Posts

Posted on

Whistleblower Protections & Environmental Safety: A 2026 Update

Environmental Whistleblowers are vital to our survival - Whistleblower lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Silence Is Toxic: How Whistleblowers Safeguard Environmental Safety

The difference between a safe community and an environmental disaster often comes down to a single voice. While regulations exist on paper, the reality of industrial operations is frequently hidden behind closed doors, construction fencing, and non-disclosure agreements. It is here, in the gap between legal requirements and daily practice, that the whistleblower becomes the most critical line of defense for public safety.

When workers speak up about toxic dumping, unsafe chemical handling, or air pollution, they are doing more than filing a complaint—they are preventing long-term ecological damage and protecting public health. However, the decision to speak out is rarely easy. It involves significant personal risk, often pitting an individual’s livelihood against their employer’s interests.

Understanding the protections available to these individuals is essential for fostering a culture of transparency. By examining recent legal precedents and federal statutes, we can see how the law is evolving to shield those who refuse to stay silent in the face of environmental negligence.

The High Price of Doing the Right Thing: A 2026 Case Study

The theoretical importance of whistleblower protection became a stark reality in Houston earlier this year. On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a significant ruling against two Texas-based construction companies, Rise Construction LLC and Niko Group LLC.

Following Hurricane Beryl, these companies were tasked with repairing a hotel. During the process, two employees noticed alarming practices regarding the handling of asbestos—a known carcinogen. They raised concerns to the owners, Jivar and Jessica Foty, regarding a lack of specialized training, missing asbestos certifications, the absence of necessary personal protective equipment (PPE), and the illegal dumping of asbestos materials.

Rather than addressing these safety hazards, the employers fired the workers.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) launched an investigation and determined that the terminations were a direct act of retaliation. The ruling was decisive: the companies were ordered to reinstate the employees and pay over $200,000 in back wages, interest, and punitive damages. This case serves as a powerful reminder that reporting environmental violations is a protected activity, and federal agencies are actively enforcing consequences for employers who prioritize profit over safety compliance.

Understanding Protected Activities

To understand how the law protects workers, one must first understand what constitutes a “protected activity.” It is not merely a general grievance; specific federal acts provide the legal framework for reporting environmental hazards. In the Houston case, OSHA cited violations under three major statutes.

The Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act defines the EPA’s responsibilities for protecting and improving the nation’s air quality. When an employee reports that their company is releasing hazardous pollutants into the atmosphere—or, in the case of asbestos, allowing fibers to become airborne due to improper containment—they are protected under this act. The law recognizes that air pollution respects no boundaries; a violation inside a construction site can quickly become a health hazard for the surrounding neighborhood.

The Solid Waste Disposal Act

As industrial production and urban expansion increase, so does the volume of discarded material. This act focuses on the proper and economic disposal of solid waste, particularly hazardous materials. Reporting the illegal dumping of toxic substances, such as the asbestos debris in the Houston case, falls squarely under this protection. The act aims to prevent “scenic blights” and public health hazards, acknowledging that improper disposal can contaminate soil and water tables.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

Updated significantly in 2016, the TSCA gives the EPA authority to require reporting and impose restrictions on chemical substances. It specifically addresses materials like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-based paint, and asbestos. If a worker acts as a whistleblower regarding the mishandling of these substances, they are protected under TSCA because these materials present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

The Role of OSHA

While many associate OSHA strictly with hard hats and fall protection, the agency plays a much broader role in environmental law. OSHA’s Whistleblower Protection Program enforces protections for employees under more than 20 federal laws.

OSHA investigators act as neutral fact-finders. They do not work for the employee or the employer. Their objective is to determine if a violation of the statute has occurred. In the context of environmental safety, OSHA effectively serves as the enforcement arm for the EPA’s whistleblower provisions. They ensure that the statutes written to protect the air, water, and soil also protect the human beings brave enough to enforce them from the inside.

Identifying Retaliation in the Workplace

Retaliation is not always as swift or obvious as the immediate firings seen in the Rise Construction LLC case. Often, it is subtle, designed to encourage the employee to quit voluntarily or to discredit their performance. Legal experts define retaliation as a “materially adverse” action taken against an employee for engaging in a protected activity.

Forms of Adverse Action

Beyond termination, illegal retaliation can manifest as:

  • Demotion: A reduction in rank, pay, or status without a valid performance-based justification.
  • Exclusion: Deliberately leaving an employee out of essential meetings, training sessions, or professional development opportunities.
  • Shift Changes: Assigning an employee to undesirable shifts or significantly reducing their hours to impact their income.
  • Hostility: Creating a hostile work environment through verbal abuse, physical intimidation, or unwarranted discipline.

The legal standard is whether the employer’s behavior is severe enough to deter a “reasonable person” from reporting illegal activity. If the action would make an average worker think twice about speaking up, it likely constitutes retaliation.

Employer Responsibilities and Compliance

The burden of safety and compliance rests with the employer. The 2026 ruling against the Houston firms highlights that ignorance or negligence is not a defense. Employers are responsible for maintaining rigorous standards, particularly when dealing with hazardous materials.

This includes maintaining proper records of toxic substances, ensuring that all staff possess the necessary certifications to handle dangerous materials, and providing adequate PPE. Furthermore, employers must foster an environment that encourages internal reporting rather than punishing it. A company that silences safety concerns is likely violating the law.

Resources for Workers: Taking Action

For workers who suspect they are witnessing environmental violations or experiencing retaliation, knowing the correct steps to take is vital.

1. Document Everything

A paper trail is the strongest evidence. Workers should keep detailed records of events, noting dates, times, locations, and the names of witnesses to any retaliatory acts or safety violations. Saving emails and memos that demonstrate a shift in treatment after a report was made is crucial.

2. Report Internally

If the company has a policy for reporting safety concerns, it should be followed. This establishes that the employer was made aware of the issue and had an opportunity to correct it.

3. Seek Legal Counsel

Before you do anything, immediately seek legal representation. The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP routinely help clients handle situations in which whistleblower retaliation may be occurring. Because retaliation cases can be complex and fact-specific, it is very important to bring on board an experienced retaliation attorney who can help evaluate the merits of your claim and guide you through the legal process.

4. Seek Federal Support

Workers can file complaints with OSHA if they believe they have been retaliated against. Additionally, the EPA and the Office of Special Counsel (for federal employees) handle various aspects of whistleblower claims. Time is often of the essence; many statutes have strict filing deadlines, so swift action is recommended.

Building a Safer Future Through Transparency

The relationship between whistleblower protections and environmental safety is undeniable. We cannot have clean air, safe water, or non-toxic soil if the people working closest to these hazards are afraid to speak. The robust enforcement of these laws, as seen in recent DOL actions, sends a clear message to the industry: retaliation carries a heavy price. By protecting the voices that speak out against negligence, we ensure a safer, more compliant industrial environment for everyone.

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

Combating Workplace Sexual Harassment: Your Legal Rights

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

Breaking the Silence: Combating Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The statistics are alarming, but the stories behind them are even more harrowing. According to recent data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sexual harassment complaints are surging. In 2024 alone, complainants filed 35,774 claims, representing a staggering 32% increase since 2022. This sharp rise indicates that despite increased awareness, workplaces across the country remain dangerous environments for thousands of employees.

Sexual harassment is not merely an uncomfortable social interaction; it is an unlawful violation of civil rights that can derail careers and shatter mental health. Whether it manifests as subtle, derogatory comments or overt physical assault, the impact on the victim is profound. For those navigating this difficult terrain, understanding the legal landscape is the first step toward justice. It is crucial to recognize what constitutes harassment, how the law protects employees, and the specific recourse available for those forced to endure a hostile work environment.

Understanding the Legal Definitions

To combat harassment, one must first define it. Both federal and state laws provide clear frameworks for what constitutes illegal conduct. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), harassment based on sex is broadly defined. It includes not only sexual harassment but also gender harassment, gender expression harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

The EEOC creates a distinction between isolated incidents and a pervasive culture of abuse. While the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing or offhand comments, conduct becomes illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment. This occurs when a reasonable person would find the workplace intimidating, hostile, or offensive.

Furthermore, the victim does not have to be the person directly harassed; they can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. The harasser can be a supervisor, a co-worker, or even a non-employee like a client or independent contractor. Crucially, the victim and the harasser can be of any gender, and unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to the victim.

Case Study: The Midwest Farms Settlement

Legal definitions often feel abstract until they are applied to real-world scenarios. A recent case involving a Colorado agribusiness, Midwest Farms, LLC, illustrates the grim reality of unchecked workplace harassment and the consequences for employers who fail to protect their staff.

In February 2026, the EEOC announced a $334,500 settlement with Midwest Farms after an investigation revealed a pattern of routine sexual abuse. The investigation began when a former employee, hired as a swine production trainee, filed a complaint. Her role involved transporting hogs and cleaning buildings, a job that required her to “shower in” at the start of her shift.

The details of the case paint a disturbing picture of power abuse. On at least three occasions, the woman’s manager barged into the women’s dressing room without knocking while she was undressing. In one instance, he watched her shower. In another humiliating power play, he forced her to work a shift in a man’s jumpsuit without undergarments.

When the employee attempted to report this behavior to the production manager, she was told to “work things out” on her own. This failure to act is a common theme in harassment cases. The company not only ignored the complaints but also allegedly retaliated against the women who spoke up. The settlement provided financial restitution to the victim and two others, serving as a reminder that employers are liable for their supervisors’ conduct.

Recognizing the Spectrum of Harassment

Harassment rarely looks the same in every case. It exists on a spectrum, ranging from verbal slurs to physical assault. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing categorizes these behaviors into three distinct types:

Visual Conduct

This includes leering, making sexual gestures, or displaying suggestive objects, pictures, cartoons, or posters. In the digital age, this also extends to sending explicit images or emails. If a workspace is decorated with materials that objectify a specific gender, it contributes to a hostile environment.

Verbal Conduct

This is often the most pervasive form of harassment. It includes making or using derogatory comments, epithets, slurs, and jokes. It also encompasses verbal sexual advances, propositions, and graphic commentaries about an individual’s body. Even “compliments” can be harassment if they are unwanted, sexual in nature, and pervasive.

Physical Conduct

This includes touching, assault, or impeding and blocking movements. As seen in the Midwest Farms case, physical harassment can also involve invasion of privacy, such as intruding on an employee while they are changing or showering.

The Trap of “Constructive Discharge”

A common misconception is that an employee cannot sue for wrongful termination if they quit their job. This is legally incorrect due to the concept of constructive discharge.

Constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns because the working conditions have become so intolerable that a reasonable person in their position would have felt compelled to leave. In the eyes of the law, this is treated as a firing.

In the Midwest Farms case, the victim resigned in November 2018, less than two months after her employment began. She did not leave because she wanted to; she left because the environment was unsafe. If an employer allows a hostile work environment to persist, they may be held responsible for the resignation as if they had terminated the employee themselves.

Employer Liability and Federal Protections

Federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits sexual harassment. This applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments, labor organizations, and employment agencies.

Employers have a legal duty to prevent harassment and to take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it is reported. When an employer fails to do so—or worse, retaliates against the victim—they expose themselves to significant liability.

Retaliation is a critical component of many harassment lawsuits. It is illegal for an employer to fire, demote, or deny benefits to an employee because they refused sexual favors or complained about harassment. Even if the underlying harassment charge is not proven, a company can still be found liable for retaliation.

Taking Action: Steps for Victims

If you suspect you are being subjected to a hostile work environment, taking the right steps early can significantly impact the outcome of a potential legal case.

  1. Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of every incident. Note the date, time, location, witnesses, and exactly what was said or done. Save emails, text messages, and any other physical evidence.
  2. Report the Behavior: Follow your company’s policy for reporting harassment. If possible, do this in writing so there is a paper trail. As seen in the Midwest Farms case, verbal complaints can be dismissed or ignored.
  3. Do Not Use Artificial Intelligence (AI): To Conduct Research About Your Situation. The reason for this recommendation is that your AI conversations are not protected from discovery by the other side. Unlike your communications with attorneys, which are protected by the attorney–client privilege, any conversations that you have with AI platforms are completely discoverable by the opposing party.
  4. Consult an Attorney: Before you do anything, immediately seek legal representation. Because sexual harassment cases can be complex and fact-specific, it is very important to bring on board an experienced retaliation attorney who can help evaluate the merits of your claim and guide you through the legal process. The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP can help determine if the conduct meets the legal standard for a hostile work environment or constructive discharge.
  5. File a Complaint: You may need to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or a state agency like the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing before filing a lawsuit.

Cultivating a Culture of Safety

The rise in harassment claims suggests that corporate culture still has a long way to go. No employee should have to choose between their dignity and their paycheck. While settlements like the one in Colorado provide some measure of justice, the ultimate goal is prevention.

By understanding your rights and recognizing the signs of a hostile work environment, you empower yourself to take action. Whether it is documenting abuse, filing a claim, or seeking legal counsel, silence is no longer the only option.

Posted on

Wrongful Termination at Hilton: EEOC Sues Over Discrimination

Disability discrimination, Age discrimination wrongful termination lawyers - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Front Desk to Defendant: Inside the Hilton Wrongful Termination Case

Imagine showing up to work every day, doing your job diligently, and then being fired simply for asking for a chair to sit on while pregnant. Or, picture being a pastor who requests a schedule change to lead Sunday service, only to have your hours slashed in retaliation.

These aren’t hypothetical scenarios. They are the allegations at the center of a federal lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Hotel Equities Group, LLC, regarding their management of a Hilton-branded hotel in Oak Lawn, Illinois. The suit charges the company with violating federal law by failing to provide reasonable accommodations and subsequently retaliating against the employees who requested them.

For employees navigating the complex world of workplace rights, this case serves as a stark reminder of the legal protections that exist—and the consequences employers face when they ignore them.

The EEOC Takes Action Against Hotel Equities Group

“Employees have a right to request and receive religious and pregnancy-related accommodations in the workplace without fear of retaliation. When employers deny lawful accommodations and retaliate against workers for speaking up, the EEOC will take action.” Catherine Eschbach, acting EEOC General Counsel

In a press release dated February 4, 2026, the EEOC announced it had filed a lawsuit against Hotel Equities Group, LLC. This company, which provides management and consulting services for hotels across the United States, is accused of violating federal law by failing to provide pregnancy and religious accommodations to two separate employees.

The lawsuit (EEOC v. Hotel Equities Group, LLC, Case No. 1:26-cv-01217) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It represents a significant move by the federal agency to enforce the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A Closer Look at the Allegations

The details of the lawsuit paint a troubling picture of management practices at the Oak Lawn hotel. The EEOC’s complaint outlines two distinct instances of alleged discrimination and retaliation occurring in 2023.

The Pregnancy Accommodation Request

The first incident involved a pregnant front desk clerk who requested a simple accommodation: the ability to sit while working due to medical needs related to her pregnancy.

According to the lawsuit, a coworker initially provided her with a suitable chair. However, management intervened, removing the chair and replacing it with a small, backless stool while discouraging her from using it. Shortly after this incident, the employee was discharged. The EEOC alleges that this termination was a direct act of retaliation for her request for accommodation.

The Religious Accommodation Request

In the same year, another front desk clerk—who also served as an assistant pastor at a Baptist church—requested a schedule adjustment. He asked not to be scheduled for Saturday overnight shifts, as they interfered with his ability to attend and lead Sunday morning services.

While the company verbally approved his request, its actions told a different story. The lawsuit claims that management continued to schedule him for Saturday nights, even after he objected. When he persisted in his objection, the company allegedly retaliated by cutting his hours, effectively penalizing him for exercising his religious rights.

The Legal Framework Protecting Employees

These incidents highlight critical protections under federal law that every employee should understand.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)

The PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Unless the accommodation would cause an “undue hardship” for the employer, the employer is legally obligated to provide it. In the Hilton case, providing a chair for a front desk clerk is a classic example of a reasonable accommodation that allows an employee to continue working safely.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII is a landmark statute that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Specifically regarding religion, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so imposes an undue hardship on the business. Scheduling changes for religious observances, like the Sunday services mentioned in the lawsuit, generally fall under this protection.

Both statutes strictly prohibit retaliation. This means an employer cannot fire, demote, cut hours, or harass an employee simply because they requested an accommodation or complained about discrimination.

Your Rights: Accommodations Without Retaliation

It is crucial for workers to know that requesting an accommodation is a protected activity. Whether you need a modification to your duties due to a disability or pregnancy, or a schedule change for religious observance, you have the right to ask.

If an employer responds to your request with hostility, creates a hostile work environment, reduces your hours, or terminates your employment, they may be breaking the law. As demonstrated by the EEOC’s stance in the Hotel Equities case, federal agencies are actively seeking to hold non-compliant employers accountable.

Recognizing Wrongful Termination Beyond This Case

While the Hilton case focuses on pregnancy and religious discrimination, wrongful termination can occur in many other contexts. In California, state and federal laws provide robust shields against illegal firing.

“Employees have a right to request and receive religious and pregnancy-related accommodations in the workplace without fear of retaliation,” said Catherine Eschbach, acting EEOC General Counsel. “When employers deny lawful accommodations and retaliate against workers for speaking up, the EEOC will take action.”

What Qualifies as Wrongful Termination?

Wrongful termination occurs when an employee is fired for an illegal reason or in violation of public policy. Even “at-will” employees—those who can be fired at any time for any reason—cannot be fired for illegal reasons.

Common examples of wrongful termination include:

  • Discrimination: Firing someone based on race, gender, age (over 40), disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
  • Whistleblowing: Terminating an employee for reporting illegal activities or unsafe working conditions. California Labor Code § 1102.5 explicitly protects whistleblowers.
  • Retaliation: Firing an employee for filing a workers’ compensation claim, complaining about unpaid wages, requesting reasonable accommodations during pregnancy or for religious reasons, or reporting harassment.
  • Taking Protected Leave: Dismissing an employee for taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the California Family Rights Act (CFRA).

Empowering Action Against Injustice

The recent allegations involving Hotel Equities Group underscore the critical need for robust legal protections for workers. Every employee deserves a safe environment where they never have to compromise their health, beliefs, or income.

If you feel you’ve been wrongly dismissed or are facing retaliation for seeking necessary accommodations, remember that you’re not alone in this journey. It’s vital to meticulously document your experiences—keeping records of emails, performance reviews, and timelines. To protect your interests, avoid relying on AI tools for legal research as these discussions might not remain confidential. Instead, connect with a trusted legal expert.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we proudly bring over 20 years of dedicated experience fighting for employees’ rights. We offer confidential consultations designed to empower you with knowledge about your rights and guide you on the best next steps. Justice is more than just a concept; it’s a fundamental right that’s absolutely worth standing up for! Together, we can strive for a better and fairer workplace for everyone.

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, the 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 the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional.

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

Systemic Gender Bias in Academia: Manifestations & Legal Recourse

Constitutional rights, discrimination lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Systemic Gender Bias in Academia: Why the Ivory Tower is Still Tilting

The image of academia is often one of pure meritocracy—a place where ideas reign supreme and the sharpest minds rise to the top, regardless of who they are. But peel back the ivy-covered façade, and a different reality emerges. For many women, the academic ladder is missing rungs, and the “publish or perish” culture comes with an unwritten addendum: navigate a labyrinth of bias or risk your career.

While universities pledge diversity and inclusion in glossy brochures, the data—and the lawsuits—tell a starkly different story. Systemic gender bias isn’t just about a single sexist professor or one overlooked promotion; it is the silent architecture of the institution itself. It is woven into pay scales, embedded in tenure reviews, and whispered in the hallways where “culture fit” becomes a convenient excuse for exclusion.

This blog explores the pervasive nature of systemic gender bias in higher education, moving beyond anecdotes to examine the structural barriers that continue to hold women back. We will look at how this bias manifests, the toll it takes on brilliant careers, and why recent legal battles, such as the one against California State University, are exposing cracks in the system.

Defining Systemic Gender Bias

It is crucial to distinguish between individual bias and systemic bias, though they often feed into one another. Individual bias refers to the specific prejudices or actions of a single person—a department head who believes women aren’t “serious” researchers, for example.

Systemic bias, however, is far more insidious. It refers to the policies, practices, and cultural norms that disadvantage a specific group across an entire organization or sector. In academia, this looks like tenure clocks that don’t account for maternity leave, teaching evaluations that consistently rate women lower than men for identical performance, and salary algorithms that perpetuate historical pay gaps. It is not just a “bad apple” problem; it is a “rotten barrel” problem.

Manifestations of Gender Bias in Academia

Systemic bias manifests in nearly every facet of academic life, creating a cumulative disadvantage for women that researchers often call “death by a thousand cuts.”

Hiring and Promotion Disparities

Despite earning the majority of doctoral degrees in many fields, women remain significantly underrepresented in tenured positions and leadership roles. The “leaky pipeline” phenomenon sees women dropping out of academia at higher rates than men at every stage of career progression. This is often due to vague criteria for “leadership potential” that favor traditionally masculine traits, leading to women being passed over for deanships and presidencies.

The Persistent Pay Gap

The ivory tower is not immune to the wage gap. A study by the California State University Employees Union found that white women are paid roughly 5% less than white men, while women of color face a nearly 7% disparity compared to white men. These gaps often start at the initial hiring offer and compound over decades, resulting in significantly lower lifetime earnings and retirement savings for female academics.

Research Opportunities and Funding

Access to grants is the lifeblood of academic research. Yet, studies consistently show that women receive smaller grants than men and are less likely to receive funding for follow-up research. This lack of resources restricts the scope of their work, reduces their publication output, and ultimately hampers their chances for tenure and promotion.

Recognition and Awards

Women are also less likely to be nominated for or win prestigious awards. This lack of recognition renders their contributions invisible, reinforcing the false narrative that male academics are the primary drivers of innovation and scholarship.

Workplace Climate and Harassment

Perhaps the most damaging manifestation is a hostile workplace climate. This ranges from overt sexual harassment to constant microaggressions—being interrupted in meetings, having ideas appropriated by male colleagues, or being addressed informally while male peers are called “Doctor.”

Case Study: The California State University Lawsuit

The theoretical framework of systemic bias becomes starkly real when we look at recent litigation. A high-profile lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU) serves as a potent example of how these issues play out in real time.

Plaintiffs Dr. Clare Weber and Dr. Anissa Rogers alleged a “cesspool of gender harassment and discrimination” within the CSU system. Their complaint detailed a culture where female executives were routinely paid less than their male counterparts—specifically, female Vice Provosts earned approximately 7% less on average.

The allegations painted a disturbing picture of leadership. The lawsuit claimed that high-ranking officials, including President Tomás Morales and Dean Jake Zhu, created a culture of fear. They were accused of “ranting” at female employees, holding them to higher standards than men, and subjecting them to “screaming rampages.” Dr. Zhu allegedly mocked Dr. Rogers for using gender pronouns in her Zoom name and told Dr. Deirdre Lanesskog, a female professor, “women need to have the bigger heart for her male colleagues.”

Perhaps most damning was the alleged institutional response. Instead of addressing the complaints, the lawsuit claims CSU silenced the victims. Dr. Rogers and Dr. Weber were allegedly directed to lie to colleagues and students by saying they were “resigning,” under threat of being fired. This retaliation highlights a critical component of systemic bias: the protection of the institution over the protection of its employees.

The outcome was significant: Dr. Anissa Rogers was awarded $6 million in a jury verdict for the emotional distress and personal toll of this discrimination. This victory underscores that these are not just “HR issues”—they are violations of civil rights.

The Impact of Gender Bias

The fallout from systemic bias extends far beyond the individuals directly involved.

Individual Impact: For women in academia, the toll is heavy. Beyond the financial loss from pay gaps, there is a profound psychological cost. The stress of navigating a hostile environment can lead to burnout, anxiety, and a loss of confidence. Brilliant careers are derailed, and many women simply leave the profession entirely, taking their expertise with them.

Institutional Impact: When bias goes unchecked, universities lose out on talent, innovation, and diverse perspectives. A homogeneous faculty is less equipped to mentor a diverse student body or tackle complex global problems. Furthermore, lawsuits like the one against CSU damage an institution’s reputation, making it harder to recruit top talent in the future.

Addressing Systemic Gender Bias

Dismantling systemic bias requires more than lip service; it demands structural change.

  • Policy Overhauls: Institutions must implement transparent audits of pay and promotion. Salary algorithms should be reviewed to ensure they don’t carry forward historical inequities.
  • Accountability: There must be real consequences for harassment and discrimination, regardless of a perpetrator’s tenure status or grant income. “Rainmakers” cannot be exempt from professional conduct standards.
  • Mentorship and Sponsorship: Formal mentorship programs can help women navigate the unwritten rules of academia, while sponsorship programs can ensure women are actively championed for leadership roles.
  • Unconscious Bias Training: While not a silver bullet, training can help search committees and tenure boards recognize and mitigate their biases during decision-making.

A Call for Equitable Change

Systemic gender bias in academia is a formidable foe, deeply entrenched in tradition and power structures. However, as the $6 million verdict against CSU demonstrates, the tide is turning. Legal action is becoming a powerful tool for holding institutions accountable.

If you believe you have faced systemic discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in your academic career, you are not alone, and you have rights. Silence only serves the system. By speaking out and seeking legal counsel, you contribute to dismantling the barriers that have held women back for too long.

We must demand an academia that lives up to its ideals—where merit matters more than gender, and where every scholar has an equal opportunity to thrive.

Posted on

The $9 Billion Secret: The Whistleblower that Exposed Chase’s Fraud

Equal Pay and Anti-Retaliation Protection Act protects from retaliation.

The $9 Billion Secret: How One Lawyer Exposed Chase’s Fraud

Alayne Fleischmann kept a heavy secret for eight years. A securities lawyer with sharp instincts and a background in human rights work, she witnessed what she later described as “massive criminal securities fraud” inside one of the world’s most powerful financial institutions. The burden of that knowledge was immense. “It was like watching an old lady get mugged on the street,” she said of the experience. “I thought, ‘I can’t sit by any longer.'”

Fleischmann is the central figure in a narrative that exposes the dark underbelly of the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent failures of the American justice system to hold top executives accountable. She possesses the secrets that JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon paid a staggering sum to keep hidden from the public eye. While headlines touted a record-breaking $13 billion settlement, the reality was a negotiated peace treaty that allowed the bank to purchase silence, burying the evidence of systemic corruption deep within a “Statement of Facts” that obscured more than it revealed.

The story of the JPMorgan Chase settlement is not just a tale of financial malfeasance; it is a case study in the architecture of a cover-up. It reveals how a major bank, with the tacit cooperation of the Department of Justice, managed to bypass the court system, avoid criminal charges for its leadership, and leave the American taxpayer to foot the bill for its deceit. For anyone witnessing corporate wrongdoing today, Fleischmann’s ordeal serves as both a cautionary tale and a rallying cry for the vital importance of whistleblower protection.

The Mortgage Meat Grinder

In 2006, Fleischmann was working as a transaction manager at JPMorgan Chase. The housing market was overheating, and banks were in a frenzy to buy pools of home loans and repackage them as mortgage securities. These financial products were then sold to pension funds, insurance companies, and other institutional investors. Fleischmann’s role was essentially quality control; she was the gatekeeper tasked with ensuring the bank didn’t buy “spoiled merchandise.”

However, the culture at Chase had shifted aggressively against transparency. Fleischmann encountered immediate resistance from a new diligence manager who implemented a bizarre and alarming policy: employees were told to stop sending him emails. In the compliance world, where a paper trail is the only defense against liability, a “no email” edict is a screaming siren indicating intent to hide information. If an employee violated this rule, they were verbally reprimanded. The objective was clear—do not create a record of the rot inside the machine.

The rot was undeniably there. In late 2006, Fleischmann’s team reviewed a package of loans from a mortgage originator called GreenPoint, valued at roughly $900 million. These weren’t prime mortgages. They were what the industry called “scratch and dent” loans—mortgages that had been rejected by other banks or had already defaulted and been returned. They were the bottom of the barrel. Yet, Chase was preparing to repackage them, slap a fresh coat of paint on them, and sell them to investors as “Alt-A” securities, a category meant to be far safer than subprime.

The Manicurist and the Magic Numbers

The specific details of the fraud were egregious. When Fleischmann and her team sampled the GreenPoint loans, they found an astronomical defect rate. About 40 percent of the loans were based on overstated incomes. One glaring example involved a manicurist who claimed an annual income of $117,000. Fleischmann did the math: even working seven days a week, the woman would have to work 488 days a year to earn that amount. It was a mathematical impossibility.

Chase’s standard tolerance for error was five percent. This pool was eight times that limit. But when Fleischmann raised the alarm, the pressure from above intensified. The diligence managers began changing their reports. It was a process of coercion; managers were berated until they produced the desired data.

In a pivotal meeting on December 15, 2006, a Chase sales executive pressured the diligence team to clear the loans. Fleischmann watched as a colleague, shaking his head “no,” verbally said “yes” to clearing the impossible loan for the manicurist. Suddenly, the error rate in the pool magically dropped below 10 percent.

Fleischmann refused to stay silent. She approached a managing director, Greg Boester, warning him that selling these high-risk loans as low-risk securities without disclosure would constitute fraud. “You can’t securitize these loans without special disclosure about what’s wrong with them,” she told him. Her warning was ignored. The bank knowingly peddled the toxic product to investors. She later sent a detailed letter—nicknamed “The Howler”—to another managing director, outlining the breakdown in diligence. That letter, too, failed to stop the machine.

A Failure of Justice: The Regulatory Cover-Up

Fleischmann was laid off in 2008, just before the market crashed. Years later, investigators came calling, but what followed was a masterclass in regulatory failure. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), often criticized for its “kid-gloves” approach to Wall Street, failed to pursue the massive fraud Fleischmann had witnessed. Instead, they cherry-picked a single, smaller transaction to fine Chase, ignoring the systemic rot involved in the GreenPoint deal.

Hope briefly returned when the U.S. Attorney’s office in Sacramento took up the case. Civil litigators drafted a detailed complaint that would have exposed the fraud in open court. A press conference was scheduled for September 24, 2013, to announce the charges. But it never happened.

In a move that underscores the concept of “Too Big to Jail,” Jamie Dimon personally called Associate Attorney General Tony West to reopen negotiations. Dimon didn’t just call the prosecutor; he called the prosecutor’s boss. The lawsuit was scrapped. The press conference was canceled. The Department of Justice, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, opted for a backroom deal rather than a public trial.

The $9 Billion Hush Money

The resulting settlement was widely reported as $13 billion, hailed by the government as a historic victory. The reality was far more cynical. The deal was structured to allow Chase to bury the evidence and avoid admitted liability.

First, $4 billion of that headline number was “consumer relief”—a figure widely regarded as accounting fiction. This relief often consisted of credits for loans that were already uncollectible, meaning the bank lost nothing it hadn’t already written off. Furthermore, the relief was often paid for by the investors who bought the bad securities, not by the bank itself.

The remaining $9 billion was the price of secrecy. Instead of a detailed legal complaint that would name names and expose specific acts of fraud, Chase signed a vague “Statement of Facts.” This document was so carefully sanitized that it contained almost no actual facts that could be used to hold individuals accountable.

Crucially, the settlement bypassed the judicial system entirely. Holder’s Justice Department did not present the deal to a judge for review, likely because an honest judge would have rejected it as too lenient. By avoiding the courtroom, Chase avoided public scrutiny. They paid a fine, much of which was tax-deductible, and moved on. The bank’s stock price actually soared on the news, adding billions to its market value. Jamie Dimon, the CEO who oversaw the fraud, received a 74 percent raise shortly after.

The Critical Role of Whistleblower Protection

Alayne Fleischmann’s experience highlights the perilous position of whistleblowers in the corporate world. She was blocked by internal management, ignored by regulators, and ultimately outed in the press without her consent. Yet, without her, the government would have had little leverage.

For those witnessing fraud today, the landscape offers legal pathways to protection and rewards, though navigating them requires expert legal counsel. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in the wake of the financial crisis, established a whistleblower program specifically for securities violations.

Under the SEC Whistleblower Law, individuals who voluntarily provide “original information” about a violation of federal securities laws can be eligible for a significant reward. If the information leads to sanctions exceeding $1 million, the whistleblower can receive between 10% and 30% of the total recovery.

What Constitutes a Violation?

Fleischmann’s case involved several key areas that the SEC program targets:

  • False Financial Statements: Misrepresenting the quality of the loans.
  • Accounting Fraud: Manipulating error rates and income data.
  • Investors Sold Inappropriate Products: Selling “scratch and dent” loans as “Alt-A” securities.

Crucially, the law allows whistleblowers to submit information anonymously, provided they are represented by an attorney. This anonymity is a vital shield for employees who, like Fleischmann, fear retaliation or being blacklisted from their industry.

Furthermore, the False Claims Act allows individuals to file “qui tam” lawsuits if they have evidence of fraud against the government. Given that many of these toxic mortgages ended up in government-backed entities or pension funds, this is another powerful tool for accountability. Violators can be liable for three times the government’s damages, and whistleblowers can receive 15 to 30 percent of the recovery.

Implications for the Financial Industry

The resolution of the JPMorgan Chase case sent a chilling message to the financial industry: crime pays, provided you can pay the fine. The settlement formalized a two-tiered justice system where corporate entities can negotiate their way out of criminal liability.

Eric Holder’s doctrine—that prosecutors must be careful not to destabilize large financial institutions—effectively granted immunity to the “Too Big to Fail” banks. By claiming that responsibility in large corporations is “diffuse,” the government provided a blueprint for executives to insulate themselves from the consequences of their employees’ actions, even when, as in Fleischmann’s case, those actions were directed by management.

The victims of this fraud were not just abstract investors. They were pension funds for teachers and firefighters, credit unions, and ordinary homeowners. The “consumer relief” touted in the settlement often failed to reach those who needed it most, serving instead as a public relations victory for the government and a tax write-off for the bank.

Justice Requires a Voice

Alayne Fleischmann’s story is a testament to the power of a single individual’s conscience against a monolithic system. She refused to be complicit in fraud, even when it cost her a career in finance. “The assumption they make is that I won’t blow up my life to do it,” she said. “But they’re wrong about that.”

While the outcome of the Chase settlement was imperfect, Fleischmann’s testimony ensured that the truth did not remain entirely buried. However, her struggle to be heard underscores the necessity of having powerful advocates in your corner.

If you are witnessing fraud, discrimination, or illegal activities in your workplace, you do not have to navigate the legal system alone. The laws regarding whistleblower protections are complex, and the entities you are up against are powerful. Whether it is securities fraud, tax evasion, or employer violations, there are legitimate avenues to report wrongdoing while protecting your identity and your future.

The “Statement of Facts” may have tried to hide the truth, but facts have a way of surfacing when brave individuals step forward. If you have knowledge of corporate malfeasance, secure your rights and seek counsel who understands the high stakes of speaking truth to power.

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

DHL Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $640,000

Female warehouse employee reporting Hostile Work Environment.

DHL To Pay $640k Settlement After Ignoring Sexual Harassment Complaints Creating Hostile Work Environment

For Tazaria Gibbs, an employee at a DHL facility in Memphis, the workplace became a site of fear rather than productivity. After being subjected to unwanted advances by an operations manager, she followed protocol. She reported the behavior to three separate supervisors. She asked not to be left alone with him.

The response? Silence. No reports were filed. No investigation was launched. And when she refused to meet her harasser alone, the company fired her for “insubordination.”

This case, now settled for $640,000, is a reminder that a hostile work environment is more than just bad management—it is a violation of federal law.

The Cost of Looking the Other Way

The lawsuit, filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), detailed a culture of unchecked harassment at the DHL Supply Chain facility. According to the EEOC’s findings, Gibbs was not the only victim. Other female employees confirmed that male coworkers, leads, and supervisors subjected them to sexual harassment.

Despite numerous complaints from multiple women, the company failed to act. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are legally obligated to investigate harassment claims. Ignoring these claims—or worse, punishing the victims who make them—exposes companies to significant liability.

Because DHL supervisors failed to report the complaints as required by their own company policy, the harassment festered. This negligence transformed a personnel issue into a federal lawsuit charging the logistics giant with sexual harassment and retaliation.

What Constitutes a Hostile Work Environment?

While the term is often misused to describe general rudeness or a demanding boss, a legally defined “hostile work environment” has specific criteria. It occurs when unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic (such as sex, race, or age) becomes so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment and creates an abusive atmosphere.

In the DHL case, the EEOC identified two primary violations:

  1. Sexual Harassment: The persistent, unwelcome conduct by the operations manager and other male staff.
  2. Retaliation: The firing of Gibbs for refusing to interact with her harasser alone.

Retaliation is frequently the “smoking gun” in employment law cases. It is illegal for an employer to fire, demote, or harass an employee for engaging in a protected activity, such as filing a complaint about discrimination.

The Settlement: More Than Just Money

To resolve the lawsuit, DHL agreed to a two-year consent decree approved by U.S. District Judge Tommy Parker. While the $640,000 payment to the class of female employees is significant, the non-monetary terms of the settlement are equally important for preventing future misconduct.

The decree mandates that DHL must:

  • Implement New Training: Managers, supervisors, and HR personnel at the Memphis facility must undergo training on preventing sexual harassment and retaliation.
  • Review Surveillance: The company must create procedures to review surveillance footage regarding reported or suspected complaints.
  • Corporate Accountability: A corporate management representative must attend training to affirm that harassment will not be tolerated.

These measures are designed to dismantle the culture of silence that allowed the harassment to continue in the first place.

Know Your Rights

The DHL settlement highlights a critical reality for employees: you do not have to endure abuse to keep your paycheck. If you are experiencing harassment, you have the right to seek justice.

Under federal and state laws, victims of a hostile work environment may be entitled to:

  • Back Pay: Compensation for wages lost due to wrongful termination.
  • Emotional Distress Damages: Compensation for the anxiety, depression, and mental anguish caused by the harassment.
  • Punitive Damages: Penalties levied against the employer to punish egregious conduct.
  • Reinstatement: The right to return to your job, although many clients choose to move forward elsewhere.

If you report harassment and your employer fails to investigate—or if you face retaliation for speaking up—you have legal recourse.

Taking the Next Step

Workplace harassment thrives in darkness. As the DHL case proves, when employees speak up and legal action is taken, companies are forced to change.

Hiring an experienced employment attorney significantly increases the likelihood of securing a larger settlement compared to pursuing a claim solely through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). While the EEOC provides a critical avenue for addressing workplace discrimination and harassment, their resources are often stretched thin, and they may focus on resolving cases quickly, sometimes at the expense of higher compensation for victims. Conversely, an experienced attorney can dedicate personalized attention to your case, thoroughly investigate the facts, gather compelling evidence, and advocate aggressively on your behalf. Attorneys also have the ability to leverage legal strategies, negotiate with employers, and even take cases to court if necessary, ensuring you receive the maximum compensation you deserve for the harm you’ve endured.

If you are facing a hostile work environment, retaliation, or discrimination, you do not have to fight alone. Document every incident, report the behavior according to your company’s policy, and consult with experienced legal counsel.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we have spent over 20 years advocating for employees who have been wronged. We offer confidential consultations to help you understand your rights and determine the best path forward.

Posted on

Fired for Complaining? Your Rights Against Workplace Retaliation

Dental assistant fired after reporting discrimination. Retaliation Lawyers Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Fired for Speaking Up? Understanding Retaliation

It starts with a feeling of unease. You witness a manager making a derogatory comment, or perhaps you notice a pattern of unfair treatment directed at you or a colleague. You decide to do the right thing: you speak up. You file a complaint with Human Resources or mention your concern to a supervisor.

You expect an investigation. You expect professionalism. What you don’t expect is to find your shifts suddenly cut, your workload doubled, or your employment terminated entirely.

This scenario is not just unfair; it is often illegal. In the legal world, this is known as workplace retaliation. It is a pervasive issue that silences victims and allows toxic workplace cultures to fester. Understanding your rights is the first step toward protecting your livelihood and holding employers accountable.

Defining Workplace Retaliation

Retaliation occurs when an employer takes an “adverse action” against an employee for engaging in “protected activity.”

In simpler terms, your employer cannot punish you for asserting your rights. Under federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as various California state laws, you have the right to work in an environment free from discrimination and harassment. Just as importantly, you have the right to complain about legal violations without fear of retribution.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports that retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector. It is a common tactic used to intimidate workers, but the law provides a shield against it.

Recognizing the Signs: What Does Retaliation Look Like?

Retaliation is not always as obvious as a firing squad. While termination is the most severe form, retaliatory actions can be subtle, designed to make an employee’s life difficult enough that they quit voluntarily—a concept known as “constructive discharge.”

Any action that would deter a reasonable person from making a complaint can constitute retaliation. Common examples include:

  • Demotion or Pay Cuts: Being moved to a lower-ranking position or having your salary reduced shortly after making a complaint.
  • Exclusion: Suddenly being left out of meetings, training opportunities, or social events that are essential to your job function.
  • Schedule Changes: Being assigned to the least desirable shifts or having your hours drastically reduced.
  • Undeserved Discipline: Receiving negative performance reviews or disciplinary write-ups that are inconsistent with your actual performance history.
  • Hostility: Facing verbal abuse or the “cold shoulder” from management or peers acting on management’s behalf.

Examining the Evidence: EEOC v. CASSE

To understand how retaliation plays out in the real world—and how the courts view it—we can look at the recent case of EEOC v. Council for the Advancement of Social Services and Education (CASSE). This case serves as a reminder that employers cannot punish employees for raising a concern.

The Incident

Destiny Johnson, a Black dental assistant at a health clinic in Louisiana, found herself in an uncomfortable position in June 2020. During a time of nationwide racial justice protests, the clinic’s dental director—who was White—asked Johnson, in front of White colleagues, if she had attended a “Black Lives Matter” protest.

Feeling singled out and humiliated by what she perceived as a racially charged inquiry, Johnson did exactly what company policies usually dictate: she complained to a co-worker, and the information was relayed to management.

The Employer’s Reaction

Instead of investigating Johnson’s concern neutrally, the organization’s CEO, Mary Elizabeth Chumley, took immediate action against Johnson. Ms. Chumley sent a text message placing Johnson on unpaid administrative leave.

The reasoning? The CEO claimed the suspension was necessary pending an investigation into Johnson’s “introduction of race” into the workplace. Johnson was never asked to return to work.

The Legal Outcome

When this case reached federal court, the judge ruled in favor of the EEOC on the retaliation claim. The court noted that placing Johnson on unpaid leave constituted a clear adverse action.

Crucially, the court found “direct evidence” of retaliatory intent. The CEO’s own text messages and statements admitted that Johnson was punished for complaining about discrimination. The employer tried to argue that Johnson was fired for performance issues, but the evidence—the text message explicitly linking the suspension to the complaint—was undeniable.

This case highlights a critical legal principle: You do not have to prove that the underlying discrimination (the comment about the protest) was illegal to win a retaliation claim. You only have to prove that you had a “reasonable belief” that it was illegal and that you were punished for opposing it.

The Three Pillars of a Retaliation Claim

If you believe you are a victim of retaliation, establishing a claim generally requires proving three specific elements:

1. Protected Activity

You must have engaged in an activity protected by law. This includes:

  • Filing a formal complaint with the EEOC or a state agency.
  • Complaining internally to management or HR about discrimination or harassment.
  • Participating in an investigation as a witness.
  • Requesting an accommodation for a disability or religious practice.
  • Resisting sexual advances.

2. Adverse Action

Your employer must have taken action against you that was materially adverse. As noted earlier, this goes beyond minor annoyances. It must be something that could reasonably discourage an employee from coming forward.

3. Causal Connection

There must be a link between your protected activity and the adverse action. This is often the hardest part to prove. Courts look at:

  • Timing: Did the discipline happen immediately after your complaint?
  • Knowledge: Did the person punishing you know about your complaint?
  • Consistency: Were you treated differently from employees who didn’t complain?

Your Legal Protections

Retaliation is prohibited under several federal and state statutes.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees who oppose discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects individuals who request accommodations or complain about disability discrimination.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers aged 40 and older from retaliation regarding age discrimination complaints.

In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides even stronger protections than federal law in many instances, covering a broader range of employers and protected categories.

What To Do If You Suspect Retaliation

If you find yourself in the crosshairs of a vindictive employer, taking the right steps early is crucial for your case.

Document Everything

In the CASSE case, a single text message from the CEO became the smoking gun. Save emails, text messages, and voicemails. Keep a journal of dates, times, and details of retaliatory incidents. If you receive a sudden negative performance review, draft a written rebuttal.

Follow Internal Procedures

If your company has a handbook, follow the complaint procedure outlined there. This puts the company on notice. If they fail to act—or if they punish you—it strengthens your claim that they were aware of the issue.

Consult a Retaliation Attorney

Retaliation cases are fact-specific and complex. Employers rarely admit they are retaliating; they will often manufacture “performance issues” to justify their actions. An experienced attorney can help you cut through these defenses.

Standing Up for Justice

The law recognizes that workplaces must be safe and that employees must be free to speak the truth. When an employer retaliates, they are not just harming one worker; they are attempting to silence everyone.

You should not have to choose between your dignity and your paycheck. If you have been fired, demoted, or harassed for doing the right thing, you have legal avenues to seek justice.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we are dedicated to advocating for employees who have been wronged. We understand the courage it takes to speak up, and we are committed to ensuring your voice is heard in the legal system.

If you believe you have been the victim of workplace retaliation, contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a confidential consultation.