Month: September 2024

Posted on

How Your Data is Being Used Against You: The Privacy Risks of MAIDs

When websites sell your data it puts your life, your livelihood and your future at risk contact the lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In our digital age, privacy has become a paramount concern for everyone. Data anonymity is often the key to safeguarding this privacy. However, what if we told you that companies can de-anonymize your data?

Despite tech firms’ constant reassurances that mobile user tracking IDs are anonymous, an entire industry exists that links these IDs to real individuals and their addresses, effectively dismantling this veil of anonymity. This industry accomplishes this by correlating mobile advertising IDs (MAIDs) collected by applications with a person’s full name, physical address, and other personally identifiable information (PII).

Simply put, your data could be used to identify you, leading to significant privacy breaches. This is particularly concerning for those who trust that their information is secure when signing up for websites or apps. Consider, for instance, the implications for users of a dating app like Grindr. People have been ‘outed,’ resulting in serious harm and discrimination, and, in the case of one Catholic priest, his life and reputation were destroyed.

So how does this work? A MAID is a unique identifier assigned to each device by a phone’s operating system. Apps frequently capture a user’s MAID and share it with third parties. Companies like BIGDBM and FullContact then link this data to full names, physical addresses, and other PII—a process known as ‘identity resolution’ or ‘identity graphing.’

These revelations underscore the urgent need for greater transparency and enhanced privacy regulations regarding data collection and handling. As users, we must advocate for our rights and urge tech companies to prioritize the security of our data. Before signing up for any platform, it’s crucial to read their privacy policy carefully, although even that may not be sufficient.

In a world where data is the new gold, let’s ensure our ‘digital selves’ remain uncompromised.

Posted on

Pregnancy Discrimination: Real Stories, Real Change Needed

Pregnancy discrimination lawyers Beverly Hills Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a nation that upholds equality as a core value, the fight against pregnancy discrimination remains a significant challenge. Recent high-profile cases, notably involving Frontier Airlines, highlight the ongoing struggles faced by pregnant and breastfeeding women in the workplace.

Frontier Airlines became embroiled in two substantial lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and local partners in Denver on behalf of eight pilots and flight attendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the airline penalized pregnancy-related absences and denied crucial accommodations for pregnant and breastfeeding employees, including prohibiting breast pumping while on duty. These discriminatory practices inflicted considerable harm on these women, affecting both their professional lives and personal well-being. Many were forced to take unpaid leave during their pregnancies and had their requests for breast pumping accommodations denied upon returning to work.

Fortunately, U.S. laws offer some protections against such discrimination. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from discriminating based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Additionally, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons, including pregnancy and childbirth.

Nonetheless, the struggle persists. The lawsuits against Frontier Airlines culminated in a settlement in the Freyer case, resulting in significant policy changes aimed at better accommodating pregnant and nursing employees. However, these developments underscore the need for further improvements and highlight the urgent necessity for progress on both corporate and legislative fronts.

As we pursue greater equality in the workplace, we must remember individuals like Erica Hayes, who made an unimaginable sacrifice while trying to maintain her income during pregnancy. Erica experienced a miscarriage after imploring her supervisors for lighter lifting duties while working at a Verizon warehouse.

In another instance, Dallas Barber and Stylist College, Inc., a barber shop and school in Dallas, found themselves the defendants in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit when a pregnant applicant applied for a hair braider position and performed a skills test successfully. Despite her qualifications, the owner informed her that they already had a pregnant employee and did not wish to hire another.

These experiences serve as a poignant reminder of the real and devastating consequences of pregnancy discrimination. They are not isolated incidents but rather reflect systemic issues that demand our attention and action. Together, we can work to eradicate pregnancy discrimination, foster workplaces that respect and support all employees, and build a fairer society for future generations.

Posted on

In the Face of Disability Discrimination: A FedEx Employee’s Tough Road

Refusing reasonable accommodations is disability discrimination and it is illegal. Contact the ADA Lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In an era where inclusivity should be a given, it is disheartening to witness drastic violations of employees’ rights, particularly those who are differently-abled. Employees employed by FedEx, a globally recognized shipping and logistics company, found themselves unemployed due to the corporation’s stringent 100 %-healed policy.

The story that stands out in this murky tide of exploitation is the tale of a Minneapolis-based FedEx driver. The unnamed woman who motivated the launch of a lawsuit against her employer had been subjected to unfair treatment due to medical restrictions. Her job as a ramp transport driver involved driving a tractor-trailer and operating mechanical equipment to load and unload freight. An injury had limited her lifting abilities, invoking FedEx’s 100 %-healed policy. The policy forced the ramp transport driver into a 90-day temporary light-duty assignment. When her medical restrictions remained after 90 days, she was placed on unpaid medical leave. FedEx ultimately terminated her employment due to her inability to work without restrictions – a harsh reality for someone who could have done her job with reasonable accommodations.

According to Gregory Gochanour, of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, “100%-healed policies, like the one FedEx has, cost qualified workers their livelihood without giving them individual consideration.” He further added, “Under the ADA, employers have an obligation to explore reasonable accommodations and not to screen out qualified individuals with disabilities who can do their jobs.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The act prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations enabling employees to perform their jobs, and bars employers from policies that screen out qualified individuals with disabilities.

To FedEx employees and others stuck in similar situations, know that you are not alone and your struggles are valid. The “100 %-healed” policy that cost you your employment directly violates the ADA, a federal law enacted to provide you with rightful protection and accommodation. Don’t let corporations like FedEx undermine your rights.

Fellow workers, you are invited to step up, speak out, and report such ADA violations. Please reach out to an experienced Disability Discrimination Attorney who can help you navigate this legal terrain and ensure that your rights are upheld. Stand tall against discrimination. Remember, no one can strip you of your rightful place in your workspace, let alone your inherent dignity.

Posted on

Disability Discrimination at a 25-Year High

Reasonable accommodations required by ADA, Disability discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Over 29,000 charges of disability discrimination were reported last year alone.

As we delve into the pressing issue of employment disability discrimination, recent data reveals a startling trend: discrimination incidents have surged to a 25-year high. This spike raises critical questions about the systemic barriers faced by individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Despite advancements in legislation aimed at promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities, the gap between policy intentions and workplace realities appears to be widening. This investigation seeks to unpack the underlying factors contributing to this alarming increase by reviewing three employers in different industries facing lawsuits for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” This foundational principle underscores the Act’s commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are afforded the same opportunities as their non-disabled counterparts. As the lawsuits unfold, examining how these employers allegedly neglected their responsibilities under this provision will be crucial to understanding the broader implications of their actions.

One of the cases involves the Ned NoMad hotel and members’ club in Manhattan. The hotel allegedly refused to accommodate an employee with a knee condition that limited her standing or walking to no more than 30 minutes at a time. Despite providing a medical note, the employee was not allowed to use a stool while performing clerical work at the host stand and was eventually terminated.

In another case, Smith’s Detection, Inc., a manufacturer of threat detection equipment, is being sued for demoting a disabled employee who requested personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect her hearing from manufacturing equipment noise. Instead of providing the PPE, the employer demoted the employee from her team lead position, resulting in reduced pay, and assigned her to a quieter area.

The third case involves Holsum bakery in La Porte, Indiana, which allegedly refused to modify a policy to allow an employee to use a walker, as required by her physician. The bakery’s failure to accommodate the employee made it impossible for her to access her workstation, restroom, and break room, resulting in her termination.

These alleged actions by the companies violate the ADA, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.

As these cases unfold, they not only shed light on the specific actions of these employers but also highlight a pressing need for accountability in the workplace regarding disability rights. Employees with disabilities face unique challenges, and it is essential that their rights are protected through appropriate legal channels. Therefore, the role of an experienced disability discrimination attorney becomes paramount. Such professionals not only bring expertise in navigating the complexities of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but also ensure that the voices of affected employees are heard and valued. Engaging legal representation can be crucial in pursuing justice and fostering a more inclusive and compliant work environment for all.