an ethnocentric policy similar to the “Mexican-only” policy of its counterpart team, Chivas de Guadalajara. The lawsuit alleged that Vergara stated at a staff meeting, “If you don’t speak Spanish, you can go work for the Galaxy, unless you speak Chinese, which is not even a language.”

The plaintiffs claimed they were asked to provide ethnic data on youth players, and when they complained about the discriminatory environment to HR, no investigation was conducted. Instead, they were fired shortly after. This case highlights how leadership changes can lead to discriminatory shifts in culture and policy, and how American workers can find themselves targeted based on their national origin and race.

Filing a Charge with the EEOC

If you believe you have been a victim of national origin discrimination, you cannot immediately sue in federal court. You must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through this complex process, ensuring your claim is filed correctly and on time. The EEOC investigates these charges and, in some instances, may file a lawsuit on your behalf. However, it is crucial to act quickly. There are strict time limits—generally 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place (extended to 300 days in some cases)—and missing these deadlines can result in a permanent loss of your legal rights. Contacting our firm can help you navigate these critical first steps.

Protecting Your Rights

Discrimination against American workers is a serious violation of federal law. Whether it manifests as a job ad that excludes you, a layoff that targets you while retaining visa holders, or a hostile work environment, you have the right to work in an environment free from bias.

Navigating the complexities of Title VII and EEOC procedures requires experience and tenacity. If you suspect you have been discriminated against based on your national origin, do not face it alone. Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation and explore your legal options.

 

Posted on

$2.49M Judgment in “Sex for Rent” Harassment Case

Gender-based discrimination, sex harassment lawyers Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Landlord Pays $2.49M for Gender Discrimination Case

In a landmark decision, a Maryland court has delivered a staggering $2.495 million judgment against an Eastern Shore landlord found guilty of sexually harassing and assaulting tenants. This case, one of the largest housing-discrimination rulings in the state’s history, sends an unequivocal message to predatory landlords: the exploitation of vulnerable tenants will not be tolerated.

The judgment against Eric Sessoms and his company, Mt. Vernon Group LLC, represents a major victory for fair housing and tenant rights. It brings a degree of justice to the seventeen women who bravely came forward to share their stories of abuse and intimidation. For years, these women were subjected to a horrifying pattern of behavior, a reality where keeping a roof over their heads meant enduring unwanted sexual advances, coercion, and assault. This ruling not only provides them with significant financial compensation but also affirms that their experiences were real, their suffering was acknowledged, and their courage has paved the way for a safer housing environment for others.

This blog post will examine the details of this significant case, from the initial accusations to the final court order. We will explore the legal proceedings, the specifics of the judgment, and the broader implications for housing laws and tenant protection.

Background: Gender-based Discrimination and Harassment Accusations

The case against Eric Sessoms and Mt. Vernon Group LLC paints a disturbing picture of a landlord who systematically preyed on women in precarious financial situations. Sessoms, who managed numerous rental properties across Maryland’s Eastern Shore, was accused of creating a hostile and dangerous living environment for his female tenants and applicants.

According to the lawsuit filed by the Maryland Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division, Sessoms engaged in a consistent pattern of “sex for rent” schemes. The investigation revealed that he frequently offered to reduce rent or waive housing-related fees in exchange for sexual favors. When his advances were rejected, the consequences were severe. In one instance, a woman who refused his sexual demands was illegally evicted from her home, left without shelter simply for asserting her right to bodily autonomy.

The allegations extended beyond coercive propositions. Sessoms was accused of subjecting tenants to voyeurism, constant unwanted sexual advances, and even sexual assault. One particularly harrowing account detailed how Sessoms exposed himself to a homeless woman seeking housing and forced her hand onto his genitals. This conduct highlights a profound abuse of power, where Sessoms leveraged his control over housing to exploit the desperation of women facing instability. At least seventeen women ultimately came forward, their collective testimonies building an irrefutable case of gender-based discrimination and harassment.

The Legal Battle and Court Findings

The legal action was initiated by the Maryland Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division, marking a significant move to combat gender-based housing discrimination. The lawsuit, filed in the Wicomico County Circuit Court, detailed the extensive pattern of abuse perpetrated by Sessoms. It was a clear-cut case of violating both the federal Fair Housing Act and Maryland’s anti-discrimination laws, which explicitly prohibit housing discrimination based on sex.

The court proceedings revealed the depth of Sessoms’ misconduct. The evidence presented showed a clear pattern of:

  • Making housing unavailable to women who rejected his sexual advances.
  • Discriminating in the terms and conditions of rental agreements based on sex.
  • Making statements that indicated a preference for tenants willing to engage in sexual acts.
  • Coercing, intimidating, and threatening tenants who resisted his demands.

After reviewing the evidence, the court granted a Motion for Default Judgment against Sessoms and Mt. Vernon Group, LLC. The findings were decisive: the defendants had violated state and federal laws by engaging in a pattern of gender-based discrimination. The ruling affirmed the State’s allegations, officially validating the experiences of the women who had suffered under Sessoms’ control. Attorney General Anthony G. Brown called the ruling a victory for the courageous survivors, stating, “No one should have to endure sexual harassment to keep a roof over their head.”

Details of the Landmark Judgment

The Wicomico County Circuit Court’s final order was comprehensive, designed not only to compensate the victims but also to prevent Eric Sessoms from ever harming tenants again. The $2.495 million judgment is broken down into several key components.

Financial Compensation and Penalties

  • Compensation for Victims: The largest portion of the judgment, $2.325 million, is allocated for the seventeen women harmed by Sessoms’ actions. The compensation amounts vary based on the severity of the abuse each woman endured, covering emotional distress, economic damages, and restitution. Payments range from $85,000 for enduring a hostile housing environment to $305,000 for a victim who faced illegal eviction and coerced sexual intercourse.
  • Civil Penalties: The defendants were ordered to pay $170,000 in civil penalties to the state of Maryland. This fine is intended to punish the defendants for their illegal conduct and deter others from similar actions.
  • Litigation Costs: Sessoms and Mt. Vernon Group LLC must also reimburse the state for $111,711.25 to cover the costs of the investigation and litigation.

Restrictions on Future Activities

The court imposed strict, permanent restrictions on Sessoms to ensure he can no longer operate in the housing industry.

  • Lifetime Ban: Eric Sessoms is permanently barred from working in the residential rental industry in any capacity. This includes roles as a landlord, manager, agent, or any other position involving rental properties.
  • No Contact Order: Sessoms is prohibited from having any contact—in-person, electronic, or verbal—with any current or former tenants.
  • Corporate Changes: Mt. Vernon Group LLC is required to remove Sessoms as its registered agent and appoint a new one. The company must also implement annual training on gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment for all owners, agents, and employees, conducted by an approved fair housing organization.

The Broader Implications for Tenant Rights

This case is more than just a victory for the seventeen women involved; it sets a powerful precedent for tenant rights and fair housing enforcement across the country. It sends a clear signal that “sex for rent” harassment is a severe form of housing discrimination that will be met with serious legal and financial consequences.

The judgment reinforces the protections afforded under the Fair Housing Act, reminding landlords that their power does not give them license to exploit or abuse. For tenants, this ruling can serve as an assurance that the law is on their side and that reporting such violations can lead to tangible justice. It empowers victims who may have previously felt isolated or helpless, showing them that their voices can lead to significant change.

This case also highlights the critical role of state and federal agencies in protecting vulnerable populations. The assertive action taken by the Maryland Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division demonstrates a commitment to holding predatory landlords accountable.

Know Your Rights and How to Report Violations

Housing is a fundamental human right, and no one should have to sacrifice their safety or dignity to secure it. If you or someone you know is facing sexual harassment or any other form of discrimination from a landlord, it is crucial to know that you are not alone and that help is available.

Tenants can report suspected civil rights violations to their state Office of the Attorney General.  Federal complaints can also be filed with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

Seeking Justice and Holding Abusers Accountable

The judgment against Eric Sessoms is a stark reminder of the injustices that can occur when power is abused. It also stands as a testament to the strength of the survivors and the power of the legal system to effect change. While this ruling provides a measure of justice, the fight against housing discrimination is far from over.

Victims of such egregious conduct deserve fierce legal representation to ensure their rights are protected. Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP offer skilled legal advocacy to help address these injustices. With over 20 years of experience, a strong history of case victories, and a commitment to personalized client support, Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through the legal process and work to secure the justice and compensation you deserve. Don’t hesitate to reach out for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation.

Disclaimer: While the parties in this case were not represented by Helmer Friedman LLP, the settlement offers crucial insights for tenants facing similar situations.

The State of Maryland v. Eric Sessoms, Mt. Vernon Group LLC Case: C-22-CV-24-000260

This article includes some information from the reporting of Sean Curtis.

Posted on

Thanksgiving Thoughts

Helmer Friedman LLP wishes you a Happy Thanksgiving.

As we approach this Thanksgiving, we take a moment to reflect on the principles that guide our work and the community we are proud to serve. This time of year offers a valuable opportunity to pause, gather with loved ones, and acknowledge the foundations of our collective strength and progress.

The pursuit of justice is a demanding endeavor, one that requires unwavering commitment and a clear-eyed view of the facts. Yet it is the human element—the stories of resilience, the fight for fairness, and the trust our clients and partners place in us—that truly fuels our purpose. We have witnessed firsthand the courage it takes to stand for what is right, and for that, we are profoundly grateful.

This Thanksgiving, we extend our deepest appreciation to you. Your partnership and belief in our mission are the cornerstones of our practice. We are honored to be your advocates and allies.

From all of us at Helmer Friedman LLP, we wish you and your families a peaceful and restorative Thanksgiving filled with warmth and gratitude.

Posted on

Ephraim McDowell Health Settles Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Constitutional rights, discrimination lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

A Hospital’s $335K Lesson in Sex Discrimination

In a case that underscores the ongoing fight for workplace equality, a Kentucky-based healthcare system, Ephraim McDowell Health, Inc. (EMH), has agreed to a significant settlement following a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case centered on allegations of blatant sex discrimination and subsequent retaliation against a female employee who was denied a promotion based on her gender. This incident serves as a stark reminder that discriminatory practices, no matter how subtly or overtly expressed, have no place in the modern workplace and carry severe legal and financial consequences.

The resolution of this case, which includes a $335,000 payment and mandatory policy changes, highlights the critical role of federal protections in safeguarding employee rights. For workers who face similar injustices, it demonstrates that there are legal avenues for recourse. It also sends a clear message to employers across all industries: promotion decisions must be based on qualifications and merit, not on outdated and illegal gender stereotypes.

Background of the Case

Ephraim McDowell Health, a healthcare system headquartered in Danville, Kentucky, found itself under scrutiny after a female employee, Shannon Long, was passed over for a promotion. The case was brought to the forefront by the EEOC, the federal agency responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination.

The EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Kentucky, initiated legal action after its attempts to resolve the matter through a pre-litigation settlement process, known as conciliation, were unsuccessful. The subsequent lawsuit detailed a clear violation of federal law, bringing the hospital’s hiring practices into the public and legal spotlight.

The Allegations: Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

The core of the EEOC’s lawsuit, filed on March 27, 2024, rested on a series of damning allegations against Ephraim McDowell Health and its leadership.

A Blatant Denial of Opportunity

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Shannon Long, a qualified female employee, sought a promotion to an administrator position at EMH’s Fort Logan Hospital in Stanford, Kentucky. She met all the necessary qualifications, including the educational requirements for the role.

However, she was allegedly told directly by the company’s CEO that she would not be selected for the position because of her sex. The lawsuit stated the CEO held a belief that “men work better with men and that it was best to have a male in that position.” Consequently, the promotion was given to a male employee who, according to the EEOC, did not meet the position’s existing education requirements. Long was instead placed in a lower-paying role that reported directly to the man who had been promoted over her.

Retaliation for Speaking Out

After being denied the promotion, Long filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, exercising her right to report unlawful employment practices. The lawsuit charged that instead of addressing the issue, EMH retaliated against her. The retaliation culminated in her termination in December 2022, compounding the initial act of discrimination with a punitive and illegal response.

Legal Framework: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

The actions alleged in the lawsuit are direct violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It specifically outlaws:

  • Sex-Based Discrimination: Making employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, and promotions, based on an individual’s gender. The CEO’s alleged statements are a textbook example of this prohibited practice.
  • Retaliation: Taking adverse action against an employee for engaging in a legally protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC. Firing an employee after they have reported discrimination is one of the most severe forms of retaliation.

The EEOC’s lawsuit sought to hold Ephraim McDowell Health accountable for these violations and to secure justice for the affected employee.

The Settlement and Its Terms

On November 21, 2025, the EEOC announced that Ephraim McDowell Health had agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement demonstrates the gravity of the charges and the strength of the evidence against the healthcare system. Under the terms of the two-year consent decree, EMH agreed to:

  • Pay $335,000: This monetary relief will be paid to Shannon Long to compensate for the discrimination and retaliation she endured.
  • Provide Mandatory Training: The company is required to conduct equal employment opportunity training for its staff to prevent future incidents.
  • Report to the EEOC: EMH must provide annual reports to the EEOC to ensure compliance with the terms of the decree.
  • Post Employee Rights Notices: The hospital must display a notice informing employees of their rights under federal anti-discrimination law.

Kenneth Bird, the EEOC’s Indianapolis Regional Attorney, commented on the resolution, stating, “We appreciate Ephraim McDowell for working with us to resolve this litigation and agreeing to implement changes to prevent future hiring violations. These steps demonstrate a commitment to achieving a workplace free from discrimination and retaliation.”

A Firm Stance Against Workplace Injustice

This case is a powerful example of the EEOC’s unwavering commitment to its mission. When the lawsuit was initially filed, EEOC Indianapolis District Director Michelle Eisele affirmed, “The EEOC is firmly committed to ensuring that all workers have an equal opportunity for advancement.”

The timing of the lawsuit’s filing during Women’s History Month was not lost on the agency. Attorney Kenneth L. Bird noted its significance, stating, “Employers who use an employee’s gender as the basis for promotion decisions are clearly practicing unlawful discrimination… This lawsuit seeks to ensure that qualified female applicants will be judged by their education, experience, and other qualifications, and not passed over because of their gender.”

The settlement reinforces this message, demonstrating that the agency will vigorously pursue justice for victims of discrimination and hold employers accountable for their unlawful actions.

Protecting Your Rights in the Workplace

The Ephraim McDowell Health case is a critical reminder that sex discrimination remains a persistent issue. It also shows that legal protections are in place to fight back against such injustice. If you have experienced sex discrimination or have knowledge of unfair practices in your workplace, it is crucial to consult a reputable attorney with proven expertise in employment law.

Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP offer skilled legal advocacy to help address these injustices. With over 20 years of experience, a strong history of case victories, and a commitment to personalized client support, Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through the legal process and work to secure the justice and compensation you deserve. Don’t hesitate to reach out for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation.

Posted on

Wrongful Termination After Medical Leave: Know Your Rights

Suffering a heart attack is frightening. Laws protect from wrongful termination after serious illnesses.

When Medical Leave Ends in Wrongful Termination

An employee suffers a major health crisis, takes legally protected medical leave, and keeps their employer informed. Yet, upon recovery, they find their job has been terminated. This scenario is not just a hypothetical; it is an unfortunate reality for many workers. In the United States, an estimated 150,000 workers are illegally fired or retaliated against each year for taking family or medical leave. This act, known as wrongful termination, violates federal and state laws designed to protect employees during their most vulnerable times.

Wrongful termination occurs when an employer fires an employee for an illegal reason, such as discrimination or in retaliation for exercising a legal right. Laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provide crucial protections for employees who need time off for serious health conditions. Understanding these rights is the first line of defense against unlawful employment practices. This article will explore what constitutes wrongful termination after medical leave, examine a real-world case, and outline the steps you can take if you believe your rights have been violated.

Understanding Your Right to Medical Leave

Federal law provides a safety net for employees who need to take time off for significant health issues, either their own or a family member’s. The primary law governing this is the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

Eligibility and Rights Under the FMLA

The FMLA allows eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons. To be eligible, you must:

  • Work for a covered employer (private-sector employer with 50 or more employees, public agencies, or schools).
  • Have worked for the employer for at least 12 months.
  • Have worked at least 1,250 hours during the 12 months before the start of leave.
  • Work at a location where the employer has at least 50 employees within 75 miles.

Under the FMLA, eligible employees can take up to 12 weeks of leave in 12 months for a serious health condition that prevents them from performing their job. During this leave, your employer is legally obligated to maintain your group health insurance coverage under the same terms as if you had continued to work. Most importantly, upon your return, you must be restored to your original job or an equivalent position with the same pay, benefits, and other terms of employment.

Employer Obligations and Restrictions

Employers cannot interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of any FMLA right. They are also prohibited from retaliating against an employee for taking FMLA leave. This means they cannot fire, demote, or otherwise discipline you simply because you took necessary medical leave. They must hold your job open for you and cannot use your absence as a justification for termination.

What Constitutes Wrongful Termination After Medical Leave?

Wrongful termination after medical leave occurs when an employer fires an employee for reasons that violate the FMLA, ADA, or other applicable state laws. It is not about being fired for a reason you disagree with; it is about being fired for a reason that is legally prohibited.

Examples of unlawful actions include:

  • Direct Retaliation: Firing an employee specifically for taking approved medical leave.
  • Pretextual Termination: Firing an employee for a fabricated reason, such as “poor performance” or “job abandonment,” when the real reason is their medical leave.
  • Disability Discrimination: Terminating an employee due to their underlying medical condition, which may be considered a disability under the ADA. The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, including extended leave, unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.
  • Failure to Reinstate: Refusing to return an employee to their original or an equivalent position after their FMLA leave ends.

These actions not only violate federal law but also undermine the very purpose of medical leave protections: to allow employees to address serious health needs without fear of losing their livelihood.

Case Study: Ortiz v. Elevance

The story of Mr. Ortiz unfolds as a heartbreaking example of alleged wrongful termination, illustrating the profound challenges faced by dedicated employees during times of medical crisis. After undergoing emergency open-heart surgery in February 2022, Mr. Ortiz found himself in a difficult situation, requiring an extended medical leave to recover from painful complications.

For nearly 20 years, Mr. Ortiz had been a loyal and exemplary employee at Elevance/Anthem/Blue Cross, advancing to the Senior Underwriter role with an annual salary of approximately $147,000. Throughout his tenure, he meticulously adhered to company protocols, informing his supervisor about his surgery and consistently submitting the necessary medical authorizations to extend his leave, which was officially sanctioned until February 2, 2023.

However, in a troubling turn of events in October 2022, Mr. Ortiz received an alarming email from his supervisor, accusing him of being on “unapproved leave” and threatening termination for “job abandonment” if he did not respond within three days. The letter contained a chilling warning: “you are not eligible for rehire.”

With a sense of despair but determination, Mr. Ortiz promptly reached out to his supervisor, clarifying that his leave was indeed medically authorized and expressing his unwavering desire to return to work once he received the green light from his doctors. “I have not abandoned nor do I plan on abandoning my job,” he stated poignantly in a follow-up email.

Tragically, on October 10, 2022, Mr. Ortiz was abruptly terminated. At a time when he needed support the most, the company, a well-known healthcare giant, seemed to turn its back on him. The lawsuit alleges that this termination was used as a pretext and raises concerns about discrimination, highlighting how a similarly situated white employee was allowed to take over a year of leave without penalty. Additionally, when Mr. Ortiz applied for another position within the company that matched his qualifications, he was rejected—without explanation.

This case poignantly illustrates the struggles employees face as they try to navigate their health needs while standing up for their rights. It underscores the critical importance of protecting individuals and ensuring compassionate treatment, especially during life’s most challenging moments.

What to Do If You Believe You Were Wrongfully Terminated

If you find yourself in a situation similar to Mr. Ortiz’s, it is crucial to act swiftly to protect your rights.

  1. Gather Documentation: Collect all relevant documents, including your employment contract, performance reviews, emails regarding your leave, medical certifications, and your termination letter.
  2. File a Complaint: You can file a complaint with federal or state agencies. For FMLA violations, you can file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD). For disability discrimination, you can file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). There are strict deadlines for filing, so do not delay.
  3. Consult an Employment Attorney: An experienced employment lawyer can assess the details of your case, explain your legal options, and help you navigate the complexities of filing a lawsuit. They can advocate on your behalf to seek remedies such as reinstatement, back pay, and other damages.

How Employers Can Prevent Wrongful Termination Claims

Employers can take proactive steps to ensure compliance and foster a supportive workplace culture.

  • Develop Clear Policies: Create and distribute a clear, FMLA-compliant medical leave policy that outlines employee rights and responsibilities.
  • Train Managers: Ensure all supervisors and HR personnel are thoroughly trained on FMLA, ADA, and state leave laws. Managers must understand that they cannot discipline or retaliate against employees for taking protected leave.
  • Maintain Consistent Practices: Apply leave policies fairly and consistently to all employees to avoid claims of discrimination. Document all communications and decisions related to employee leave requests.

Protecting Your Rights and Livelihood

Losing your job is devastating, but losing it illegally while recovering from a serious medical condition is an injustice no one should face. Federal and state laws were established to prevent this very outcome, ensuring that employees can prioritize their health without sacrificing their financial security.

If you believe your employer has violated your rights by terminating you after a medical leave, it is vital to understand that you are not powerless. By documenting your situation and seeking expert legal guidance, you can hold your employer accountable and fight for the justice you deserve. Do not hesitate to contact an experienced employment attorney to discuss your case and explore your options.

Posted on

Engineer’s Age Discrimination Case vs. Mott MacDonald

The history of employment laws and the labor movement.

From Asset to Outcast: An Engineer’s Age Discrimination Story

Abbas Sizar, a highly accomplished engineer with over 35 years of experience, built a distinguished career managing complex rail and transit system projects. Armed with both MS and BE degrees in electrical engineering and registered as a Professional Engineer in nine states, he was a recognized expert in his field. Yet, after years of stellar performance and multiple promotions at the global engineering firm Mott MacDonald, Mr. Sizar found his career derailed, not by a professional misstep, but allegedly by discriminatory practices that favored a younger, less qualified colleague. This is the story of how a celebrated “asset” was systematically pushed aside and ultimately terminated.

A Record of Excellence

In October 2013, Mott MacDonald hired Mr. Sizar as a Senior Project Manager, relocating him from Philadelphia to Seattle for a key assignment. His impact was immediate and profound. Performance reviews from early 2014 lauded him for successfully taking the lead on a high-stakes project. His supervisors, Paul Heydenrych and Steve Mauss, noted, “The client is satisfied with Abbas, and he has done an excellent job… Abbas is certainly an asset to our team.”

This praise continued throughout his tenure. By late 2014, he was managing several additional contracts for one of the company’s “most difficult clients,” Sound Transit. His dedication was so apparent that Mr. Heydenrych wrote, “expectations seem to require more than 40 hours a week from our staff, especially Abbas.” In recognition of his success, the company transferred him to Los Angeles with a nearly 12% raise.

Under his new supervisor, Daniel Tempelis, Mr. Sizar’s star continued to rise. His 2015 review described him as “a great asset” and a “go-to person for quick turnarounds.” Mr. Tempelis himself supported Mr. Sizar’s ambition to become an associate, promising to “work with him toward this goal.” By 2016, Mr. Tempelis was championing his promotion, stating, “I will do what I can to support Abbas’ promotion.” These weren’t empty words; Mr. Tempelis regularly praised his performance, granted him an extra week of paid vacation for his hard work, and moved him from a cubicle to an office.

Following these consistent accolades, Mr. Sizar was promoted to Principal Project Manager in 2017, later appointed as an Associate in 2018, and then a Senior Associate in 2019. His career trajectory was a textbook example of success built on merit, dedication, and expertise.

A Disturbing Shift in Treatment

The professional climate for Mr. Sizar changed dramatically in the spring of 2018. After a brief medical leave for a serious health condition, he returned to work and noticed a chilling shift in his supervisor’s behavior. Mr. Tempelis, who had once been his biggest advocate, allegedly began treating him less favorably.

More troublingly, Mr. Tempelis started making inappropriate and persistent inquiries about Mr. Sizar’s age, health, and retirement plans—questions prohibited by state and federal employment laws. When Mr. Sizar asserted that he had no intention of retiring and planned to work until at least age 75, Mr. Tempelis reportedly expressed skepticism, suggesting he should reconsider.

This line of questioning continued into his annual performance review in September 2018, which veered from a discussion of his work to a renewed pressure campaign about retirement. It was during this period that a younger man, Glenn Breindel, was hired for a position on Mr. Sizar’s team. Though Mr. Sizar interviewed and approved Mr. Breindel, who was roughly 50 years old and less experienced, Mr. Breindel was subsequently shut out of the hiring process.

In a surprising move, Mr. Tempelis hired Mr. Breindel not for the role he applied for, but as a Principal Project Manager—the same title as Mr. Sizar—and made him a direct report. When questioned, Mr. Tempelis simply stated, “I have big plans for Glenn.”

Sidelined for a Younger Successor

What followed was a systematic erosion of Mr. Sizar’s role. He was instructed to train Mr. Breindel and ensure that Mr. Breindel had enough billable work. Projects that would have naturally fallen to Mr. Sizar were instead assigned to the less experienced Mr. Breindel. It became clear that the younger colleague was being groomed to replace him.

By December 2019, Mr. Tempelis informed Mr. Sizar that he would now report directly to Mr. Breindel. During this meeting, Mr. Tempelis again raised retirement, noting that they were “both getting too old to work” and that it was time to pass the duties to “younger individuals.” When Mr. Sizar voiced his concerns that age discrimination was at play, Mr. Tempelis offered no denial, only remarking that Mr. Breindel was the “future of the company.” The marginalization culminated in February 2020, when Mr. Sizar was forced to vacate his office for Mr. Breindel.

Mr. Sizar escalated his complaints to Mr. Tempelis’s supervisor, Tony Purdon, who acknowledged his value to the company but failed to follow up. The message was clear: his years of service and stellar performance were being disregarded.

Termination Under the Cover of Crisis

On March 19, 2020, Mott MacDonald transitioned to remote work due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The company’s leadership assured employees that there were no imminent layoffs. In fact, policies were announced to protect jobs through measures like pay cuts and deferred bonuses.

Yet, on April 2, 2020, Mr. Sizar was locked out of the company’s system. In a brief call with Human Resources and Mr. Breindel, he was informed his employment was terminated, effective immediately, with COVID-19 cited as the reason. He was one of only two employees in his division, out of nearly 85, to be let go.

The company allegedly used the global pandemic as a pretext to carry out a plan that had been in motion for nearly 2 years: replacing an older, experienced engineer with a younger, less qualified one. This action deprived Mr. Sizar of the job protection measures the company had just announced, leaving him unemployed during an unprecedented global crisis.

Seeking Justice for Unlawful Discrimination

The story of Abbas Sizar is a stark reminder that even the most accomplished professionals can become victims of age discrimination. After years of being hailed as an invaluable asset, he was systematically undermined and ultimately discarded. His experience highlights a pattern of behavior where loyalty and expertise are overshadowed by a discriminatory preference for youth.

If you believe you have been treated unfairly, demoted, or terminated because of your age, you are not alone, and you have rights. Federal and state laws protect employees from such discriminatory practices. Seeking legal counsel can help you understand your options and hold employers accountable for their unlawful actions.