Posts

Posted on

Disguise of Age Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

Disguising age discrimination, wrongful termination using fake performance reviews.

When Linda received the termination letter, its sterile language citing “performance issues” felt like a slap in the face after 25 years of unwavering loyalty to her company. Bewilderment quickly morphed into disbelief as she recalled the countless annual reviews, each more glowing than the last. “I had been praised for my contributions year after year,” the 61-year-old former marketing manager reflected, her voice tinged with heartbreak. “Yet, in an instant, I was told I was no longer meeting expectations.” It wasn’t until she inadvertently overheard a department manager discussing plans to “bring in fresh, young talent” that the unnerving truth began to crystallize—her dismissal was not rooted in performance but rather in age.

Linda’s experience is far from isolated. In a troubling trend sweeping through industries, employers have increasingly turned to exculpatory documentation—a sophisticated means of obscuring acts of unlawful age discrimination or masking wrongful termination practices. This disturbing shift not only infringes on employee rights but also raises significant legal and ethical dilemmas that organizations must confront head-on.

What Is Exculpatory Documentation?

Exculpatory documentation encompasses an array of paperwork or records that employers fabricate to rationalize potentially unlawful employment actions, such as terminations, shielding themselves from legal repercussions. This subterfuge could involve retroactive performance reviews, concocted infractions, or meticulously drafted memos designed to cast employees in a disparaging light. While these documents may appear legitimate at first glance, their true purpose often serves to construct a defensive fortress against potential lawsuits related to age discrimination or wrongful termination, particularly under legislation like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

“The utilization of such tactics is profoundly alarming,” emphasizes an attorney specializing in wrongful termination claims. “Rather than cultivating equitable workplaces, companies are weaponizing documentation to protect themselves while systematically undermining employees’ legal safeguards against discrimination.”

How Employers Exploit Exculpatory Documentation to Target Older Employees

Despite the legal prohibitions against age discrimination, this insidious practice continues to thrive in workplaces across the nation. According to reports from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), complaints related to age account for over 20% of all discrimination claims filed annually. The challenge lies in gathering the evidence necessary to substantiate claims of age discrimination, especially when employers intentionally create misleading records to justify their actions.

Here’s how this disturbing narrative often unfolds:

  • Sudden Decline in Performance Ratings

    After years of consistent commendation, older employees may suddenly find themselves the recipients of unfavorable performance reviews. Employers can inflate minor missteps or fabricate issues entirely, knowing these reviews will later serve as “evidence” if the employee dares to contest their termination in court.

  • The “Documentation Trail”

    Employers frequently construct extensive paper trails detailing alleged infractions—instances of tardiness, miscommunication, or missed deadlines are documented with an alarming selectivity. These notes often exaggerate trivial mistakes or omit crucial context, painting older employees as incompetent or unqualified for their roles.

  • Silent Preferences for a Younger Workforce

    Behind closed doors, age discrimination often masquerades as “strategic shifts” meant to modernize or rejuvenate the company. However, what is often veiled as “progress” frequently acts as a thinly disguised campaign to target older employees through methods designed to slip beneath the radar of scrutiny.

How Exculpatory Practices Disguise Wrongful Termination

Rather than cultivating equitable workplaces, companies are weaponizing documentation to protect themselves while systematically undermining employees’ legal safeguards against discrimination.

Proving wrongful termination requires compelling evidence that a firing was unlawful. However, when exculpatory documentation is meticulously crafted, employers can manipulate the narrative to convince observers their decisions stand on solid ground. This calculated obfuscation undermines the allegations of age discrimination and shifts the burden of proof onto the terminated employee. “It complicates cases significantly because, in court, the burden often rests heavily on the employee’s shoulders,” explains employment lawyer.

 

The implications of such practices extend far beyond individual employees to the workplace at large:

  • Workplace Fear and Distrust

    Colleagues who witness unjust terminations may feel an overwhelming sense of fear, hesitant to speak out against systemic discriminatory practices, thus fostering an insidious culture of silence.

  • Erosion of Organizational Morale

    The chilling ramifications of wrongful terminations reverberate through the workforce, eroding morale and instilling feelings of vulnerability, particularly among older staff members who may fear for their own job security.

 

In this landscape, the battle against age discrimination remains perilous, necessitating vigilance and advocacy to protect the rights of those who have dedicated years to their professions.

It wasn’t until she inadvertently overheard a department manager discussing plans to “bring in fresh, young talent” that the unnerving truth began to crystallize—her dismissal was not rooted in performance but rather in age.

How Can Employees Protect Themselves?

Navigating the murky waters of exculpatory documentation is no easy feat, but there are steps employees can take to protect themselves.

  1. Request Written Records

    If you notice sudden changes to your performance reviews or shift assignments, request formal documentation outlining specific concerns and expectations. Often, companies will hesitate to put unfounded claims into writing.

  2. Keep Your Own Records

    Maintain personal files of performance reviews, emails, and written commendations. These documents can serve as vital evidence if discrepancies occur in the employer’s narrative during litigation.

  3. Challenge Unfair Documentation Immediately

    Address dubious claims head-on by discussing them with HR or your direct supervisor in writing. Document your objections and ensure you keep copies of all interactions.

  4. Seek Legal Counsel Early

    If you suspect age discrimination or retaliation, consulting with an employment lawyer experienced in handling wrongful termination claims is crucial. They can advise you on the strength of your case and guide you through the complexities of employment law.

Holding Employers Accountable

Organizations need to understand that subtle age discrimination and wrongful termination practices are not only unethical but often illegal under U.S. labor laws. Misusing documentation is a short-sighted solution that will ultimately harm businesses through potential lawsuits, reputational damage, and the loss of talent.

“As long as companies use exculpatory methods you’re going to see more lawsuits than they anticipate,” warns employment lawyer. “No document—fabricated or not—will gloss over the sheer unfairness of systemic workplace discrimination.”

Know Your Rights

Employees have the right to be treated fairly and judged solely on their performance—not their age or any demographic factors that reflect bias. Whether you’ve been subjected to suspicious performance reviews or suspect age discrimination in your firing, employment laws are in place to safeguard against these injustices.

Have questions about your rights or wrongful termination? Reach out for expert guidance to determine your next steps. You deserve to work in an environment that values your contributions regardless of your age.

Don’t allow exculpatory practices to rewrite your story. Stay informed, stand your ground, and, when in doubt, seek legal counsel to ensure justice is served.

Posted on

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was the first Black woman to sit on the nation’s highest court in its 223-year history.

Helmer Friedman LLP discusses President Bidens nomination of Judge Brown Jacksons to SCOTUS.Judge Jackson, who clerked for Justice Breyer, worked as a public defender, a corporate attorney, a U.S. District Court judge, and a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

 

“If I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Judge Jackson commented in her prepared remarks about her nomination, “I can only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and the Constitution and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great nation was founded, will inspire future generations of Americans.”

Since joining the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has made valuable contributions, including writing a notable dissenting opinion in the Court’s ruling on presidential immunity involving then-former President Donald Trump. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the majority’s decision “breaks new and dangerous ground” by granting a former president immunity from prosecution for certain official acts. She expressed concern that this ruling could exempt presidents from legal liability for serious criminal acts as long as they claim their actions were “official acts.”

Jackson’s dissent emphasized the importance of holding presidents accountable for their actions and warned that the ruling could have disastrous consequences for democracy.

 

Posted on

Pregnant and Fired? The Deceptive Tactics Employers Use to Hide Discrimination

Pregnancy discrimination lawyers Beverly Hills Helmer Friedman LLP.

Imagine this scenario. You’re excelling at your job, hitting your performance targets, and receiving positive feedback from your boss. Then, one day, you announce you’re pregnant. Suddenly, subtle shifts start happening—projects reassigned, responsibilities reduced, and weekly one-on-ones morph into detailed critiques of your “sudden dip” in performance. Weeks later, you’re called into a meeting and handed a termination letter. The documented reason? Performance issues.

This chilling pattern is a reality for many pregnant workers today, and new cases are highlighting the deceptive lengths employers will go to justify such discriminatory actions. Below, we’ll dig into specific cases involving wrongful termination due to pregnancy, explore the legal measures in place, and outline what you, as a worker, should know.

Performance Pretext and the Role of Exculpatory Paper Trails

Pregnancy discrimination is not new. While the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) explicitly prohibits employers from firing or discriminating against workers based on pregnancy, some employers bypass the law by masking their biases under the guise of performance-based terminations. Central to their strategy is the creation of exculpatory paper trails—detailed documentation designed to preemptively justify termination and absolve the employer of discrimination claims in court.

For pregnant workers, this translates to hyper-scrutinization and the sudden creation of a “record” to support claims of underperformance. These paper trails can paint a damning picture that often does not reflect the reality of the employee’s contributions, trying to make it difficult for workers to prove their termination was rooted in discrimination.

Case Spotlights

Mathew v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

Reena Mathew, a high-performing employee at Santander Consumer USA, claimed she was targeted after announcing her pregnancy. Her once-positive performance reviews allegedly became alarmingly negative. Santander created a paper trail documenting numerous “performance shortcomings” leading up to her termination. Mathew pushed back, asserting that this was contrived to mask the true motive—her pregnancy. The court sided with Mathew, uncovering glaring inconsistencies in the employer’s claims.

Wyatt v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

A similar narrative unfolded in Wyatt v. Publix. When Tiffany Wyatt informed her supervisors of her pregnancy, the quality of her performance reviews plummeted inexplicably. Publix claimed declining performance justified her firing. Wyatt, however, provided evidence highlighting the timing of her termination, linking it directly to her due date; Publix fired her, purportedly for completing work without being logged in, although it allegedly never told her this was a problem and didn’t discipline similarly situated workers who weren’t pregnant, the complaint stated.

Zarak v. Netflix

Netflix, often celebrated for its workplace progressivism, faced scrutiny when employee Tania Zarak alleged pregnancy discrimination. She claimed that after disclosing her pregnancy, her team began excluding her from meetings and criticizing minor details of her work that had never been an issue before. Zarak was fired after her boss, Francisco Ramos, became aware of her plans to take maternity leave. According to Zarak, he first pressured her to resign, suggesting that they could negotiate some form of payment or insurance arrangement to facilitate her departure.

The case serves as a troubling example of how even companies with progressive reputations are not immune to engaging in discriminatory practices.

The Legal Lens on Pregnancy Discrimination

These cases underscore the critical role of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) and other workplace protections embedded in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, including the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations. While these laws are clear in their intent, proving a violation can sometimes seem a Herculean task.

Burden of Proof

In discrimination cases, employees must present strong evidence showing that adverse actions, like termination, were directly related to pregnancy. Employers often rely on their documentation—such as performance reviews—to argue that terminations were lawful. However, attorneys play a critical role in uncovering inconsistencies in this documentation to reveal the true reason for termination.

For instance, when an employee with a history of positive performance reviews is suddenly terminated for alleged performance issues, attorneys can investigate whether these justifications hold up. They look for signs of uneven application of performance standards, biased evaluation metrics, or abrupt changes in feedback patterns. By examining the timing, context, and motives behind these documents, attorneys can expose discrepancies that suggest the termination was actually related to pregnancy. This deeper analysis often uncovers a more troubling reality that contradicts the employer’s stated reasons for termination.

Remedies for Unlawful Termination

If an employee successfully proves discrimination, remedies can include:

  • Back Pay: Compensation for lost wages from the date of firing to the resolution of the case.
  • Reinstatement: Returning to their position (if feasible).
  • Compensatory and Punitive Damages: For emotional distress and to punish unlawful conduct.

Some states also have additional worker protection laws that grant expanded remedies or impose stricter penalties on violators.

Empowering Pregnant Workers

The reality of pregnancy discrimination is daunting, but workers aren’t powerless. Here’s how you can protect yourself if you feel targeted at your workplace:

  1. Document Everything

Keep thorough records of interactions with your employer, including emails, performance reviews, and informal feedback. This can help build your case if discrimination occurs.

  1. Understand Your Rights

Familiarize yourself with the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 and related state laws to ensure you know what protections you’re entitled to.

  1. Seek Legal Advice

Don’t wait until things escalate. Consulting an employment attorney early can help you understand your options and prepare a strategic response to discriminatory treatment.

Concluding Thoughts

The systemic nature of pregnancy discrimination reflects broader inequities in the workplace. While many companies hide behind performance claims, exposing these lies and ensuring accountability is possible—and crucial for fostering a just labor landscape.

If you’re facing termination or other adverse actions at work after announcing your pregnancy, know that you’re not alone. Seek support, lean on credible legal resources, and consider shining a light on the injustices you’re experiencing. Empowering pregnant workers is key to dismantling these pretexts and building a fairer workplace for all.

Posted on

Understanding Employment Cases of 2024 and Their Impacts on Employees

High Court Ruling on employment cases.

1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis:

This case ruled that employees alleging a discriminatory job transfer do not need to demonstrate significant harm, only “some harm.” This decision simplifies the process for proving harm in discriminatory job transfer cases.

2. Murray v. UBS Securities:

The court emphasized that a whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act only needs to show that their protected activity was a contributing factor to an adverse employment action. This effectively lowers the burden of proof for whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

3. Okonowsky v. Garland:

This case concluded that a coworker’s social media posts can be considered when assessing a Title VII claim for a hostile work environment. This allows social media evidence to be used in harassment cases.

4. Rajaram v. Meta Platforms:

The ruling prohibits discrimination against U.S. citizens based on their citizenship status, extending protections to U.S. citizens.

5. Daramola v. Oracle America:

The court clarified that the anti-retaliation provisions of certain laws do not apply outside of the United States, limiting protections under anti-retaliation laws for employees working abroad.

6. Castellanos v. State of California:

This ruling upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which limits protections for workers classified as independent contractors.

7. Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office:

The case established that a single use of a racial slur can be actionable for creating a hostile work environment, thereby strengthening protections against racial harassment in the workplace.

8. Quach v. California Commerce Club:

This decision determined that a party opposing arbitration does not need to show prejudice to establish a waiver of their right to arbitration, which protects employees from unfair arbitration agreements.

9. Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors:

The court ruled that time spent on an employer’s premises for security inspections is compensable as “hours worked,” ensuring employees are fairly compensated for time spent on work-related activities.

10. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services:

The ruling stated that an employer is not liable for penalties under Labor Code section 226 if wage statements were provided in good faith. This sets a precedent for employer liability in cases relating to wage statements.

11. Vazquez v. SaniSure:

The court decided that an arbitration agreement signed during one period of employment may not apply to subsequent employment. This clarifies the applicability of arbitration agreements across different employment periods.

12. Mar v. Perkins:

Employees were found to be bound by an arbitration agreement if they continue working after a policy modification, establishing that continued employment constitutes consent to arbitration.

13. Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto:

This ruling protects employees from defamation claims related to HR complaints by defining pre-litigation statements made to HR as conditionally privileged protected activity.

14. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines:

The court mandated that plaintiff comparators need to be similar “in all relevant respects” for discrimination cases, strengthening the standard for using comparators in such cases.

15. Shah v. Skillz Inc.:

The court clarified that stocks are not considered wages under the Labor Code, elucidating the treatment of stocks in employment cases.

Are you being harassed or discriminated against in your workplace? At Helmer Friedman LLP, we have highly qualified employment law attorneys ready to fight on your behalf. Don’t suffer in silence; reach out to us for expert legal representation. At our firm, you’re not just a number—you’re a valued individual deserving justice and equity. Contact us today.

This post is based on information published recently in Advocate Magazine authored by Andrew Friedman and Erin Kelly. READ MORE…
Posted on

Republic First Bancorp Inc. Settles Sexual Harassment Case Amidst Bank’s Downfall

The law ensures a workplace free from sexual harassment -Helmer Friedman LLP.

Last week, Republic First Bancorp Inc. concluded a tumultuous chapter by reaching a settlement in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former employee. The case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania following this agreement.

The lawsuit was brought by Jasmine Zuber, a former universal banker at Republic First, who alleged that she was wrongfully terminated due to a fabricated claim of a cash-drawer imbalance. According to Zuber, the true reason for her termination was retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by her supervisor.

Zuber and her supervisor, Hall, had initially engaged in a consensual sexual encounter at work. However, the situation deteriorated when Hall repeatedly sought further sexual interaction, leading to confrontational incidents. After receiving a text message from Zuber urging Hall to transfer or face repercussions from HR, branch manager Leitz and HR Director Zangrilli intervened. Although they assigned different shifts to Zuber and Hall after their discussions, Zuber’s position was soon jeopardized when her teller drawer was allegedly found to contain an overage of $1,000.

As events unfolded, the Bank relieved both Zuber and Hall of their duties, citing the cash-drawer discrepancy for Zuber and a violation of the Bank’s fraternization policy for Hall.

Sadly, the sexual harassment lawsuit was not the only challenge Republic First faced. In February 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities seized the Bank amid rumors of a potential buyer. This occurred after the Bank was delisted from Nasdaq for failing to provide its fiscal year 2022 report, further damaging its credibility.

In its efforts to explain the absence of the report, the Bank blamed the shortcomings of its former executive team, which had failed to maintain adequate internal controls. Alarmingly, the Bank’s auditors had previously warned of “material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.”

Fulton Bank subsequently took over the operations of Republic First’s 32 branches across Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, promising to revitalize them under the Fulton Bank brand. The seizure of Republic First marked the fourth such case since 2023, sending a strong message about the dangers of inadequate internal controls and unethical workplace practices.

If you or someone you know has faced harassment at the workplace, know that there are paths to take. Contact an experienced employment attorney and hold corporations accountable for creating safe and fair work environments. Speaking up about harassment isn’t just about personal justice—it’s about ensuring that nobody else has to endure the same abuse.

Posted on

Charlotte E. Ray

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

In 1872, Charlotte Ray became the first black female attorney in the United States. She was active in the NAACP and the suffragist movement.

Fun fact: she applied to and was admitted to Howard University Law School under the name “C. E. Ray,” in a possible attempt to hide her gender. #BlackHistoryMonth

Posted on

California Worker Freedom Act Explained (SB 399)

Captured ideas

SB399: The Worker Freedom From Employment Intimidation Act

California has long been a legislative trailblazer, driving progressive reforms that protect employees’ rights and promote workplace equity. The introduction of Senate Bill 399, also known as the California Worker Freedom from Employment Intimidation Act (the Act), is yet another step toward ensuring that employees can work free from coercion or fear.

This blog unpacks the intricacies of California Senate Bill 399 and what it means for employees across the state. Whether you’re an employee concerned about workplace protections or an employer navigating compliance, this guide helps clarify the Act’s key provisions, its impact, and its implications for the future of the workforce in California.

What Is California Senate Bill 399?

California Senate Bill 399 (SB 399) addresses a critical issue that many workers face but may not openly discuss—intimidation or coercion by employers during work hours, especially regarding personal beliefs, political activities, or unionization efforts. Championed by labor advocates, SB 399 makes it illegal for California employers to compel workers to participate in meetings or activities unrelated to their job performance, particularly if those meetings involve political or religious discussions.

Titled the “California Worker Freedom from Employment Intimidation Act,” the bill seeks to draw a line between professional obligations and personal autonomy, highlighting the state’s commitment to defending the rights of its workers.

How the Act Affects California Employees

For California employees, SB 399 represents a significant victory. Under the Act, employers are restricted from requiring workers to attend or engage in activities where political or religious positions may be endorsed or mandated. This change empowers employees with the freedom to maintain their personal beliefs without feeling pressured to conform to their employer’s stance.

For example, imagine being asked to attend a mandatory meeting endorsing a particular political candidate or initiative unrelated to your role. Under SB 399, such coercion is now prohibited, giving workers the peace of mind that their job security does not hinge on aligning with their employer’s political or religious preferences.

Key Provisions of SB 399

Here are the foundational protections and provisions of the Act:

  1. Prohibited Activities

According to SB 399, employers cannot require employees to participate in workplace meetings or discussions regarding:

  • Political issues or opinions
  • Religious beliefs or practices
  • Support or opposition to labor union activities
  1. Retaliation Safeguards

Any form of retaliation against an employee for refusing to participate in these discussions is strictly forbidden. This includes terminating, demoting, or discriminating against workers exercising their rights under the Act.

  1. Exemptions for Religious Organizations

Religious organizations are granted limited exemptions under SB 399. If an employer’s primary purpose is religious, conversations concerning faith may legally occur as part of the work environment, given that they directly relate to the organization’s mission.

  1. Employee Right to Recourse

Workers who believe their rights under the Act have been violated can pursue legal recourse. Employees may file complaints through California’s Labor Commissioner, or, in some cases, take legal action against their employer to seek compensation or remediation.

These provisions collectively aim to protect employees from unnecessary coercion in their workplace, ensuring their personal beliefs are not used as leverage by their employer.

The Legislative Pathway of SB 399

Every piece of legislation goes through a rigorous process before becoming law, and SB 399 is no different. Introduced by Senator Maria Elena Durazo, the bill garnered widespread support from workers’ advocates, labor unions, and civil rights organizations.

The California Legislature debated numerous elements of the bill, particularly its broader implications for employer-employee relationships. Proponents highlighted its role in improving workplace fairness, while critics raised questions about unintended consequences or challenges in enforcing the law. Ultimately, SB 399 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, solidifying California’s stance against workplace intimidation.

The Act’s Implications for Employers and Employees

SB 399 has implications for both employees and their employers. For employees, the Act guarantees stronger workplace protections, enhancing trust and equity. It fosters an environment where individuals feel safe to express themselves and retain their autonomy over personal beliefs.

For employers, SB 399 necessitates a careful re-evaluation of workplace policies. Conducting mandatory meetings or communicating organizational endorsements of political or religious beliefs can now present legal risks. Organizations must adapt their internal procedures to ensure full compliance with the Act’s requirements – missteps could lead to costly lawsuits or reputational damage.

Compliance and Implementation Guidelines for Employers

Employers can follow these steps to ensure smooth implementation and compliance with SB 399:

  1. Educate Leadership and HR Teams

Train leadership and HR staff to understand the nuances of SB 399. This includes clearly distinguishing between permissible workplace discussions and those that fall under the Act’s prohibitions.

  1. Update Employee Handbooks

Update company policies and employee handbooks to reflect the new rights protected under SB 399, ensuring transparency for workers.

  1. Develop Clear Complaint Mechanisms

Establish straightforward processes where employees can report suspected violations anonymously without fear of retaliation.

  1. Consult Legal Experts

Legal counsel familiar with employment law in California can assist in aligning policies with all facets of SB 399, reducing the risk of inadvertent violations.

By taking proactive steps, employers can ensure compliance while preserving an equitable workplace environment.

Future Outlook and Potential Revisions to SB 399

The passage of SB 399 sets a strong precedent for similar legislation at both the state and federal levels. Moving forward, policymakers may consider refining aspects of the bill, such as tightening its language to address potential loopholes or adding more robust enforcement frameworks.

Additionally, SB 399 is likely to spur conversations around balancing employer rights with employee protections beyond political or religious contexts. For example, as debates around workplace data privacy intensify, new legal developments could build upon the framework SB 399 has established.

Why SB 399 Matters for California Workers

California Senate Bill 399 represents a bold step forward in safeguarding worker freedoms. Far too often, the boundaries between professional obligations and personal beliefs can blur, creating environments where employees feel pressured to compromise their values. This Act affirms the rights of California workers to uphold their individuality without fear of retaliation or coercion.

By aligning workplace practices with this new legislation, California employers have the opportunity to lead by example and foster environments that respect diversity and encourage authentic employee engagement.

If you’re a California employee seeking further clarity on your rights or an employer looking to implement compliant practices, seek guidance from reputable legal professionals or labor organizations.

Chamber of Commerce Lawsuit to Stop Enforcement

The California Chamber of Commerce’s lawsuit to block SB 399 highlights the friction between protecting workers’ rights and preserving long-standing employer practices. The Chamber represents numerous business interests and has historically opposed legislation perceived as limiting employer authority or imposing new compliance burdens. Captive audience meetings, which the legislation seeks to restrict, have remained a tool for employers to disseminate messaging, particularly during union organizing efforts or discussions on workplace policies. By challenging SB 399, the Chamber aims to preserve these employer-led forums, which critics argue can coerce employees into engaging with one-sided rhetoric. This dynamic underscores the Chamber’s vested interest in maintaining practices that enable employers to control workplace narratives, often to the detriment of unbiased employee decision-making.

Posted on

Sarah Glenn: A Testimony of Resilience and Integrity

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

In September 2020, Sarah Glenn began her tenure as the Small Systems Certified Water Plant Operator for the city of Florence, Colorado. A professional, knowledgeable, and highly qualified woman in her field, Glenn brought unmatched integrity to her position. However, her time at the city’s water treatment plant was marred by repeated instances of sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The culprits? Two city employees, Lori Cobler and Brandon Harris.

Glenn attests that Brandon Harris, the city’s Water Superintendent and Operator since 2015, showed a history of improper behavior during his tenure. His record included infractions such as using government-owned equipment for personal use and working under the influence of alcohol. Despite these serious allegations, Harris was allowed to retain his position. A flagrant example of male privilege, his shortcomings, and malfeasance were swept under the rug, even as Glenn’s allegations of sexual harassment based on her sex were dismissed or outright ignored.

Moreover, Glenn was defamed by Lori Cobler, the city’s Finance Director and interim Human Resources Director. She spread false information about Glenn, damaging her reputation and work ethic and ultimately leading to her termination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) explicitly protect employees from sexual harassment and retaliation. Yet, despite these clear legal guidelines, Glenn was subject to an abusive work environment.

This scenario shines a spotlight on a pervasive issue in our society: men, especially those in higher positions, are often allowed to underperform with impunity, while others – particularly minorities and women – are held to an impossibly high standard. Those who are professional, knowledgeable, and highly qualified for their jobs can often highlight the inadequacies of these men, making them targets of retaliation and malicious behavior.

The journey to justice for Sarah Glenn has been long and arduous, but the ultimate victory serves as a potent reminder of the importance of standing up to discrimination and retaliation. The first step toward justice is knowing your rights and seeking legal counsel. With the support of an employment law attorney, Glenn fought back against her oppressors and received a total settlement of $195,000. This sum accounted for her lost wages, non-wage damages, attorney fees, and case expenses.

Discrimination and retaliation have no place in a respectful and professional environment. It’s important to hold those who behave otherwise accountable. Drawing strength from Sarah Glenn’s story, let’s pledge to confront such situations head-on and ensure our workplaces are safe and respectful spaces for everyone.

Seeking advice from an experienced employment law attorney is crucial whenever you, a family member, or a friend suspect sexual discrimination in the workplace. These legal professionals possess the expertise needed to assess your situation, provide guidance on your rights, and chart the best course of action. Sexual discrimination often goes unaddressed due to fear or uncertainty, but consulting with a qualified attorney can empower individuals to take informed steps toward justice. An attorney acts as a critical advocate, ensuring that your voice is heard and that those responsible are held accountable for their actions.

Posted on

Thurgood Marshall

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Thurgood Marshall made immeasurable strides for the civil rights movement during his lifetime.

Working under his mentor and well-known civil rights icon Charles Hamilton Houston at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Marshall successfully argued Brown v. Board of Education which famously declared unconstitutional the “separate but equal” doctrine.

In 1965, Marshall became the first black person appointed to the post of U.S. Solicitor General. Two years later, he became the first black person appointed to the United States Supreme Court, where he served until 1991.

Posted on

Tech Industry Retaliation Misusing The Defend Trade Secrets Laws

Trust the attorneys of Helmer Friedman LLP to aggressively protect employee rights to a workplace free from discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

In the complex and ever-changing world of business, the laws established to protect trade secrets have recently been turned on their head. Instead of safeguarding proprietary information, a troubling trend is emerging where these laws are being employed as a weapon against employees. Companies across a wide spectrum of industries are cleverly exploiting trade secrets legislation as a legal strategy to strike back against claims of discrimination, unethical behavior, and whistleblowing.

This tactical approach accuses employees of misusing confidential information or proprietary business data. Strikingly, companies pursue these accusations even in instances where the information was procured or disseminated for valid reasons. These may include exposing illegal activities or reporting workplace misconduct.

Some workers were sued after gathering evidence of perceived wrongdoing in the workplace, what some attorneys call “self-help discovery” — despite whistleblower protections in the law.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act, championed and signed into law by President Barack Obama in 2016, ironically offers the legal foundation these companies need to launch trade secrets claims in federal courts. Under the provisions of this law, a trade secret is deemed misappropriated if it was accessed or unveiled without consent or through inappropriate methods, with no consideration given to whether it was shared with a competitor. This act has consequently lowered the bar for companies intent on taking legal action against employees suspected of breaching trade secrets.

For employees who have clues or evidence about such instances, it is crucial to contact an employment law attorney who specializes in employment law and has experience with whistleblower reporting. Legal professionals in this field can offer advice and represent individuals confronted with accusations of trade secrets as a form of employer retaliation. Having a clear understanding of your rights and available options when facing these potential legal hurdles is of paramount importance.

In conclusion, the fallout from the misuse of trade secrets laws to punish employees can be severe, encompassing financial setbacks, reputation damage, and emotional trauma. However, through a heightened awareness of this issue and by acquiring legal assistance, individuals can better shield themselves and fight back against unjust retaliation from employers.

This post was based on information in an article by Rob Price, a senior correspondent for Business Insider, who writes features and investigations about the technology industry.