Posts

Posted on

Congratulations to Bet Tzedek House of Justice on an Incredible Victory

Celebrating a victory for justice.

🎉 Our heartfelt congratulations to Bet Tzedek House of Justice on an incredible victory in a quiet title case that is a powerful reminder of the strength of justice and the resilience of the human spirit! 🎉

We are genuinely grateful to Bet Tzekek’s dedicated Impact and Homeowner Protection Teams and pro bono partner McDermott Will & Emery for their tireless efforts in securing a quiet title claim for Mr. Lopez, an 83-year-old widower. This significant milestone affirms his rightful ownership of his beloved home. It restores his sense of security and peace of mind during a challenging time.

This achievement highlights Bet Tzedek’s unwavering dedication to serving those who face discrimination and exploitation. It embodies the principle “Tzedek, tzedek, tirdof”—“justice, justice you shall pursue.” Through its comprehensive legal services, education, and advocacy efforts, Bet Tzedek empowers vulnerable individuals and families, providing them with the hope and stability they desperately need.

If you feel moved to support Bet Tzedek’s vital mission and future victories, please consider making a financial contribution or offering your time—visit https://bettzedek.org.

The term “quiet title” refers to a legal action that addresses property ownership disputes, ensuring that rightful owners like Mr. Lopez can find peace of mind in their homes. By tackling these challenges, we safeguard the integrity of property ownership for all.

👏 A warm and heartfelt thank you to everyone who played a role in this remarkable achievement. 👏

#JusticeForAll #CommunityImpact

Posted on

Racial Harassment & Discrimination at LM Wind Power: A Closer Look

Racial harassment and retaliation in the wind power industry, contact Helmer Friedman LLP.

LM Wind Power, Inc. Agrees to Pay $125,000 in Racial Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

A troubling incident at the Grand Forks office of LM Wind Power, Inc. has led the company to agree to a $125,000 settlement in a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit. The case centers on a Black employee who endured a persistently hostile work environment, shedding light on the entrenched racial prejudice that still permeates certain sectors of corporate America.

While LM Wind Power’s website professes a commitment to balancing profitable growth with integrity and environmental stewardship, the claims of alignment with human rights starkly contrast with the experiences of racial harassment, a toxic workplace atmosphere, and retaliation faced by Black employees at the Grand Forks location.

“Title VII protects employees from race discrimination and guarantees them the right to work in an environment free from racial insults and threats,” stated Greg Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Employers have an obligation to address and rectify offensive conduct, and the court decree today will help ensure a safe and respectful work environment for LM Wind Power’s employees.”

It is crucial to recognize that a racially hostile work environment is not only illegal but also profoundly damaging to both the affected individuals and the overall workplace culture. More importantly, such an environment tarnishes the reputation of the company. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The Black employee at LM Wind Power, who faced relentless racial slurs, threats of violence, and retaliatory actions after reporting the harassment, became a victim of this legal breach. Despite his appeals for help, the company’s leadership failed to address the situation effectively, resulting in severe repercussions.

The effects of racial harassment, a toxic work environment, and retaliation are deeply felt, both physically and psychologically. Victims can experience heightened stress, depression, anxiety, and diminished self-esteem. They may feel helpless, distracted, or fearful, which adversely impacts their performance and overall well-being.

The director of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, Amrith Aakre, said, “It is critical that employees feel free to report or oppose illegal discrimination without fear of retaliation. Terminating an employee for reporting discrimination is illegal, and the EEOC will continue to vigorously enforce this law.”

The repercussions of such incidents extend beyond the individual; they create a culture of fear and discomfort among other employees, leading to decreased productivity, morale, and job satisfaction. On a larger scale, it can irreparably harm the company’s reputation, resulting in the loss of business opportunities, customers, and the trust of shareholders and the public.

Although LM Wind Power has taken steps to mitigate future occurrences by providing monetary damages and back pay to the affected employee and implementing training to prevent future discrimination, the damage is already done. This incident serves as a cautionary tale for employers about the vital importance of fostering an inclusive and respectful workplace and the potentially damaging consequences of failing to promptly and adequately address racial discrimination and harassment.

Posted on

Workplace Age Discrimination – Shadows of Bias

Age Discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles safeguard your rights to a workplace free from age discrimination.

Age discrimination, often lurking in the shadows of our professional environments, affects many seasoned professionals and job seekers. While its presence is sometimes subtle, its impact can be profound, leading to missed opportunities and perpetuating harmful stereotypes. This article explores how to recognize age discrimination, its legal implications, and effective strategies to combat it. Whether you’re an experienced professional or a job seeker facing age-related biases, this guide aims to empower you with knowledge and practical advice.

Understanding Age Discrimination

Ageism in the workplace refers to prejudices or discriminative practices based on an individual’s age, often targeting those perceived as “too old” for certain roles. This bias not only undermines the talent and wisdom of older professionals but also threatens the diversity and inclusivity of workplaces. For job seekers and senior employees, age discrimination can manifest as biased hiring practices, limited career advancement opportunities, or unjust terminations.

This type of discrimination goes beyond personal prejudice, affecting the morale and productivity of teams. It creates an environment where talent is overlooked and experience is undervalued. Recognizing ageism’s detrimental effects, industries must foster inclusive cultures where age diversity is celebrated and leveraged for innovation and growth.

Signs of Age Discrimination

Identifying age discrimination can be challenging, as it often masquerades as benign workplace behaviors. However, several indicators can signal its presence. One common sign includes exclusion from projects or meetings that could enhance an employee’s visibility and career growth. Additionally, older employees might be passed over for promotions or subjected to unjust performance reviews despite consistent work quality.

Another telling sign is the language used in job postings or internal communications. Phrases like “energetic team,” “digital native,” or “young and dynamic” subtly hint at age preferences, discouraging older applicants from applying. If you notice a pattern of younger employees being favored for opportunities despite qualifications, it’s crucial to address these concerns promptly.

Legal Framework Protecting Against Age Discrimination

Thankfully, various laws and regulations are designed to protect individuals from age discrimination in the workplace. In the United States, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against employees 40 years and older. This law covers hiring, promotions, layoffs, compensation, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Understanding these legal protections is vital for employees and job seekers alike. Familiarity with your rights ensures you can identify when they are violated and seek appropriate recourse. If you suspect age discrimination, documenting incidents and seeking legal counsel can strengthen your case and hold discriminatory practices accountable.

Strategies to Combat Age Discrimination

Combating age discrimination requires proactive strategies for job seekers and employees. Firstly, updating your skills and staying current with industry trends can counteract age-related stereotypes about adaptability and technological proficiency. Continuous learning enhances your expertise and demonstrates your commitment to personal and professional growth.

Networking is another powerful tool. Building relationships within your industry can open doors to opportunities and provide support when facing bias. As a mentor and mentee, engaging in mentorship programs can showcase the value of age diversity and foster intergenerational collaboration.

If you experience age discrimination, addressing it through open dialogue with employers or HR may help resolve misunderstandings. However, if the issue persists, seeking legal advice and formally documenting incidents can be crucial in advocating for your rights.

Case Study 1: Eli Lilly’s “Early Career” Program

Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly faced significant legal repercussions in a notable age discrimination case. The company settled a $2.4 million lawsuit after allegations surfaced regarding its “Early Career” hiring program. This initiative was accused of disadvantaging older applicants, highlighting systemic biases that permeate even well-established organizations. The case underscored the importance of scrutinizing hiring policies to ensure they align with anti-discrimination laws and promote equal opportunities for all candidates.

Case Study 2: The Story of Abbas Sizar

The story of Abbas Sizar provides a poignant illustration of ageism intersecting with racial and health-related biases. Mr. Sizar, a non-white older man, faced age discrimination and harassment from his superMott MacDonald Holdings. Despite receiving positive reviews, he encountered hostile treatment after returning from medical leave. Inappropriate questions about his health and retirement plans were coupled with preferential treatment toward younger, white male employees. This case emphasizes the complexity of discrimination, where multiple biases can compound and exacerbate the challenges faced by marginalized individuals.

Conclusion

Age discrimination remains a persistent challenge in today’s workforce, affecting both job seekers and experienced professionals. Recognizing the signs, understanding legal protections, and implementing proactive strategies are essential steps in combating ageism. By fostering inclusive workplaces that value age diversity, organizations can tap into the wealth of knowledge and experience that older employees bring.

Creating an environment where everyone feels valued and empowered, regardless of age, is not just a legal requirement—it’s a business imperative. Let’s work together to dismantle age-based biases and build workplaces that champion equality and respect for all.

References and Additional Resources

Explore these resources to deepen your understanding and take action against age discrimination.

Posted on

Forced Arbitration Clauses: What’s at Stake and Why it Matters

Forced arbitration clauses challenge consumers, employees. Helmer Friedman LLP aggressively protect your rights.

Imagine signing up for a new credit card, starting a new job, or signing up for a streaming service trial, only to find out later that you unwittingly waived your right to take disputes to court. This scenario isn’t just hypothetical; it’s a reality for many due to the widespread use of forced arbitration clauses. While these clauses are often buried in contracts, their impact is significant, influencing both consumers and employees in profound ways. This article explores what forced arbitration clauses are, how they affect individuals, and what actions can be taken to address them.

Understanding Forced Arbitration Clauses

Federal Arbitration Act

On February 12, 1925, President Calvin Coolidge put his signature on the Federal Arbitration Act, giving a nod to private dispute resolution as the cool alternative to courtroom drama. Think of it as arbitration: where the gavel gets a vacation, and the arbiter’s decisions pack a punch—only with a sprinkle of judicial review on the side!

What Are Forced Arbitration Clauses?

“Forced arbitration clauses are a quiet way to strip consumers and employees of their rights.” U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren

Forced arbitration clauses are provisions in contracts that require disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than in court. These clauses are common in various agreements, from consumer contracts to employment contracts. Consumers often aren’t aware they’ve agreed to arbitration because these clauses are usually hidden in the fine print.

Why Are They Common?

Businesses favor arbitration because it generally favors their interests. Arbitration can be less costly and quicker than court litigation, allowing companies to avoid lengthy legal battles. Additionally, arbitration results are often confidential, preventing public scrutiny. Elizabeth Warren has criticized this practice, saying, “Forced arbitration clauses are a quiet way to strip consumers and employees of their rights.”

The Prevalence of Arbitration Clauses

The rise of arbitration clauses is a concerning trend that has surged recently. A revealing study by the U.C. Davis Law Review indicates that 81 of the 100 largest U.S. companies now rely on arbitration when dealing with consumers. The Economic Policy Institute reports that mandatory arbitration agreements bind more than 60 million American workers. This escalation raises critical questions about their fairness and legality, as critics warn that such clauses erode the judicial system and compromise consumer rights. A recent article in the New York Times, titled “It Shouldn’t Be This Easy to Sign Away Your Right to a Trial,” highlights the urgency of this issue.

The Impact on Consumers

Limiting Legal Recourse

For consumers, forced arbitration means giving up the right to sue in court. This limitation can be problematic when dealing with defective products or unfair charges. Arbitration typically favors corporations, making it challenging for consumers to win cases against large companies. Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP, commenting on a recent California Supreme Court victory, said, “When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny.”

The Financial Burden

Arbitration is often portrayed as a cost-effective alternative to litigation, but this isn’t always the case for consumers. The costs can escalate quickly, and since the arbitrator’s decision is final, there are limited avenues for appeal. As highlighted by various consumer advocacy groups, this scenario puts consumers at a disadvantage.

Confidentiality Concerns

Unlike courtroom proceedings, arbitration lacks transparency. The outcomes are private, which means repeat offenders can continue bad practices without public accountability. This lack of transparency is a significant concern for consumer rights advocates.

The Impact on Employees

Employment Contracts and Rights

In the workplace, forced arbitration clauses are embedded in employment contracts. Employees often have no choice but to agree if they want the job. These clauses can restrict workers’ rights, making it difficult to challenge issues like discrimination or wrongful termination.

Disparate Impact

Arbitration can perpetuate systemic biases, particularly against marginalized groups. Employees facing discrimination may find it difficult to prove their case in arbitration, where the rules of evidence are less strict than in court. Many labor advocates argue that this issue underscores the need for reform.

The Silence Effect

The confidentiality associated with arbitration proceedings means that systemic issues within companies often remain unreported. Employees cannot discuss their cases publicly, which hinders broader awareness and prevents meaningful change. This “silence effect” is a significant drawback of the current arbitration system. Arbitration typically occurs behind closed doors, and the outcomes are rarely disclosed, allowing serious problems to stay hidden.

A notable example of this occurred with Wells Fargo, which, between 2009 and 2016, opened approximately 3.5 million unauthorized bank and credit card accounts in the names of actual customers. Starting in 2013, customers attempted to hold Wells Fargo accountable through lawsuits but were constrained by arbitration clauses buried in the bank’s fine print. This forced them into confidential settlements, resulting in these unethical practices going unnoticed until investigative reports emerged. This led to a government inquiry and eventually a substantial financial settlement for those affected. The situation raises critical questions about transparency and accountability in corporate practices.

The Legality of Forced Arbitration

Recent Court Decisions

The legality of forced arbitration clauses has been a contentious issue. Recent court decisions have upheld these clauses, emphasizing the binding nature of the agreements. However, courts have also ruled against employers when arbitration agreements were deemed unfair or improperly disclosed.

Enforceability Challenges

While arbitration is generally enforceable, challenges arise when agreements are vague or deceptive. Courts have occasionally ruled against enforceability, especially when consumers or employees lack informed consent. These decisions highlight the importance of transparency and fairness in arbitration agreements.

Regulatory Efforts

Regulatory bodies have attempted to address the imbalance created by mandatory arbitration. Efforts include proposals to ban certain types of arbitration clauses or to increase transparency. While progress has been slow, continued advocacy and legislative interest suggest possible changes on the horizon.

Strategies for Consumers and Employees

Reading the Fine Print

Awareness is the first step in navigating arbitration clauses. Consumers and employees should carefully read contracts before signing, looking for any mention of arbitration. Understanding what you’re agreeing to is crucial in protecting your rights.

“When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny.” Greg Helmer Helmer Friedman LLP

Challenging Unfair Clauses

When faced with an unfair arbitration clause, individuals can contest its validity. Legal assistance can help determine whether the clause is enforceable or if it violates consumer protection laws. In some cases, public pressure or negative publicity can lead companies to abandon unfair practices.

Advocacy and Support

Joining consumer advocacy groups or unions can provide additional support and resources. These organizations often work to educate the public on arbitration issues and advocate for policy changes to protect rights. Collective action is a powerful tool for effecting change.

The Future of Arbitration

Potential Legislative Changes

The future of arbitration may see significant changes as lawmakers consider reforms. Proposed legislation aims to restrict the use of forced arbitration, particularly in sensitive areas like employment and consumer rights. These efforts reflect growing concerns about fairness and access to justice.

Implications for Consumer and Worker Rights

If successful, legislative changes could enhance protections for consumers and workers, ensuring fairer dispute resolution processes. Such reforms could lead to a more balanced approach between arbitration and traditional litigation, preserving individual rights.

The Role of Public Opinion

Public opinion plays a crucial role in shaping the future of arbitration. Increased awareness and advocacy can drive change, encouraging companies to adopt voluntary and fair arbitration practices. In one notable case, a woman died from an allergic reaction after eating at a restaurant in a Walt Disney Parks and Resorts location. The company claimed that her widower had waived his right to sue when he signed up for Disney+ years earlier. However, following public backlash, Disney reversed its stance in August and agreed to take the case to trial. This incident highlights the significant power that consumers and employees have to influence corporate behavior.

Conclusion

Forced arbitration clauses present significant challenges for consumers and employees, impacting their rights and access to fair dispute resolution. Understanding these clauses and advocating for change is essential for protecting individual freedoms. By staying informed and engaged, individuals can contribute to a more equitable system that respects consumer and worker rights. Numerous resources, advocacy groups and experienced attorneys are available to support those seeking further information.

Posted on

Violating Laws Protecting Travelers with Disabilities – $50 Million Fine

Americans with Disability Rights lawyers - Helmer Friedman LLP.

DOT found that American Airlines failed to provide safe, dignified, and prompt wheelchair assistance and mishandled passengers’ wheelchairs  

“One traveler with a disability told us in her words, ‘I was made to feel like a piece of luggage, so I do not fly anymore’”

Recent developments have marked a significant advancement for travelers with disabilities, particularly with American Airlines. The Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have taken a strong stance to ensure equal access and dignified treatment for passengers with disabilities, imposing a landmark $50 million penalty on American Airlines for serious infractions of disability laws between 2019 and 2023.

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA)

“We applaud the Department of Transportation’s landmark civil rights agreement to uphold the dignity of passengers with disabilities in air travel,” said Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.

The Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) prohibits airlines from discriminating against passengers due to their disabilities. The DOT enforces the ACAA, which applies to all flights to, from, or within the United States. Violations reported include inadequate physical assistance leading to injuries and the mishandling and delays of wheelchairs—issues that have persisted with major U.S. airlines. Notably, complaints from disabled passengers surged by 9% from 2021 to 2022, reflecting the challenges millions of travelers face. In 2019, approximately 27 million individuals with disabilities traveled by air, according to the DOT.

“The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that people with disabilities have the freedom to travel independently. Travelers with disabilities must be confident they will receive timely assistance and arrive safely, with their mobility aids and assistive devices intact.”

Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights

In response to these issues, the DOT introduced the first-ever Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights in July 2022. This important document outlines the rights to which disabled passengers are entitled during their travels, including the timely return of mobility devices in their original condition, prompt assistance for boarding and disembarking, and support in navigating airports.

As part of the investigation, American Airlines will pay a $25 million fine, with an additional $25 million allocated for investments in equipment to reduce wheelchair damage and delays, improve wheelchair handling coordination at large airports, and compensate affected passengers.

Under Secretary Buttigieg’s leadership, the DOT has imposed nearly $225 million in penalties against airlines for consumer protection and civil rights violations since 2020, underscoring the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to holding airlines accountable.

“The era of tolerating poor treatment of airline passengers with disabilities is over,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “With this penalty, we are setting a new standard of accountability for airlines that violate the civil rights of passengers with disabilities. By setting penalties at levels beyond a mere cost of doing business for airlines, we’re aiming to change how the industry behaves and prevent these kinds of abuses from happening in the first place.”

In addition to enforcing penalties, the Biden-Harris Administration is introducing new regulations and funding for equipment to enhance travel experiences for disabled passengers. These new rules will establish standards for accessible lavatories on aircraft, provide funding for accessibility improvements at airports, and propose regulations to ensure safe and dignified accommodations for passengers using wheelchairs.

These initiatives reflect the dedicated efforts of the DOT and DOJ under the Biden-Harris Administration to address past violations, hold airlines accountable, and ensure a safer and more dignified air travel experience for passengers with disabilities.

Posted on

Waste Industries USA Pays $3.1 Million to Settle Sex Harassment, Discrimination Lawsuit

Sex stereo types were destroyed. Rosie the Riveter an icon used to encourage women to enter job force and take over jobs left vacant by men at war.

In a recent development, Waste Industries U.S.A., LLC, TransWaste Services, LLC, Waste Industries Atlanta LLC, and GFL Environmental, Inc. (collectively referred to as Waste Industries) have agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle a federal lawsuit alleging sex discrimination. The lawsuit highlighted the denial of hiring qualified female applicants for truck driver positions based solely on their gender.

Such discriminatory practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which explicitly states in “SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]” that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or to discriminate against someone regarding compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment due to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

“Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, including those that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in certain industries, is a strategic enforcement priority for the EEOC,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows.

The details reveal that since 2016, Waste Industries systematically denied qualified female applicants truck driver positions at multiple locations across Georgia. Even more troubling were the reports of sexual harassment during the interview process, which included derogatory remarks about women’s appearances and sexist inquiries questioning their ability to perform what was deemed “a man’s job.”

This overt sexual harassment and discrimination foster a hostile and damaging environment for women who are fully capable of excelling in roles traditionally held by men. Not only does this deny them fair employment opportunities, but it also cultivates an atmosphere of fear and unease.

History consistently demonstrates that women are just as capable as their male counterparts across various fields. During World War II, for example, women broke free from traditional roles to take on jobs predominantly held by men. Rosie the Riveter became an iconic figure in the United States, symbolizing the women who worked in factories and shipyards during the war, producing munitions and essential supplies. Many women stepped into new roles, filling the positions left vacant by men who joined the military.

To address these injustices, Waste Industries has not only agreed to the financial settlement but has also committed to developing proactive hiring, recruitment, and outreach plans aimed at increasing the pool of qualified female driver applicants. Furthermore, they will train employees on Title VII’s prohibition against gender discrimination in hiring, implement anti-discrimination policies, post employee notices, and allow the EEOC to monitor complaints of sex discrimination.

In conclusion, this case serves as a powerful reminder for all employers to foster equal opportunity and actively prevent any form of harassment or discrimination based on sex in accordance with the regulations established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you, a friend, or a family member have experienced sexual harassment or discrimination while applying for a job, contact an employment law attorney today.

Posted on

Protecting Pregnant Workers: A Close Look at the Laws and the Realities on Ground

Pregnancy discrimination accommodations.

Imagine landing a new job, attending the first training day, and then receiving the distressing news that “there might be something wrong with my daughter’s heart.” You are looking to seek immediate medical attention for your unborn child, but instead of understanding or empathy from your new employer, your job offer is rescinded. This is not fiction; it is a story that unfortunately unfolded for a sales consultant at Victra’s Dayton, Nevada, store.

Victra, a nationwide retailer of Verizon mobile devices, has been sued for alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Before we delve into the details of the lawsuit, it’s pivotal to understand the laws that protect pregnant workers.

The Americans with Disabilities Act passed in 1990, prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual because of a pregnancy-related impairment that an employer regards as a disability. It paved the way for heightened awareness and protection for people with disabilities, including those related to pregnancy, ensuring their right to equal employment opportunities.

More recently, on June 27, 2023, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) went into effect, providing additional protections for pregnant workers. The PWFA requires employers to provide pregnant workers with equal opportunities and flexibility as they do for other applicants or employees.

These laws aim to put a stop to discrimination against pregnant employees or applicants who may need immediate and emergency care related to pregnancy. Yet, the Victra case reminds us that these unfair practices still exist. The plaintiff in this lawsuit was denied the right to leave training for urgent prenatal care and lost her job as a result.

The sad reality is that pregnant workers should never have to choose between keeping their jobs or seeking urgent prenatal care to protect the health of both parent and child. Losing the ability to earn income during such a critical time is challenging and disheartening. Thankfully, entities like EEOC are there to defend the rights of pregnant applicants and employees against employment discrimination.

If you have experienced pregnancy-related discrimination, remember that you are not alone. There are laws designed to protect you and legal professionals available to help you navigate these daunting situations. An experienced employment law attorney can guide you through the legal processes, ensuring your rights are protected and justice is served. It’s crucial not to let discriminatory behavior go unchallenged. Stand up against it because each voice contributes to a louder call for equality, fairness, and justice in the workplace.

Posted on

The Girl Behind Katie’s Law: Saving Students One Voice At a Time

Women's rights to privacy, reproductive health care, abortion care lost - wrongful death lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

California Assembly Bill 1575 – Katie Meyer’s Law

In January 2022, Katie Meyer celebrated her 22nd birthday, and by March, the former Stanford soccer captain had taken her life in her dorm room. This tragic event has spurred legislation like California Assembly Bill 1575, more widely known as Katie Meyer’s Law, which seeks to help college students facing challenging situations akin to Katie’s.

Katie Meyer was a ray of pure brilliance; she was all set to conquer the world. Growing up in Newbury Park, Katie displayed exceptional talent in soccer and academics. Her performance as the hero of Stanford’s NCAA women’s soccer national championship team in 2019 etched her name in national prominence. Alongside her sports accolades, Katie’s dogged pursuit of knowledge earned her a 4.3 GPA at Conejo Valley Unified School District’s online Century Academy.

However, tragedy struck in March 2022 when Katie was found dead in her dorm room. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s Office determined her death to be a self-inflicted tragedy. Katie’s death happened amidst an unpleasant experience involving a disciplinary issue at Stanford University, leading her parents to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the university.

Katie was accused of spilling coffee on a football player who had faced allegations of sexually assaulting one of her teammates in 2021. As a result, she became entangled in a disciplinary process and an investigation conducted by Stanford’s Office of Community Standards.

This process extended over several weeks, and Steven Meyer said, “from her perspective, there was a silence from that office for three and a half months.” During that time, she confided in several teammates, believing the ordeal was over.

On February 28, 2022, she received an email from the university notifying her of a disciplinary charge. The five-page letter indicated that her degree would be placed on hold just months before her graduation and warned that the charge could lead to her expulsion from the university, as noted by her father and court documents.

Katie had a meeting with an assistant director of sports psychology on November 12, 2021, during which she expressed experiencing heightened anxiety and depression throughout the disciplinary process.

In the wake of such a tragic loss, her parent’s grief sparked a nationwide initiative called Katie’s Save, providing a lifeline to students grappling with complex situations. Propelling this initiative forward, California Assembly Bill 1575 seeks to enshrine this offering into law by mandating colleges to provide an adviser when a student requires one.

Assembly Bill 1575, introduced by Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin in February 2023, gives students who receive a disciplinary notification the right to an adviser of their choosing while requiring postsecondary education institutions to provide training for the adviser. This assistance aims to help students navigate the disciplinary processes, which are often laden with distress, anxiety, and uncertainty.

Even though the bill’s implementation is not mandatory for private universities like Stanford, it will hold as law for all California community colleges, California State Universities, and University of California campuses. Assemblymember Irwin hopes that the potential success of this model will encourage private universities to follow suit.

Beyond Katie’s narrative, the need for such legislation becomes even more evident considering the alarming statistics in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which reveals a doubling of suicide cases among NCAA athletes between 2002 and 2022.

While championing this legislation, the Meyer family has also begun to gather public support for the initiative, reaching out to communities via social media platforms and encouraging individuals to write letters backing the bill.

To honor their daughter’s memory, the Meyer family hopes that the enactment of Katie Meyer’s Law will serve as a beacon of hope for students nationwide, ensuring they never have to face challenging situations alone. As psychologist Carrie Hastings states, ” It’s been shown in research that just having one person in your corner can make all the difference.”

The law stands as an emblem of hope and a beacon of support, encapsulating the spirit of Katie, a remarkable girl whose light continues to shine through a law set to change the lives of college students nationwide.

Posted on

Unjust Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Glunt Industries and Merit Capital Partners

End sex / gender discrimination in hiring, Helmer Friedman LLP.

The searchlight of justice has once again illuminated the dark corners of discrimination, this time at Glunt Industries and Merit Capital Partners. According to charges filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01687-CAB), these companies infringed upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by perpetuating gender discrimination in hiring practices and retaliating against individuals who dared to defy this destructive status quo.

When Merit Capital Partners purchased Glunt Industries in 2012, they gained control of a major player in the USA’s fabricating and machining industry. However, behind the scenes, an antiquated and biased approach to hiring simmered. Allegedly, these companies excluded women from production roles, a clear contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination because of sex.

This exclusionary bias extended to employees within the company. When the HR director, a woman herself, stood against these practices and continued hiring women, she was summarily dismissed. Taking their disregard for policy and justice a notch higher, the accused companies also purportedly discarded records of applicants, thereby flouting federal record-keeping laws.

The history of women’s employment rights in the United States is marred by such discriminatory practices. From being unable to find work and struggling to support their families, women have paved a long, hard path toward equal employment opportunities. The Civil Rights Act was a watershed moment in this journey, providing legal safeguards against bias in the workplace, particularly in hiring.

The law requires employers to maintain records of applicants to ensure transparency and accountability. This mandate is encapsulated in Section 1602.14 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The companies’ alleged disregard of this law underscores the importance of vigilance in enforcing such protections.

If you or someone you know suspects they have been a victim of employment discrimination based on sex or gender, remember – you are not alone, nor are you without recourse. It’s essential to seek advice from a qualified employment law attorney. Look no further than Helmer Friedman LLP, who has literally written the ‘book‘ on employment law. They are well-equipped to navigate the complexities of such cases and can guide you towards securing the justice you deserve.

Remember, laws are not just created to protect us; they ensure an equitable society where everyone can contribute and thrive without bias. Therefore, standing up against discrimination is not just about justice for one, but about progress for all.

Posted on

Legal Challenges to Genetic Information Disclosure in the Workplace

Genetic information nondiscrimination act lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Established in 2008, GINA is a groundbreaking federal law in the United States aimed at preventing genetic discrimination in healthcare and employment. This critical legislation makes it illegal for health insurers and employers to discriminate based on genetic information, addressing rising concerns related to advances in genetic testing and the potential misuse of genetic data. Recent legal cases illustrate the enforcement of these protections, but first, let’s discuss why the law was necessary.

History of Genetic Discrimination

The path toward non-discrimination based on genetic information traces back to the early 20th century. The emerging field of genetics once underpinned state laws that mandated the sterilization of individuals deemed to have genetic “defects.” Traits such as mental illness, epilepsy, and even visual and auditory impairments were targeted. Indiana was the first to enact such a law in 1907, and by 1981, many states had followed suit, seeking to “correct” what they perceived as genetic flaws.

National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act

Genetic information extends beyond physical attributes and defects; it can also lead to social discrimination, particularly when certain conditions are linked to specific racial and ethnic groups. A prominent example occurred in the 1970s with the implementation of genetic screening programs for sickle cell anemia, primarily affecting African Americans. As states made these screenings mandatory for this population, fear and discrimination surged. Fortunately, Congress intervened in 1972 by passing the National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act, which prohibited mandatory screenings and helped diminish some of the stigma associated with the condition.

Pre-Employment Genetic Screening

However, genetic discrimination did not cease there. In the late 20th century, Congress uncovered instances of workplace genetic discrimination, notably at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, where pre-employment genetic screenings were conducted. Following a court ruling in favor of the employees (Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory), it became clear to Congress that there was a compelling public interest in preventing such discrimination.

This realization led to the establishment of federal laws addressing genetic discrimination in health insurance and employment—a significant step towards protecting individuals from genetic biases. Nonetheless, these laws were not comprehensive, as state laws varied widely in their approaches and levels of protection. Recognizing these inconsistencies and the concerns they raised among the public and the medical community, Congress deemed it essential to introduce federal legislation that would set a national, uniform standard. This initiative aimed to fully protect the public from genetic discrimination and promote the beneficial use of genetic testing, technologies, and research without fear.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

Specifically, GINA prohibits insurers from denying coverage or imposing higher premiums solely based on an individual’s genetic predisposition to certain diseases. It also forbids employers from using genetic information in hiring, firing, or promotion decisions. By enforcing these protections, GINA plays a vital role in safeguarding individuals’ rights to privacy, ensuring that their genetic data does not adversely affect their professional lives. By creating an environment where individuals can pursue genetic testing without fear of repercussions, GINA fosters greater awareness and proactive management of personal health.

The enforcement of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) is becoming increasingly evident.

GINA Enforcement

  • EEOC Ruling: On June 8, 2016, a federal judge determined that Grisham Farm Products, Inc., located in Mountain Grove, Missouri, violated federal laws by mandating that all job applicants submit a health history prior to consideration for employment. Phillip Sullivan, a retired law enforcement officer, was informed that he would not be eligible for any positions unless he completed a three-page health history form. As a result, the farm was ordered to pay Sullivan $10,000 in damages.
  • ResourceOne Settlement: On August 14, 2024, ResourceOne, a commercial printing, direct mailing, and marketing company based in Tulsa, agreed to settle a harassment lawsuit by paying $47,500 and offering additional relief. The lawsuit alleged racial and national origin discrimination after a supervisor reportedly harassed an employee with derogatory slurs following the disclosure of her DNA ancestry results.
  • AbbVie Lawsuit: A lawsuit against AbbVie alleges that during a physical examination at the company’s facility, a medical provider required the plaintiff to disclose, both verbally and in writing, whether any diseases or disorders with a genetic predisposition were present in his parents, including cardiac conditions, cancer, and diabetes.
  • United Airlines Class Action: In a class action lawsuit, three plaintiffs—two from Illinois and one from Maryland—asserted that as part of United Airlines’ application process, they were compelled to undergo physical examinations during which they were questioned about their family medical history, including conditions such as high blood pressure, cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. They contended that providing this information was a prerequisite for their employment.
  • Country Club Retirement Center: Operators of assisted living and skilled nursing facilities violated federal laws when they discriminated and retaliated against a former nursing aide, a disabled veteran, and required her to disclose information about her family genetic history.

If you believe you have been required to provide a medical history or that your genetic information has been used to discriminate against you, it is prudent to consult with an experienced employment discrimination attorney.