Author: HFNewsAdmin

Posted on

Grocery Prices, Publix Super Markets, Consumer Fraud

Class action lawsuits allow the average employee to band together and get justice from large powerful corporations.

Case Against Publix Super Markets

When Publix Super Markets gained attention recently, it wasn’t for the quality of its groceries or customer service. Instead, the company has been accused of defrauding its own customers through manipulative checkout practices. This case, centered on allegations of fraudulently inflating the weights of food items advertised at discounted prices, highlights the critical importance of class action lawsuits in protecting consumers and holding corporations accountable.

Wage theft crisis, requires employment lawyers experienced in class actions, wage and hour violations, labor law.

The Allegations Against Publix Super Markets

The lawsuit against Publix Super Markets was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida by a group of plaintiffs who claim they were overcharged at checkout due to deceptive pricing practices. The complaint alleges that Publix consistently and systematically misweighed its products, such as deli meats, seafood, and produce, resulting in customers paying more than the advertised price.

Understanding Class Action Lawsuits

Class action lawsuits are lawsuits brought on behalf of a large group of people who have suffered similar harm or damages. These individuals may not have been able to bring a case on their own due to limited resources or because their individual claims may not hold much weight against a powerful corporation.

According to the 47-page lawsuit filed in Florida, Publix is accused of falsely inflating the weights of foods sold by weight, including meats, cheeses, and deli items, at the point of sale. The lawsuit alleges that when customers purchase discounted items, Publix’s point-of-sale (POS) system automatically increases the product’s weight, ensuring customers are charged the original, non-sale price.

For example, the plaintiff purchased pork tenderloin advertised at $4.99 per pound with a savings of $2.00 from the original $6.99 per pound price. The product label indicated it weighed 2.83 pounds, which should have cost $14.12. However, the point-of-sale system allegedly increased the weight to 3.96 pounds, ultimately charging the plaintiff $19.78 – a 40% overcharge.

Making matters worse, Publix’s receipts reportedly omit weight details, leaving customers unaware of these discrepancies. This lack of transparency, combined with employees allegedly being incentivized to conceal the practice and dismiss customer complaints, paints a troubling picture of deliberate consumer exploitation.

The Broader Implications for Consumers

This case goes beyond a single instance of overcharges; it reveals fundamental issues in consumer protection and the accountability of large businesses. Here’s why this lawsuit matters to consumers:

  1. Direct Financial Loss

Every dollar matters, especially as grocery prices continue to rise. Publix’s alleged overcharges mean customers are robbed of promised savings and forced to pay more than they bargained for. Multiply this practice across the company’s 1,439 locations, and the financial impact on consumers is staggering.

  1. Deceptive Practices

At its core, the lawsuit raises serious concerns about dishonesty in business. Deceptive practices like inflating weights and misrepresenting discounts undermine consumer trust—not just in one company but in the broader retail industry.

  1. Holding Corporations Accountable

Without mechanisms like class action lawsuits, large corporations could engage in deceptive practices with little fear of repercussions. An individual filing a lawsuit against a conglomerate might lack the resources to make a meaningful impact. However, collective action enables consumers to pool resources and challenge misconduct effectively, leveling the playing field.

  1. Empowering Consumer Awareness

Cases like this shine a light on unethical corporate behavior and encourage consumers to scrutinize their purchases. By reviewing receipts and questioning discrepancies, shoppers can better protect themselves against potential fraud.

  1. Setting Legal Precedents

The outcome of this lawsuit could establish important legal precedents. Should Publix be found liable, it could lead to stricter regulations preventing similar behavior across the retail industry, ensuring better protections for consumers everywhere.

The Power of Class Action Lawsuits

Class action lawsuits like the one against Publix demonstrate their immense value to society. Individually, it may be impractical to sue a major corporation over a relatively small financial loss. However, when consumers unite, they create a powerful force for justice.

Historical cases underscore the significance of these legal actions:

  • Volkswagen’s $14 Billion Settlement for emissions fraud punished the automaker for deceptive environmental practices.
  • The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement imposed crucial regulations on tobacco companies, advancing public health initiatives.
  • Enron Securities Litigation recovered billions for defrauded shareholders, providing financial relief and setting an example for corporate accountability.

These cases remind us that class actions aren’t just about financial compensation; they’re about ensuring that corporations prioritize ethical practices and consumer trust over profits.

The Role of Consumers Moving Forward

The allegations against Publix serve as a timely reminder for consumers to stay vigilant. Here’s how you can protect yourself:

  • Review Receipts Thoroughly

    Check for discrepancies in pricing and weights, especially for products sold by weight.

  • Ask Questions

    If something doesn’t seem right, inquire with store employees. Request a breakdown of charges if necessary.

  • Stay Educated

    Follow consumer protection news to stay informed about pressing issues and ongoing lawsuits.

  • Support Class Actions

    Keep an eye on open lawsuits for which you may qualify. Joining a class action is often as simple as submitting a claim.

Justice for Consumers, Accountability for Corporations

If the allegations in the Publix case are proven, the company’s actions wouldn’t just be a breach of consumer trust; they’d reflect deliberate misconduct designed to profit at the expense of everyday shoppers. Class action lawsuits like this one are essential tools to shine a light on such unethical behavior, seek justice for those affected, and push for systemic change.

Consumers work hard for their money and deserve fair treatment from the businesses they support. The Publix lawsuit teaches us the importance of collective action in protecting those rights. Stay vigilant, informed, and ready to stand united when corporate greed threatens your wallet.

When pursuing a class action lawsuit, it’s crucial to have an attorney with a proven track record of success in collective action cases. An experienced class action attorney understands the complexities of these lawsuits and knows how to advocate effectively on behalf of a large group, ensuring the best possible outcome for everyone involved.

Posted on

Rights, Protections, and Recovery: Navigating Colorectal Cancer and Your Workplace

Cancer can make you feel like you're going to pieces navigating work and treatment.

In 2024, colorectal cancer is estimated to be the fourth most common cancer in men and women.

Facing a diagnosis of colorectal cancer can be an overwhelming experience, both emotionally and physically. This disease poses significant challenges, often manifesting through distressing symptoms such as changes in bowel habits, rectal bleeding, abdominal discomfort, persistent fatigue, and unexpected weight loss. If you or someone you care about is navigating this journey, it’s vital to understand the treatment options available, the expected recovery times, and your rights for protection at work under U.S. law.

Colorectal cancer treatments vary widely and can include surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, tailored to fit individual health needs. While these treatments have the potential to be life-saving, they often come with a range of side effects—such as pain, extreme fatigue, decreased appetite, and emotional strain—that can necessitate considerable recovery time and support from loved ones. Recovery can be a lengthy process, lasting from a few weeks to several months, and it is essential to approach this journey with compassion for yourself.

You should also know that there are laws designed to protect your rights as an employee during this challenging time. The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and numerous State Family and Medical Leave laws are crucial safety nets for employees facing serious health concerns like colorectal cancer. The FMLA, for instance, may entitle you to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave within a year, allowing you to prioritize your health without fear of job loss. Importantly, this law also protects you from retaliation for exercising your rights.

The ADA further supports you by requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, including those undergoing treatment for colorectal cancer. These accommodations could mean adjusting your work schedule, allowing time off for medical appointments, or creating a more manageable workload. Your health and well-being should come first, and there are provisions in place to ensure you are supported during this time.

On the state level, protections can be even more comprehensive. Some state laws may offer additional benefits, such as wage replacement during your medical leave or broader eligibility for time off.

It’s deeply unjust to face discrimination or termination due to a cancer diagnosis, and the law stands firmly on your side. If you have experienced wrongful termination or discrimination because of your diagnosis or in exercising your rights under the FMLA or ADA, seeking the guidance of an experienced employment law attorney can be a powerful step. This support can help you understand your rights and navigate the necessary actions to safeguard your career and well-being.

Remember, while a cancer diagnosis can be profoundly challenging and disruptive, you are not alone in this battle. There are numerous resources and support systems available to help you through these trying times. By understanding your rights in the workplace, you can find the peace of mind needed to concentrate on your health and embark on your road to recovery. Your well-being matters, and you deserve the support you need.

Posted on

Lawsuit Settles for $205,000 After Walgreens Refused Employees Medical Treatment

Unaddressed sexual harassment complaints creating a hostile work environment. Contact the lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP for help.

A deeply troubling case of pregnancy and disability discrimination at Walgreens has come to light through a recent lawsuit, revealing the grave ramifications of neglecting employee rights. The case centers on a pregnant sales associate, who was also battling diabetes and hypoglycemia, and tragically suffered a miscarriage after her manager callously denied her request for emergency leave. When she began to experience concerning symptoms and started spotting, her urgent plea for medical attention was met with refusal, highlighting a shocking disregard for her well-being. While the lawsuit was ultimately settled for $205,000, no financial compensation could ever repair the profound loss she endured as a result of this negligence.

This heartbreaking incident serves as a stark reminder of the protections afforded to employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Pregnancy Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). These laws are designed to ensure that pregnant workers receive the necessary accommodations to safeguard their health and well-being. Under the ADA, employers are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities, a category that includes pregnancy-related conditions. Additionally, the PWFA mandates that employers provide reasonable accommodations for job applicants or employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical circumstances, unless such accommodations result in significant difficulty or expense for the employer.

Regrettably, this case exemplifies a blatant violation of these critical regulations, leading to devastating consequences for the employee involved. The law clearly stipulates that employers must carefully consider requests for reasonable accommodations, including urgent medical leave, and are required to grant these requests unless they impose an undue hardship. Yet, in this instance, the pregnant sales associate was denied even the most fundamental and necessary accommodation of emergency medical leave.

If you or someone you know has faced a similar ordeal, it is vital to seek guidance from an attorney who specializes in disability discrimination. The legal landscape surrounding these situations can be complex and nuanced, necessitating the expertise of a professional who can adeptly navigate these issues. Your rights as a pregnant worker are safeguarded by law, and no individual should be forced to endure such a harrowing experience due to workplace negligence. Remember, the law stands with you, and there are dedicated professionals ready to assist you in asserting your rights.

Posted on

Calamitous Conditions: Calliope Correia’s Harassment Lawsuit Against the CSU System

Sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation have physical lasting effects on victims.

Allegations of workplace harassment, discrimination, and negligence have sent shockwaves through California State University (CSU). Calliope Correia, a dedicated horticultural nursery manager at the university’s campus farm in Fresno, has bravely filed a lawsuit against the board of trustees, claiming gross misconduct that reveals a deeply troubling pattern of injustice within the CSU system.

In her lawsuit, Correia describes her painful experiences, asserting that she was targeted because of her gender and sexual orientation. Despite voicing her concerns, her complaints were either ignored or inadequately addressed, leading to a climate of fear and retaliation rather than resolution. This alleged misconduct runs afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), both of which unequivocally condemn discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, asserting that harassment that fosters a hostile work environment is illegal.

Correia’s legal documentation outlines a harrowing journey marked by both emotional and mental distress, stretching over several years. Several individuals from Fresno State, including John Bushoven, chair of the department of Plant Science, have been implicated in her claims. Despite submitting numerous complaints to the university’s human resources department and Title IX office, Correia alleges that no meaningful actions were taken to rectify the situation, leaving her with feelings of neglect and despair.

This troubling situation indicates a significant breach of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines that highlight the employer’s automatic liability for supervisory harassment leading to negative employment outcomes. The guidelines emphasize that employers are obligated to promptly investigate complaints and enact corrective measures to protect employees from retaliation.

Despite enduring a traumatic ordeal that has taken a toll on her health, Correia stands resolutely against the injustices she faced. Her civil complaint seeks $750,000 in damages and is one of several ongoing lawsuits directed at the CSU board concerning workplace harassment, suggesting a systemic issue that may extend throughout the entire university network.

Correia’s experience serves as a critical reminder of the necessity for organizations to cultivate an environment of equal opportunity and respect for all employees. Employers must establish effective mechanisms to prevent workplace discrimination and harassment and must respond decisively when complaints arise.

Moreover, it underscores the imperative for employees to be aware of their rights. Those who find themselves in similar circumstances would benefit from consulting with an employment attorney experienced in workplace harassment. These legal advocates can offer vital guidance on documenting incidents, filing complaints, and pursuing legal action when warranted. They assist victims in navigating the complex landscape of employment laws, empowering them to assert their rights and strive for justice. Above all, they endeavor to ensure that no employee endures the suffering and indignity that Calliope Correia has bravely brought to light.

Posted on

Disguise of Age Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

Disguising age discrimination, wrongful termination using fake performance reviews.

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

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

What Is Exculpatory Documentation?

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

“The use of these tactics is deeply troubling,” says Greg Helmer, an employment law attorney specializing in wrongful termination cases. “Instead of fostering fair workplaces, companies are weaponizing documentation to insulate themselves while undermining employees’ legal protections against discrimination.”

How Employers Exploit Exculpatory Documentation to Target Older Employees

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

Here’s how this disturbing narrative often unfolds:

  • Sudden Decline in Performance Ratings

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

  • The “Documentation Trail”

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

  • Silent Preferences for a Younger Workforce

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

How Exculpatory Practices Disguise Wrongful Termination

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

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

 

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

  • Workplace Fear and Distrust

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

  • Erosion of Organizational Morale

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

 

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

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

How Can Employees Protect Themselves?

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

  1. Request Written Records

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

  2. Keep Your Own Records

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

  3. Challenge Unfair Documentation Immediately

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

  4. Seek Legal Counsel Early

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

Holding Employers Accountable

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

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

Know Your Rights

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

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

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

Posted on

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Posted on

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

Pregnancy discrimination lawyers Beverly Hills Helmer Friedman LLP.

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

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

Performance Pretext and the Role of Exculpatory Paper Trails

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

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

Case Spotlights

Mathew v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

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

Wyatt v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.

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

Zarak v. Netflix

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

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

The Legal Lens on Pregnancy Discrimination

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

Burden of Proof

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

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

Remedies for Unlawful Termination

If an employee successfully proves discrimination, remedies can include:

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

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

Empowering Pregnant Workers

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

  1. Document Everything

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

  1. Understand Your Rights

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

  1. Seek Legal Advice

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

Concluding Thoughts

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

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

Posted on

Understanding Employment Cases of 2024 and Their Impacts on Employees

High Court Ruling on employment cases.

1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis:

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

2. Murray v. UBS Securities:

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

3. Okonowsky v. Garland:

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

4. Rajaram v. Meta Platforms:

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

5. Daramola v. Oracle America:

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

6. Castellanos v. State of California:

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

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

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

8. Quach v. California Commerce Club:

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

9. Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors:

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

10. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services:

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

11. Vazquez v. SaniSure:

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

12. Mar v. Perkins:

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

13. Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto:

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

14. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines:

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

15. Shah v. Skillz Inc.:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Charlotte E. Ray

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

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

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