Month: October 2024

Posted on

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

Pregnancy discrimination accommodations.

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attention for your unborn child, but instead of understanding or empathy from your new employer, your job offer is rescinded.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

California Assembly Bill 1575 – Katie Meyer’s Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Legal Challenges to Genetic Information Disclosure in the Workplace

Genetic information nondiscrimination act lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

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

History of Genetic Discrimination

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

National Sickle Cell Anemia Control Act

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

Pre-Employment Genetic Screening

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

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

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA)

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

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

GINA Enforcement

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

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

Posted on

Recognizing and Addressing Discrimination in the Workplace

Combating workplace discrimination - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Discrimination at work is not just a legal issue; it’s a human one that affects morale, productivity, and the overall health of an organization. From racial slurs to unequal pay, discrimination can manifest in various harmful ways. Understanding how to recognize and address it is crucial for creating a safe and inclusive working environment. This article will guide you through the signs of workplace discrimination, recent real-life examples, and actionable steps for addressing these critical issues.

Signs of Discrimination in the Workplace

Discrimination can be subtle or overt. Signs may include exclusion from meetings or projects, lack of promotion despite qualifications, unfair performance reviews, or derogatory comments about race, gender, age, or disability. Recognizing these signs is the first step toward creating a fair workplace.

Recent Examples of Workplace Discrimination

Race Discrimination

In a troubling case recently reported, a Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc. yard attendant in Fremont, California, was subjected to racial slurs, including the “n-word,” up to 15 times a day. This verbal harassment happened openly in front of the general manager, who failed to act, leaving the Black employee feeling he had no choice but to resign. This example starkly highlights how unchecked discrimination can permeate an organization. (Case No. 4:24-cv-06848)

“Let me be clear: there is no workplace, regardless of locale, where the use of racial slurs is acceptable,” said EEOC San Francisco District Director Nancy Sienko. “Once an employer lets that standard slip, not only are you giving permission for an unprofessional, unproductive and hateful work environment, you are violating the law.”

Disability Discrimination

A company driver at Mail Hauler Trucking, LLC. in South Dakota was dismissed due to his physical impairment despite successfully performing his job duties. His unusual gait—a result of his condition—led to his unjust termination, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the legal protections afforded to individuals with disabilities. (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01020-ECS)

“The ADA prohibits employers from terminating employees because of their disability or discriminating against employees because of misperceptions that they cannot perform the job because of a disability,” said Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Chicago office.

Sexual Harassment

At a Long Island car dealership, Garden City Jeep Chrysler Dodge, LLC and VIP Auto Group of Long Island, Inc., female employees endured inappropriate touching and sexual comments from an inventory manager. Despite complaints to management and HR, the harassment continued unchecked, forcing some employees to quit. This case underscores the critical need for effective interventions and accountability at every level of management. (Case No. 2:24-cv-06878)

“Whether a restaurant, car dealership or other business, no employer should ignore sexual harassment, let alone condone or encourage it,” said Kimberly Cruz, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.

Pregnancy Discrimination

At Castle Hills Master Association Inc., and parent companies Bright Realty LLC, Bright Industries LLC, and Bright Executive Services LLC, a pregnant employee diagnosed with placenta previa, a high-risk condition, was terminated while hospitalized despite notifying her employer of her need for medical leave. The Castle Hills Master Association and property management companies involved refused to accommodate her, highlighting a distressing gap in understanding pregnancy-related employment rights. (Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00871)

Pay Discrimination

AccentCare in Pennsylvania was sued for paying female Licensed Practical Nurses less than their male counterparts for equal work despite the women’s superior qualifications. After a female LPN complained, she was fired, showcasing retaliatory practices that exacerbate gender-based pay disparities. (Case No. 3:24-cv-01646-RDM)

“Employers cannot pay female employees less than their male colleagues because of sex,” said Debra Lawrence, the EEOC’s Regional Attorney in Philadelphia. “Retaliating against an employee who raises these concerns and seeks to correct the disparity further exacerbates the legal violation.”

Legal Rights and Responsibilities in Addressing Discrimination

Employees have the right to a workplace free of discrimination. The law provides several avenues to address discrimination, including filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and hiring. Employers are legally required to investigate allegations and take corrective action when necessary.

Steps to Take if You Witness or Experience Discrimination

  1. Document the Incident:
  • Record dates, times, locations, and details of the discriminatory behavior.
  1. Report the Incident:
  • Use your company’s reporting mechanism or approach your HR department directly.
  1. Seek Support:
  • Contact a trusted colleague, mentor, or employee resource group for guidance and support.
  1. Consider Legal Action:

The Role of HR and Management in Preventing and Addressing Discrimination

HR and management play a pivotal role in fostering an inclusive environment. They must act swiftly on complaints, ensure policies are enforced, and model respectful behavior. Regular training sessions and open dialogues can also help reinforce the company’s commitment to a productive and inclusive workplace.

Employers seeking to ensure compliance with discrimination laws can benefit significantly from consulting experienced employment discrimination lawyers. These legal professionals offer valuable guidance on navigating complex regulations, thereby assisting in the proactive prevention of discriminatory practices in the workplace. By working closely with a lawyer, employers can gain insights into potential vulnerabilities within their current policies and procedures and receive tailored advice to foster a legally compliant and respectful work environment. This proactive approach not only aids in legal compliance but also strengthens the organization’s commitment to equality and fairness.

Creating an Inclusive Workplace Culture

An inclusive culture celebrates diversity and fosters a sense of belonging. Encourage conversations about diversity, recognize cultural differences, and celebrate various backgrounds. Understandably, employers might hesitate to engage in difficult conversations about diversity, inclusion, and compliance, fearing it could open Pandora’s box of unforeseen challenges. However, addressing these topics head-on is crucial for fostering a workplace where all employees feel valued and heard. Avoiding these conversations can perpetuate systemic issues and hinder the organization’s growth and morale. By embracing these discussions, leaders can uncover valuable insights into the employees’ perspectives, identify areas for improvement, and initiate meaningful change. It’s essential to approach these dialogues with an open mind, active listening skills, and a commitment to genuine, positive transformation. While challenging, these conversations ultimately nurture a more cohesive, productive, and respectful workplace culture. Leadership should exemplify these values, ensuring they trickle down throughout the organization.

The Ongoing Effort to Eliminate Discrimination

Eliminating discrimination requires persistent effort and commitment from everyone within an organization. By recognizing the signs, understanding your rights, and taking actionable steps, you can contribute to a healthier, more inclusive workplace. Start today by reviewing your organization’s policies and fostering open discussions about diversity and inclusion. Together, we can create a work environment where everyone is respected and valued.