Posts

Posted on

Understanding Concerted Activity Rights

Farm worker employees right to unionize.

Understanding Concerted Activity Rights and What They Mean for Employees

The right to organize, demand fair treatment, and advocate for better working conditions is a foundational labor right that’s been fought for over decades. Understanding concerted activity rights is essential for both employees and employers, yet it remains a topic many are unfamiliar with. Recent cases, such as the Redwood Empire Vineyard Management (REVM) incident, underscore the importance of knowing and protecting these rights.

This guide will walk you through the basics of concerted activity, highlight the significance of the REVM case, and provide actionable advice to help employees recognize and address violations of their rights.

What Is Concerted Activity?

At its core, concerted activity refers to actions taken by employees as a group or on behalf of a group to improve their wages, working conditions, or other employment terms. These actions are protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a federal law passed in 1935 to safeguard employees’ rights to organize and engage in collective efforts without fear of retaliation from employers.

Examples of Concerted Activities:

  • Organizing or joining a strike to demand higher wages.
  • Petitioning management as a group to improve workplace safety.
  • Discussing wages, hours, or working conditions openly with coworkers.

Concerted activity applies regardless of union membership. This means employees in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces are legally protected when engaging in concerted efforts to address workplace concerns.

Why Does This Matter?

These protections ensure that employees can collectively address inequalities and improve workplace environments without facing undue consequences.

The REVM Case A Violation of Rights

The REVM case is a poignant example of how these rights can be breached and what consequences follow when employers violate these laws.

What Happened at REVM?

REVM, a vineyard management company in California, required its farmworkers to sign contracts that prohibited them from renegotiating their wages. When some employees participated in protests demanding hazard pay, the company retaliated by refusing to include them in future work lists and laying them off. These actions were deemed violations of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act.

The ALRB Investigation

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) determined that REVM’s actions were unfair labor practices. The company was found guilty of:

  • Retaliating against employees for participating in protected concerted activities.
  • Including unlawful clauses in employee contracts discouraged workers from asking for better pay.

Settlement Outcome

REVM reached a settlement to pay $33,548 to affected employees and agreed to remove prohibitive clauses from its contracts. The ALRB also required the company to educate workers about their rights and commit to respecting their ability to organize in the future.

This case serves as a stark reminder that retaliation for engaging in collective activities is unethical and illegal.

Employee Rights in California

California employees benefit from a combination of federal and state laws that protect their rights to challenge workplace inequalities.

What Does At Will Employment Mean?

California is an “at-will” employment state, which means an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any legal reason. Similarly, employees can quit without notice. However, “at-will” rules do not permit terminations based on illegal reasons, such as retaliation, discrimination, or for participating in protected concerted activity.

Key Protections in California:

Under both state and federal regulations:

  • You have the right to discuss wages and working conditions with coworkers.
  • You cannot be fired for organizing or taking group action to address workplace issues.
  • Anti-retaliation laws protect you from being punished for engaging in protected activities.

It’s crucial for workers to know that these protections apply whether or not they are part of a union.

Identifying and Addressing Retaliation

Employer retaliation can take many forms, often subtle or disguised to intimidate employees or discourage further action. Recognizing these signs is the first step toward safeguarding your rights.

Signs of Retaliation:

  • Being excluded from work opportunities or projects.
  • Sudden negative performance reviews after participating in collective activities.
  • Demotions, loss of benefits, or changes in job responsibilities.
  • Threatening or intimidating behavior from managers or supervisors.

Steps You Can Take:

  1. Document Everything

Keep detailed records of any interactions, contracts, or changes in your employment terms following collective actions. This documentation can serve as crucial evidence.

  1. Maintain Communication with Coworkers

A group effort strengthens legal protections and presents a unified voice that employers cannot easily dismiss.

  1. File a Complaint

If retaliation occurs, file a formal complaint with the ALRB in California or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for other cases. These organizations will investigate and address the violation.

  1. Reach Out to Legal Experts

Consulting with a labor rights attorney ensures you receive tailored advice and representation if needed.

How Organizations Like ALRB Can Help:

Labor organizations like the Agricultural Labor Relations Board provide education, resources, and enforcement mechanisms to protect your rights. If you’re unsure where to begin, they are an excellent first point of contact.

The Power of Collective Action

The REVM case illustrates the risks workers face when challenging unfair practices but also the power and strength gained through collective action. By standing together, these workers not only secured financial compensation but also initiated systemic changes that protect future employees.

Employers may try to silence their workforce through legal loopholes or intimidation, but your rights as an employee are backed by federal and state laws. Becoming familiar with concerted activity protections is the first step toward a fairer workplace for all.

Moving Forward and Seeking Justice

Understanding concerted activity rights is not just about reacting to workplace challenges; it’s about using collective action as a proactive tool for systemic change. Every employee who speaks up strengthens protections for others in similar circumstances.

If you’ve faced retaliation or suspect your rights have been violated, don’t wait. Contact a qualified labor rights attorney for guidance. Together, we can ensure that no worker feels powerless in advocating for fair treatment.

Take control of your rights. Speak up. Seek assistance. Stand with your coworkers for a workplace that values fairness, respect, and equality.

This post utilizes information reported by Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí

Posted on

Race and Sex Harassment Settlement Highlights Workplace Lessons

Stop Racism, race harassment, discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Settlement for Race and Sex Harassment Provides Justice and Lessons for All Workplaces

Workplace discrimination and harassment are more than just violations of personal dignity; they undermine morale, affect productivity, and leave lasting scars on employees. This truth came to light in a high-profile lawsuit involving Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy, who recently settled for $697,500 due to egregious allegations of race- and sex-based harassment. The settlement offers monetary compensation to the affected employees and highlights the critical importance of ensuring safe and inclusive workplaces.

This article will unpack the details of the settlement, its legal implications under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the broader lessons businesses and employees can learn to prevent such violations in the future.

Understanding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark law that prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It serves as a foundation for equality in American employment, ensuring that no one is subjected to discrimination or harassment at work. Specifically, it covers:

  • Discrimination in hiring, firing, and promotions
  • Harassment based on race or sex
  • Retaliation against employees for reporting discrimination

This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Through litigation, investigations, and outreach, the EEOC works to uphold these civil rights, as seen in its handling of the recent case against Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy.

Details of the Harassment Allegations

The lawsuit against Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy revealed a deeply troubling pattern of workplace misconduct. Employees reported:

  • Persistent racial harassment, including repeated use of the “n-word” and other racially derogatory language by management and colleagues.
  • Sexually degrading behavior, such as sharing pornographic images and making offensive remarks aimed at women.
  • Retaliation against those who raised complaints. For example, within days of voicing concerns about harassment, several employees were unlawfully terminated.

This series of alleged incidents reflects clear violations of Title VII, spotlighting how systemic issues, when left unaddressed, can fester and harm both employees and the organizational culture.

Legal Violations in the Case

Effective training, anti-discrimination policies, and pathways for complaining about discrimination without retaliation are essential for providing a workplace free of harassment and discrimination,” said EEOC Houston District Office Regional Attorney Rudy Sustaita.

Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy were accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in multiple ways:

  1. Race-Based Harassment: The pervasive use of racial slurs and targeting of Black employees created a hostile work environment.
  2. Sex-Based Harassment: The degrading behavior toward female employees constituted a violation of federal law prohibiting sex-based harassment.
  3. Retaliation: Firing employees for reporting harassment is strictly prohibited under Title VII. Such actions discourage others from stepping forward, perpetuating the cycle of abuse.

These violations reflect a failure not only to meet legal requirements but also to uphold fundamental workplace ethics.

Settlement and Its Implications

The settlement of $697,500 was a significant step toward justice for the impacted employees. But monetary relief was only part of the resolution. The consent decree also included actionable measures to prevent future violations:

  • Policy Overhaul: The companies must implement comprehensive anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies.
  • Mandatory Training: All employees, including management, are required to undergo training on Title VII, workplace harassment, and retaliation.
  • Regular Reporting: The companies must provide regular updates to the EEOC on training progress and any complaints of discrimination.

Such measures underscore the importance of preventative action, demonstrating that accountability extends beyond financial compensation.

Why Reporting Discrimination Matters

One key takeaway from this case is the value of speaking up about workplace harassment. Reporting discriminatory behavior is critical for several reasons:

  • Holds Employers Accountable: It forces organizations to confront and rectify toxic cultures.
  • Prevents Further Harm: By addressing issues early, you can protect yourself and others from ongoing abuse.
  • Triggers Legal Protections: Under Title VII, individuals who report harassment are protected from employer retaliation.

Still, reporting can feel daunting, especially when fear of backlash looms large. This underscores the need for robust workplace protections and trusted avenues for employees to raise concerns safely.

Building Safer Workplaces

Employers can take proactive steps to foster inclusive environments and guard against discrimination:

  • Establish clear anti-discrimination policies and communicate them to employees.
  • Conduct frequent training on workplace diversity, sensitivity, and harassment laws.
  • Implement effective reporting mechanisms to handle complaints promptly and confidentially.
  • Build a culture of accountability where everyone, regardless of position, is held to the same standards.

These actions not only protect employees but enhance organizational reputation, making businesses more attractive to top talent and clients alike.

Take Action If You Experience Discrimination

If you’ve faced race- or sex-based harassment at work, know that the law is on your side. Contacting a discrimination lawyer is a powerful step to hold employers accountable and secure justice. Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP specialize in workplace discrimination cases, offering the expertise and advocacy you need to take on even the biggest employers.

Workplace equality isn’t just a legal requirement; it’s a moral imperative that empowers productivity, trust, and innovation. By addressing harassment and advocating for fairness, we create businesses that thrive on respect and inclusion.

Posted on

Widespread Age Discrimination

Trade union members discrimination, age discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

It’s vital to engage in open and heartfelt discussions about an issue that truly impacts many in our workforce: age discrimination. It’s particularly significant that workers aged 65 and older are now the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. workforce, with those over 75 not far behind. Acknowledging and addressing the unique challenges they face is essential. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a staggering 78% increase in workers aged 75 and above, and a 25% rise in those aged 65 to 74 by 2030. Yet, despite these encouraging trends, ageism continues to be a pervasive issue. A recent AARP survey found that 9 out of 10 individuals aged 50 and older feel that age discrimination is widespread, with nearly two-thirds having either experienced it personally or witnessed it firsthand.

9 out of 10 individuals aged 50 and older feel that age discrimination is widespread, with nearly two-thirds having either experienced it personally or witnessed it firsthand.

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) highlights the importance of legal protection for workers aged 40 and above under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This important legislation aims to shield experienced candidates from being overlooked, to discourage biased language in job postings, and to promote a nurturing workplace culture that values age diversity.

The experience and reliability that come with age are irreplaceable assets any organization can cherish. Workers over 40 bring a wealth of knowledge and insights gained through years of navigating complex business landscapes and adapting to the ever-changing economic and technological tides. Contrary to common stereotypes, these individuals are often incredibly dependable, deeply committed, and remarkably adaptable. However, despite their valuable contributions, many face various forms of age discrimination, including unequal pay, limited promotional opportunities, biased hiring practices, and unfair terminations.

A recent court ruling serves as a poignant reminder of the real-world impacts of age discrimination. CrossCountry Mortgage was ordered to pay over $2.1 million in damages following a jury and appeals court decision favoring Cheryl Shephard, a dedicated senior accountant who was let go at age 65 in June 2022. Cheryl believed her dismissal was rooted in her age rather than her work performance. The court found inconsistencies in CrossCountry’s reasoning and acknowledged violations of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. This case underscores the urgent need for compassion and fairness in our workplaces.

Creating change to eliminate age discrimination calls for awareness and decisive action from organizational leadership. Companies need to embrace unbiased recruitment practices, remove ageist language from job descriptions, and cultivate inclusive environments that genuinely appreciate the strength that diversity, including age diversity, brings. Providing training for managers to recognize and challenge age biases, along with fostering mentorship and skill development opportunities, can create more equitable workplaces where everyone feels valued.

If you or someone you know has faced age discrimination, it’s important not to stay silent. Reach out to the appropriate authorities and consider seeking guidance from an experienced employment lawyer who can help you understand your rights. By standing together against age discrimination, we can foster workplaces where talent and experience are embraced and celebrated, regardless of age. It’s time to fully appreciate the immense value that older workers bring to our organizations and honor their important contributions.

Posted on

ADA Provisions Extend Beyond Conventional Notions of Disability Discrimination

Corrections officer -Employment law decision disability discrimination.

Navigating Workplace Rights with Legal Expertise

In employment law, the case of John Nawara highlights the challenges individuals may encounter when asserting their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This case serves as a significant example of both employers’ obligations and the determination employees must possess to protect their rights.

John Nawara began his tenure with the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in 1998 and served as a correctional officer for nearly two decades. However, in 2016, his career took a critical turn following several difficult interactions with colleagues, including a superior officer, an HR manager, and an occupational health nurse. These incidents raised concerns that prompted his employer to require a fitness-for-duty evaluation, leading to a series of legal proceedings that examined the interpretation of the ADA.

The decision to place Nawara on paid leave while awaiting a medical examination raised important questions regarding ADA compliance, particularly concerning medical inquiries and evaluations. Cook County required Nawara to sign medical authorization forms, which he initially resisted. This resistance resulted in a shift from paid leave to unpaid leave. Eventually, he agreed to the examination and was cleared to return to work. Despite this clearance, the requirement for a medical examination without a clear justification led Nawara to pursue legal action, claiming his employer had violated ADA guidelines.

As the case advanced through the legal system, it garnered considerable attention and support, notably from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The central legal issue was whether Cook County’s insistence on a medical examination constituted a form of disability discrimination, highlighting that an employee might invoke ADA protections even without a recognized disability.

The ADA imposes strict limitations on when employers can demand medical examinations from current employees, stipulating that such requests must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Nawara, supported by the EEOC, argued that the demand for a medical examination was unjustified and violated these standards. Ultimately, the appeals court ruled in Nawara’s favor, affirming his right to receive back pay—a landmark decision indicating that the ADA’s provisions extend beyond conventional notions of disability discrimination.

This case serves as an important reminder to both employees and employers about the nuances of ADA provisions. Employers must exercise caution and ensure any medical examinations or inquiries are properly justified, while employees should be aware of their rights and protections.

Nawara’s experience illustrates that the path to justice can be complex and emotionally taxing. Therefore, it is crucial for individuals facing such issues to seek consultation with experienced employment attorneys. These legal professionals offer vital guidance and advocacy, enabling employees to navigate their rights and responsibilities effectively, thus highlighting the essential role of legal expertise in fostering fair outcomes in the workplace.

Posted on

Sex Discrimination: Nationwide Implications of Texas Ruling

Gender identity discrimination is illegal - Helmer Friedman LLP.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This order states that the federal government will use “biological” male and female categories. It also directed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to remove parts of the Harassment Guidance that do not align with this order.

Since the Executive Order, the EEOC has been unable to make any changes to the Harassment Guidance. The EEOC needs a majority vote from its five members to do this. However, the Commission has not had enough members since late January 2025 because three positions are vacant. Although Acting Chair Andrea Lucas disagrees with the guidance parts that conflict with the Executive Order, she cannot change them without a quorum.

On May 15, 2025, a federal court in Texas ruled that the Harassment Guidance’s definition of “sex” was unlawful because it went beyond the biological categories of male and female. The court found that the guidance misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. The Bostock case only addressed whether firing someone for being homosexual or transgender violated Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination. The court confirmed that Bostock did not expand the definition of “sex” and did not cover issues like bathrooms or locker rooms.

The Texas court’s decision vacated parts of the Harassment Guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity. This includes guidance on harassment in sex-segregated facilities and the use of preferred pronouns.

This decision affects not only the case parties but also applies nationwide. The Texas court decided that its ruling impacts agency action more broadly.

Despite this ruling, the EEOC cannot remove its vacated guidance parts because it still lacks a quorum. However, the EEOC has made some changes on its website to show which parts of the Harassment Guidance have been vacated, marking those sections in gray and adding alerts about the changes.

The Bostock decision is still in effect. Title VII continues to protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Although the EEOC may not pursue litigation on these issues based on its recent actions, it still has the authority to do so. Employees can still file private claims for such discrimination.

Posted on

Workday Age Bias Lawsuit Challenges AI in Hiring

Artificial intelligence age discrimination in hiring practices.

Workday Age Discrimination Claim and Its Implications for AI in Hiring

Decoding Age Discrimination in AI Hiring Technology

Artificial intelligence is becoming a staple in hiring, promising efficiency and objectivity. But what happens when that promise is questioned? A significant lawsuit against Workday has thrust AI hiring technology into the spotlight, alleging age discrimination embedded within its algorithms. This legal battle could reshape how companies deploy AI in recruitment. If you’re navigating a workplace impacted by AI decisions or concerned about discrimination, this case is one to watch closely.

We’ll unravel Derek Mobley’s case, the allegations made against Workday, and the broader conversation on AI bias. By the end, you’ll have actionable insights into what this could mean for individuals and employers.

The Roots of the Lawsuit Derek Mobley’s Claims

Derek Mobley, over 40 years old, submitted more than 100 job applications through Workday-powered platforms. Mobley claims that despite his qualifications—including graduating cum laude and having nearly a decade of relevant experience—not a single employer responded positively. Allegedly, Workday’s applicant screening technology disproportionately disqualified older applicants, including Mobley, by the way it scores and ranks candidates.

Initially dismissed by the court, Mobley was permitted to amend his complaint, which led to the current lawsuit. On May 16, 2025, Judge Rita Lin granted preliminary certification under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), allowing a nationwide case to move forward. This paved the way for other plaintiffs over the age of 40 to join the case if they were also denied employment recommendations through Workday’s tools.

Central to the case is whether AI, as implemented by Workday, inherently creates a disparate impact on applicants aged 40 and above. This brings us to the legal backbone supporting Mobley’s claims.

Understanding the Legal Framework

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

The ADEA, enacted in 1967, protects individuals aged 40 and older from discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, and other employment-related situations. It establishes that hiring practices resulting in a “disparate impact” on a protected group can be grounds for legal action, even if no explicit discriminatory intent exists. This means that if a company’s hiring practices disproportionately affect older workers, they can be held liable for age discrimination.

Disparate Impact Theory

Disparate impact occurs when a policy or practice that appears neutral disproportionately affects a specific protected class. Courts recognize that bias embedded in algorithms—even unintended bias—is actionable under anti-discrimination laws like the ADEA.

Mobley’s lawsuit argues that Workday’s AI screening system fits this category, using automated processes that negatively affect older candidates at higher rates.

The Court’s Decision: A Turning Point for AI in Hiring

Judge Lin’s ruling to allow this case as a nationwide collective action signifies a critical moment in AI-focused employment litigation. Unlike traditional class actions, a collective action requires affected individuals to “opt in.” This framework underscores the case’s importance, as it could establish a legal precedent for how AI systems are scrutinized under employment law.

The court acknowledged that determining whether Workday’s AI tools disfavor individuals over 40 can be treated as a collective issue. However, identifying all potential claimants remains a logistical hurdle.

For now, the spotlight is on whether Workday’s algorithms indeed create the alleged discriminatory outcomes, and what this means for the future of AI technology in hiring.

Workday’s Response

Unsurprisingly, Workday denies the lawsuit’s merit. According to a company spokesperson, the legal decision is merely a procedural step, not an indication of wrongdoing. Workday maintains that its AI operates with fairness and does not make hiring decisions on behalf of employers.

“We’re confident that once Workday is permitted to defend itself with the facts, the plaintiff’s claims will be dismissed,” said a Workday representative. They also emphasize that the platform is a tool provided to employers, not a decision-maker in hiring.

Industry and Employer Implications for AI in Recruitment

This lawsuit is one of several growing legal challenges to AI in hiring. Employers relying on algorithmic tools must recognize that even advanced systems are not immune to bias. Here are the key takeaways for businesses and industry stakeholders:

  • Proactive Review of Algorithms: Companies using AI in hiring must audit these systems for potential biases. Regular testing and validation can identify and rectify unintended discriminatory patterns.
  • Adherence to Evolving Standards: The case reinforces the need to comply with legal standards regarding algorithmic fairness, transparency, and accountability.
  • Legal Exposure: Employers who rely heavily on third-party AI platforms may face liability if those systems result in discriminatory hiring practices.

The societal conversation around fairness in AI is expanding, emphasizing the need for balance between innovation and ethical considerations in technology.

What Lies Ahead for AI Discrimination Cases

Judge Lin’s decision marks the beginning of what could become a major legal benchmark. If Mobley and his co-plaintiffs succeed, the case could challenge how AI and machine learning tools are designed, deployed, and regulated in the workplace.

We may see:

  • Heightened litigation surrounding AI-related discrimination.
  • Increased demand for explainability in AI decision-making.
  • Regulatory frameworks forcing technology companies to take a more active role in preventing bias.

This case reminds job seekers to be vigilant about how AI might impact hiring practices. For employers, it underscores the risks of over-relying on third-party tools without rigorous oversight.

Justice Meets Technology

The lawsuit against Workday brings attention to a crucial gap in how technology interacts with employment laws. It challenges the balance between efficiency in hiring and equitable treatment of job applicants. Employers must tread carefully when integrating AI, ensuring that innovation does not come at the expense of fairness.

If you believe you’ve been affected by discriminatory hiring practices or suspect AI tools have unfairly impacted your job prospects, the legal implications of this case cannot be ignored. Seeking guidance from experienced employment law professionals is the first step toward understanding your rights.

Want to know if your workplace may be liable for similar AI-related issues? Contact us for a confidential legal consultation to evaluate your options.

Posted on

Discriminatory Scheduling Policy Gender Equality Settlement

Women firefighters also fight for equality. Workplace discrimination and harassment lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Exciting news from Dallas County! This week, the commissioners approved a significant settlement of $1.65 million benefiting nine brave current and former female detention officers. These women took a stand against a gender-based scheduling policy that a federal appeals court deemed discriminatory, highlighting a critical issue of fairness in the workplace.

Some of our clients worked for Dallas County for over 20 years and truly believed they were entitled to full weekends off. It’s disheartening to realize that personal circumstances beyond one’s control could upend what should be a guaranteed benefit.

Back in 2019, the Dallas County Jail made a troubling shift in how weekend shifts for detention officers were assigned. Instead of being allocated based on seniority, the decision was made according to gender, with only male officers allowed to enjoy full weekends off. This sparked rightful concern and ultimately led the officers to take legal action against the sheriff’s department.

The settlement, approved on Tuesday after mediation following the appeals court ruling, marks a turning point. After deducting attorney fees and related expenses, plaintiffs Debbie Stoxstell and Felesia Hamilton received $176,789 each, the largest amounts among the group—a well-deserved reward for their courage and persistence.

A pivotal ruling in 2023 has changed the landscape for discrimination claims in the United States Fifth Circuit, which spans Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. As David Henderson, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, pointed out, this new direction aligns the Fifth Circuit with a broader, more favorable national approach to addressing employment discrimination.

Henderson shared the impact of this case: “Some of our clients worked for Dallas County for over 20 years and truly believed they were entitled to full weekends off. It’s disheartening to realize that personal circumstances beyond one’s control could upend what should be a guaranteed benefit.”

Adding to the conversation, Senior Sergeant Christopher J. Dyer of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Association, which champions fair treatment for sheriff’s department employees, clarified how the policy came to be. He noted that since the majority of their employees are female, and due to a shortage of male detention officers, a separate seniority system was created. Unfortunately, this led to a scenario where senior female officers could lose their weekend time off. A sergeant even mentioned that they believed it was safer for male officers to have weekends off compared to weekdays—an assertion that the affected women challenged, feeling their voices were overlooked as they raised concerns with management.

Consequently, the officers pursued legal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on various protected traits, including gender. Although the district attorney’s office admitted in court filings that the policy was still in effect, they denied any claims of discrimination. The county argued that the scheduling changes were temporary and that assigning male guards was essential for certain roles involving male inmates, citing safety and privacy interests.

However, Dyer passionately argued that the rationale behind the policy simply didn’t hold water. “These ladies are working in housing, not in processing. The tasks they perform don’t significantly correlate with roles that require a male presence, such as those involved in intake or release.”

Race, Gender discrimination lawyer Helmer Friedman LLP.

Originally, a lower court dismissed the case in 2020 based on earlier legal precedents, with Judge David Godbey indicating the women had not experienced adverse employment actions. Initially, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals supported that view, but after a thorough en banc hearing, they revisited the case. In a groundbreaking decision, they ruled in 2023 that the policy was indeed a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The judges concluded that their previous definition of what constitutes an “adverse employment action” was too narrow, paving the way for broader interpretations that recognize discrimination based on altered terms and conditions of employment.

Dyer elaborated on the significant changes within the department, noting that leadership responsible for implementing the controversial time-off policy has since changed. He emphasized the importance of fair scheduling: “Whether or not someone has weekends off can greatly impact job satisfaction. Ultimately, no one’s work conditions should hinge on their gender.”

Very encouragingly, the recent settlement and official rulings will remain intact despite any changes in federal policy regarding workplace discrimination. This development not only compensates these courageous women for the challenges they faced but also sends a powerful message throughout industries everywhere. It encourages organizations to reassess potentially outdated policies and practices to foster a more equitable working environment.

This case serves as a vital reminder of the ongoing journey toward gender equality in the workplace. It highlights the necessity for continuous vigilance and advocacy for fairness, ensuring that future generations of employees thrive in an environment free from discrimination. With each progressive step, we get closer to a workplace where everyone is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. Let’s keep the momentum going!

If you’ve experienced unfair treatment in your workplace due to discriminatory schedules, consult the attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP for a confidential consultation. With over 20 years of representation in employment law, we’re here to advocate for justice and ensure a better future for employees everywhere.

This post is based on reporting by Toluwani Osibamowo.

Posted on

Morton Salt, Inc. Settles Racial Harassment Lawsuit for $75,000

The law protects people from racial harassment, discrimination at work. Helmer Friedman LLP racial discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles.

Morton Salt, Inc. has recently made headlines by settling a $75,000 lawsuit related to racial discrimination involving a former employee. This settlement has brought to light important issues surrounding workplace discrimination and the need for vigilance and action against harassment.

The case revolved around the experiences of a Black employee at Morton Salt’s Rittman facility, revealing some serious shortcomings in how the company handled reports of racial and sexual abuse. Despite several employees raising concerns about a co-worker’s inappropriate behavior, the company didn’t respond effectively. Many shared their own stories of facing racist and sexist remarks from the same individual. After being fired in 2019, the offending employee was later brought back, allowing the negative behavior to continue. Unfortunately, rather than supporting the employee who spoke up, the company chose to let him go, leading to the lawsuit and eventual settlement approved by U.S. District Judge Patricia Gaughan.

As part of the agreement, Morton Salt will provide $15,000 in lost wages and $60,000 in damages, along with efforts to improve their discrimination policies. They are taking steps to create a more supportive environment by setting up a hotline for reporting issues, enhancing employee training, and regularly updating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on discrimination complaints.

This situation highlights how vital it is to foster a safe and respectful workplace for everyone. Swiftly addressing incidents of racial harassment is crucial in preventing further issues and ensuring that all employees feel valued and treated fairly.

If you or someone you know is dealing with racial discrimination or harassment at work, it’s a good idea to talk to an employment law attorney. Professional legal help can safeguard your rights and guide you through the complexities of discrimination cases, ultimately supporting a healthier work environment.

Posted on

Hightower Sued for Age Discrimination

Age discrimination wrongful termination lawyers - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Hightower Sued for Age Discrimination Wrongful Termination

Glenn E. Frank, a 69-year-old Massachusetts-based financial advisor, has found himself at the center of an intense legal battle against Hightower Holdings. Frank, who claims the firm made deliberate efforts to edge him out due to his age, has filed lawsuits alleging age discrimination and retaliation, demanding accountability from one of the wealth management industry’s largest firms. This controversial case shines a spotlight on age-related biases in corporate acquisitions and raises questions about workplace practices in financial services.

A Look at Glenn E. Frank’s Career

Frank began his career in 1997 and joined Lexington Wealth Management in 2010, a firm later acquired by Hightower in 2019. Bringing decades of experience and a loyal client base, Frank built a strong reputation as a trusted financial advisor. However, by 2016, he elected to shift to part-time work while maintaining the same responsibilities and title.

The trouble began after Hightower acquired Lexington. According to Frank, the acquisition set in motion a series of changes that left him sidelined. Frank alleges his role was reclassified, and his responsibilities were reduced without prior consultation. These changes ultimately left him struggling to maintain his connection with the clients he had fostered over the years.

Initial Lawsuit in Massachusetts

The drama unfolded publicly in August 2024, when Frank first filed a lawsuit in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that Hightower forced him to take a subordinate role by slashing his hours, cutting his pay in half, and heavily restricting his interaction with clients. Furthermore, Frank requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the enforcement of restrictive non-solicitation agreements, which he argued were overly broad and would prevent him from maintaining relationships with lifelong clients.

Although the Massachusetts court initially granted the TRO, the lawsuit itself was dismissed in December 2024 due to jurisdictional grounds. The court ruled that such claims needed to be litigated in Illinois, the state where Hightower is headquartered.

New Lawsuit in Illinois

Undeterred, Frank refiled his lawsuit in Illinois federal court in early 2025. This new filing brought forth familiar allegations of age discrimination but also escalated the narrative by pointing to alleged retaliation by Hightower after his Massachusetts case was dismissed. Frank claims that just one week after the dismissal, he was terminated by the firm.

The Illinois lawsuit seeks remedies including the reinstatement of the TRO, back pay for lost wages, attorneys’ fees, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages. Additionally, Frank has requested reinstatement to his prior role and responsibilities.

The Crux of Frank’s Allegations

Frank’s allegations unravel troubling details about his experience at Lexington and Hightower. Some of his chief grievances include:

  • Role Reclassification

Frank claims his title was abruptly changed to “member emeritus,” eroding his client-facing responsibilities and authority.

  • Portrayed as Absent

According to the lawsuit, Hightower informed clients that Frank was frequently unavailable or vacationing, effectively discouraging interactions.

  • Shift of Clients to Junior Advisors

Clients were allegedly redirected to younger advisors without Frank’s knowledge, further marginalizing his position.

  • Retaliatory Investigation

After raising concerns about age discrimination internally, Frank was subjected to what he described as a retaliatory investigation. He was suspended and denied access to systems critical to his role before being reinstated under diminished duties.

Frank also contends that these actions were part of a broader plan to “phase out” older advisors and prioritize younger talent for the company’s long-term growth.

Hightower’s Response

When approached, a spokesperson for Hightower declined to comment, citing company policy to refrain from discussing pending litigation. Similarly, Frank’s legal team has chosen not to provide additional context beyond the contents of the legal filings.

Broader Legal Implications

This lawsuit carries significant legal and operational implications for the financial services industry. Here’s what it could mean for businesses and advisors:

  • Precedent for Post-Acquisition Treatment of Advisors

The case could set a precedent for how firms transitioning through acquisitions handle their older workforce, particularly advisors with long-standing client relationships.

  • Spotlight on Age Discrimination

By highlighting cases like Frank’s, the lawsuit underscores the growing need to address implicit and explicit age biases in the workplace. Older professionals bring immense value, and marginalizing them could be both ethically concerning and financially detrimental to firms.

  • Legal Risks for Firms

Companies may be prompted to review their employment policies, especially around transitions, reclassification of roles, and the handling of complaints, to avoid similar lawsuits.

  • Enforcement of Restrictive Agreements

The use of non-solicitation agreements in this case also raises questions about fairness, particularly for advisors who bring pre-existing client relationships into firms.

Could This Case Shape Future Policies?

Retaliation and discrimination claims, particularly involving high-profile firms like Hightower, serve as cautionary tales for organizations. If Frank’s allegations hold up in court, the verdict could pave the way for clearer, enforceable policies regarding role changes and how complaints should be handled. The case also emphasizes the importance of transparent communication between firms and their senior employees, as misunderstandings about role reassignments can quickly escalate into legal woes.

Looking Ahead at Compliance

For businesses, Frank’s lawsuit should inspire an audit of HR policies, particularly in areas concerning role transition during acquisitions and career longevity within firms. The financial industry must balance cultural and demographic shifts by fostering inclusivity, both for seasoned advisors and rising talents.

The legal battle between Glenn Frank and Hightower isn’t merely about one individual’s fight; it reflects systemic challenges within corporate cultures and industry practices. Whether this case concludes in settlement or courtroom victory, it highlights the urgency of addressing age discrimination in both policy and practice.

If you believe you have experienced age discrimination in your workplace, it is crucial to take action by consulting a highly qualified employment lawyer. These professionals specialize in navigating the complexities of employment law and can provide guidance on your rights, potential legal remedies, and the best course of action for your specific situation. Whether it involves providing advice, negotiating a resolution, or pursuing legal claims, an experienced attorney ensures that your case is approached with the expertise and sensitivity it requires.

Posted on

Physician Shortage & Age Discrimination in Medicine

Age discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

The Physician Shortage and Age Discrimination in Medicine: A Crisis in Healthcare

The United States is on the brink of a healthcare crisis, with a projected physician shortage that will only worsen as the population grows and ages. At the same time, another issue that threatens to exacerbate this shortage but receives far less attention is age discrimination in medicine. Senior physicians often possess unparalleled expertise and experience, yet many are being pushed out of the workforce prematurely due to implicit or overt biases. To address the impending physician shortfall, the medical community must also confront the invisible force of ageism.

This blog explores the physician shortage, its root causes, and age discrimination’s destructive role in compounding the problem. We’ll also discuss actionable solutions to ensure the U.S. healthcare system remains resilient now and in the future.

The Physician Shortage in the U.S.

A recent Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) report reveals troubling statistics. By 2036, the U.S. could be short up to 86,000 physicians, including both primary care doctors and specialists. The demand for medical professionals is being driven by two primary factors:

  • An Aging Population: By 2036, the population of Americans aged 65+ is expected to grow by 34.1%, leading to increased healthcare needs. Older adults require significantly more medical care, placing immense pressure on an already overburdened system.
  • Unequal Access to Care: Rural and underserved areas face significant disparities. If these populations accessed care at the same rate as others, the U.S. would have required 202,800 additional physicians in 2021 alone, according to the AAMC report.

The shortage impacts more than just wait times for doctor appointments. It threatens the foundation of equitable healthcare, leaving millions without adequate access to critical medical services.

Age Discrimination in Medicine

While the physician shortage dominates headlines, ageism in medicine quietly worsens the crisis. According to an AMA study, nearly two-thirds of physicians aged 65 or older report experiencing ageism in their careers. Another 18.8% of senior physicians report being dismissed or treated as irrelevant solely because of their age.

How Ageism Manifests:

  • Loss of Responsibilities: 4.5% of senior physicians have had their job roles or duties revoked simply because of their age.
  • Pressure to Retire: 4.2% of senior doctors report feeling pressured by employers or patients to retire, even when fully competent and eager to continue practicing.
  • Assumptions of Cognitive Decline: Some teams assume older physicians are cognitively less capable, despite evidence to the contrary.
  • Preference for Younger Physicians: Senior doctors often find opportunities restricted or attributed to younger colleagues, despite their wealth of wisdom and institutional knowledge.

These recurring experiences underscore a systemic issue in the medical field that cannot go unaddressed.

Real Stories from Senior Physicians

One physician in the AMA study noted that younger colleagues ” consistently disregarded” their opinions. Over time, they realized the lack of respect was tied not to their expertise but to their age. Another physician recounted feeling that residents “did not respect their decisions” or value their contributions despite decades of experience.

These stories are far from isolated. Ageism against senior physicians is demoralizing and actively harms the healthcare system.

The Impact of Ageism on the Physician Workforce

Driving senior physicians out of the workforce prematurely has far-reaching consequences. Here’s how age discrimination amplifies the physician shortage:

  1. Loss of Expertise: With decades of accumulated knowledge and experience, senior physicians are invaluable for patient care and mentoring younger doctors. Their early exit leaves a void that is difficult to fill.
  2. Reduced Workforce Numbers: Forcing capable older physicians into retirement further diminishes an already strained workforce. The physician shortage is not merely about recruitment; retention is equally critical.
  3. Undermining Patient Care: Patients can benefit significantly from the expertise and emotional intelligence of senior physicians who’ve spent years perfecting their clinical judgment.

Consequences for Healthcare Delivery

Ageism doesn’t just harm physicians. It also poses a significant public health risk. Research shows that age discrimination correlates with declines in physical and mental health, from stress and anxiety to adverse outcomes caused by staffing shortages. When senior physicians are involuntarily retired or alienated, underserved communities suffer even more, as the remaining workforce struggles to meet demand.

Addressing Ageism in Medicine

There are no quick fixes to this complex issue, but solutions exist. Here’s what the medical field can do to combat ageism:

  1. Acknowledge the Problem: The AMA report emphasizes that the first step is recognizing that ageism is real and pervasive. Without awareness, systemic change isn’t possible.
  2. Policy Reforms: Revisiting policies that favor younger healthcare workers or dismiss competent senior physicians will create equity. For example, standardized evaluations rather than assumptions based on age can more fairly assess a physician’s capabilities.
  3. Inclusive Workplaces: Establishing age-friendly environments and encouraging multigenerational teams fosters collaboration and mutual respect. Organizations must also adopt zero-tolerance policies for age discrimination.
  4. Education and Advocacy: Adding ageism awareness to medical school and residency training can help change long-standing cultural biases.

Legislative Efforts to Combat Shortages

Expanding residency opportunities remains a critical policy challenge. Although the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, which aimed to create 14,000 new residency positions over seven years, received bipartisan support in Congress, it was not passed. Increasing funding for graduate medical education (GME) remains a vital alternative to address physician shortages and ensure equitable opportunities for all physicians, regardless of age.

The Dual Solution: Tackling Both Shortages and Ageism

Addressing the physician shortage without tackling age discrimination is like patching a sinking ship without fixing the holes. Senior physicians aren’t just placeholders in the workforce; they’re indispensable assets. By fostering an inclusive, respectful environment that avoids biases tied to age, healthcare organizations can better retain skilled professionals and improve patient outcomes.

Hospitals, medical institutions, and advocacy groups all have a role in ensuring that physicians of all ages can thrive and provide quality healthcare for future generations.

Facing Ageism? Here’s Your Next Step

If you’re a senior physician or healthcare worker facing ageism or forced retirement, this isn’t an issue you must endure alone. Consulting an experienced discrimination attorney can help you understand your rights and explore your options.

Schedule a free consultation today to reclaim your voice in the workplace and continue making a difference in patients’ lives.