Author: HFNewsAdmin

Posted on

Transgender Discrimination in Veteran Affairs

LGBTQIA+ people have the right to a workplace free from gender discrimination.

Transgender Discrimination in Veterans Affairs: Understanding the Struggle for Equality

Introduction

Transgender veterans who have served honorably face a unique and heartbreaking battle outside of the military. Discrimination within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) often leaves them without access to essential healthcare, pushing them into a fight for their basic rights after a life of service to the country.

This issue was brought to light recently with the case of Jane Doe, a former army veteran battling gender identity discrimination in the VA. Her lawsuit against the department highlights how new administration policies can impact not only her life but also thousands of other transgender veterans.

This post explores the history of transgender individuals in the military, the legal basis of Jane Doe’s case, and the broader implications of achieving equal rights and services for transgender veterans.

Background of Transgender Individuals in the U.S. Military

“This is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Donovan Bendana, a member of Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic

The history of transgender individuals in the U.S. military is marked with both service and struggle. While transgender people have always served, policies have continually excluded them. Until recently, many service members faced forced discharge if their gender identity was revealed, placing immense pressure on them to hide their authentic selves.

Progress came when, in 2016, the military began allowing transgender individuals to serve openly. However, in 2019, a restrictive policy barred most transgender individuals from enlisting, leading many to believe those earlier strides were being reversed.

The disparities continued into the Department of Veterans Affairs’ healthcare policies. Until 2018, the VA enacted a monumental change to provide health coverage for transitioning veterans, including hormone replacement therapy. This policy was seen as a lifeline for transgender veterans, acknowledging their needs and offering a step toward inclusivity. However, in March 2023, this progress was undone when Secretary Doug Collins abruptly rescinded the coverage, leaving veterans like Jane Doe in a devastating situation.

Case Study Jane Doe vs. Department of Veterans Affairs

Jane Doe is one courageous individual whose story has brought nationwide attention to discrimination against transgender veterans. An Army veteran with 11 years of honorable service, Doe was diagnosed with gender dysphoria in 2017. With her physician’s guidance, she was prescribed hormone replacement therapy, which allowed her to serve effectively for another seven years in the National Guard.

Yet, when Doe retired, the VA abruptly terminated this critical coverage. Despite her 100% service-connected disability rating, which should entitle her to comprehensive care from the VA, she now finds herself without access to necessary medication.

“This is discrimination, plain and simple,” said Donovan Bendana, a member of Yale Law School’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic, who is representing Doe in court. The petition challenges the VA’s decision as unconstitutional and a violation of federal antidiscrimination laws.

For veterans like Doe, the consequences are severe. Unable to work due to her service-connected disability, she cannot afford the necessary medications. “I feel abandoned by the institution that once promised to ‘never leave a soldier behind,’” she shared.

Legal Arguments and Basis of the Lawsuit

The lawsuit filed by Jane Doe’s legal team highlights multiple legal violations by the VA. It asserts that the cancellation of her healthcare coverage breached both federal anti-discrimination statutes and constitutional rights.

Violations of Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of gender identity. The Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County further reinforced that protections for transgender individuals are included under this ruling.

By rescinding coverage specifically for transgender veterans while offering comprehensive medical care to others, the VA has violated this precedent. The lawsuit argues that health care is being denied on the discriminatory basis of Jane Doe’s gender identity.

Constitutional Violations

The case also raises constitutional questions, including potential violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By providing disparate treatment to transgender veterans, the VA may be found to have unlawfully infringed upon their rights to equal treatment under the law.

The Impact on Transgender Veterans Nationwide

The outcome of this lawsuit will likely resonate far beyond Jane Doe, setting a legal precedent with implications for thousands of transgender veterans across the country.

If the courts rule in favor of Doe, the VA may be required to reinstate healthcare coverage for transgender veterans, guaranteeing access to the critical treatment they need. This would represent a significant step toward equity and inclusivity within the realm of veteran support services.

A victory would also apply pressure on policymakers to reconsider the systemic challenges transgender veterans face, including barriers to housing, employment, and mental health support. It could lay essential groundwork for eliminating gender identity discrimination in federal services more broadly.

Transgender discrimination especially in healthcare can make you feel like you're falling apart.

Broader Context: Protecting LGBTQIA Rights

Federal Protections

Federal laws already provide foundational protections for LGBTQIA individuals across employment, housing, and education. The Bostock decision clarified that gender identity and sexual orientation fall under the umbrella of sex-based protections. Similarly, Title IX protects transgender students, while the Fair Housing Act prohibits gender identity discrimination in housing.

State-Level Laws Example: California

Certain states, like California, offer robust protections for LGBTQIA individuals. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prevents discrimination based on gender identity across employment and housing. Additionally, policies like the Gender Recognition Act allow Californians to update identification documents to reflect their authentic selves without medically transitioning.

While some states, like California, provide extensive protections, others lag behind. Activists argue that federal standards must be strengthened to ensure consistent protections regardless of state boundaries.

How You Can Take Action

The fight for equitable treatment of transgender veterans is far from over, and you can make a difference. Here’s how to help:

  • Donate to Organizations Groups like the National Center for Transgender Equality and Yale’s Veterans Legal Services Clinic advocate for transgender veterans. Monetary support aids their legal battles and outreach programs.
  • Spread Awareness Share articles like this and Jane Doe’s story on social media to keep these issues visible.
  • Contact Lawmakers Urge your representatives to pass legislation ensuring equal healthcare access for all veterans.
  • Volunteer Look for local organizations that support LGBTQIA rights and offer your time where needed.

Taking even one of these steps can help create meaningful change for transgender veterans.

Progress Must Extend to All Veterans

Every American veteran deserves respect, support, and access to the care they need, regardless of their gender identity. Cases like Jane Doe’s illuminate the ongoing disparities within federal systems designed to serve those who served this country.

The road to justice for transgender veterans might be long, but it’s a fight worth pursuing. Together, through legal action, advocacy, and community support, we can ensure that no service member is left behind.

Are you ready to stand up for equality? Share Jane Doe’s story, educate yourself about transgender issues, and make your voice heard.

If you or a loved one has faced discrimination due to your transgender identity, know that you are not alone, and legal help is available. At Helmer Friedman LLP, we are dedicated to fighting for justice on behalf of those who have been wronged. Contact our experienced discrimination attorneys for a confidential consultation to discuss your case and explore your options for holding discriminatory systems or individuals accountable.

Posted on

Ground Zero Blues Club Lawsuit Sexual Harassment and Retaliation

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

Ground Zero Blues Club Lawsuit Calls Attention to Workplace Harassment

Workplace harassment continues to dominate headlines, and recent allegations against the Ground Zero Blues Club in Biloxi, Mississippi, present yet another stark reminder of the ongoing battle against such unlawful conduct. The club, owned in part by high-profile figures, is now entangled in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit brought against it under federal law.

This case not only underscores persistent challenges in workplace culture but also highlights critical legal protections for employees and standards that employers must uphold. Here, we break down the specifics of the lawsuit and explore broader implications for employers, employees, and society at large.

Allegations at Ground Zero Blues Club

The allegations at the center of the lawsuit paint a troubling picture. According to reports, an assistant manager at the Biloxi blues venue faced repeated sexual harassment from one of the club’s co-owners. This harassment allegedly included unwanted sexual comments and multiple acts of forced sexual touching, creating an intensely hostile work environment.

The assistant manager repeatedly voiced complaints about the behavior to higher management, but her grievances reportedly fell on deaf ears. After submitting formal, written complaints to the company’s chief financial officer, the assistant manager claims she was fired in retaliation for speaking out against the harassment.

This conduct, if proven true, is a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits both sexual harassment and retaliation against employees who oppose such behavior in their workplace.

The lawsuit seeks a range of damages, including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

The Role of Title VII and Legal Implications

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a foundational piece of legislation that protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment based on several characteristics, including sex. It also explicitly prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report or oppose such conduct.

The allegations against Ground Zero Blues Club involve two key violations under Title VII:

  1. Sexual Harassment: The claims of repeated unwanted sexual advances and comments fall under the category of creating a hostile work environment. If proven, this establishes direct employer liability, especially given the lack of corrective action.
  2. Retaliation: Title VII protects employees who report harassment from facing adverse actions, such as termination. As alleged in this case, retaliation further compounds the legal violations and underscores the importance of a robust, employer-led response to harassment complaints.

The Significance of Employer Liability

Employers have an obligation to act immediately and effectively when harassment is brought to their attention. Failures, such as ignoring complaints or retaliating against the complainant, as alleged here, can result in serious legal consequences, including monetary damages and reputational harm.

What Employers Must Do to Prevent Harassment

For employers, the lawsuit reminds them of the essential steps needed to foster safe and inclusive workplaces. Here are critical measures organizations must implement:

1. Establish Comprehensive Anti-Harassment Policies

Develop a clearly written policy that outlines zero tolerance for harassment and provides actionable steps for employees to file complaints. Ensure this policy is distributed to all staff, reviewed regularly, and updated to align with current laws.

2. Conduct Regular Training

Equip managers and employees with the knowledge to recognize, respond to, and prevent harassment. Training should explain employees’ rights, highlight employer responsibilities, and clarify reporting procedures.

3. Encourage a Culture of Transparency and Accountability

Create an environment where employees feel safe reporting workplace issues. Anonymous reporting tools and clear protections for whistleblowers can build trust within your organization.

4. Respond Promptly to Complaints

When a complaint is made, employers should act immediately by conducting a thorough, impartial investigation. This includes interviewing relevant parties, documenting findings, and taking corrective actions if necessary.

5. Take Retaliation Seriously

Retaliation is both unlawful and detrimental to workplace morale. Prevent this by building safeguards that protect employees who come forward and ensuring open communication throughout the complaint resolution process.

What Employees Should Know About Their Rights

Sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace are not only unethical but also illegal. Employees who experience these behaviors should be aware of their rights and the resources available to them.

1. Reporting Harassment

Employees should report any incidents of harassment to a supervisor, the HR department, or a legal entity within the company. If the employer fails to take corrective action, the employee has every right to escalate the issue by filing a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or a similar regulatory body.

2. Protections from Retaliation

Employees cannot legally be punished or terminated for reporting harassment or participating in an investigation. Any retaliatory action, such as firing, demotion, or workplace exclusion, is grounds for legal action.

3. Seeking Legal Recourse

Victims of harassment or retaliation may be entitled to recover damages through litigation. These damages include:

  • Economic Damages: Compensation for lost wages, benefits, and future earnings.
  • Non-Economic Damages: Compensation for emotional distress and harm to reputation.
  • Punitive Damages: Financial punishment aimed at deterring employers from repeated unlawful behavior.

4. Legal Counsel and Advocacy

Employees can seek guidance from lawyers specializing in employment and harassment law. An experienced attorney can help victims understand their options, file complaints, and advocate on their behalf in court if necessary.

Seeking Justice Through Damages and Relief

The assistant manager’s lawsuit against Ground Zero Blues Club demonstrates the broad range of relief victims can pursue:

  • Back Pay: Compensation for lost wages resulting from the termination.
  • Compensatory Damages: Financial remedy for emotional distress and suffering from the harassment.
  • Punitive Damages: Monetary penalties intended to punish the employer for their egregious conduct.
  • Injunctive Relief: Actions imposed on the employer to prevent future occurrences, such as training initiatives and mandatory policy changes.

These forms of legal relief not only hold employers accountable but also highlight the broader importance of creating a workplace culture rooted in respect and fairness.

Stepping Toward Harassment-Free Workplaces

The lawsuit against Ground Zero Blues Club is a critical reminder of how devastating unchecked harassment can be for victims, organizations, and society at large. Employers must take proactive measures to prevent workplace harassment and retaliation while fostering an inclusive, supportive team environment.

For employees, knowing your rights is key. Organizations like the EEOC and experienced legal counsel exist to ensure those rights are upheld.

Both prevention and accountability are crucial in ensuring that workplaces remain havens of opportunity, creativity, and innovation, not places of fear and inequity.

If you or someone you know is experiencing workplace harassment or retaliation, know there’s help available. Consultation with legal experts can provide clarity, support, and steps toward justice.

Posted on

Orange County Prosecutor Awarded $3 Million in Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

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

In a case that mirrors the ongoing struggle for workplace equality, Tracy Miller, a formidable figure in law enforcement and a beacon for female prosecutors everywhere, emerged victorious after a harrowing journey through allegations of misconduct and retaliation. A jury awarded Miller more than $3 million in damages, a testament to the stark realities she faced as a high-ranking prosecutor in Orange County, California.

The verdict reverberated beyond the courtroom walls, casting a spotlight on the actions of Orange County’s district attorney, Todd Spitzer, and former Chief Assistant District Attorney Shawn Nelson. According to Miller, her steadfast resolve to protect her colleagues from the predatory actions of a supervisor, Gary Logalbo, put her at odds with the county’s most powerful legal figures. Logalbo was found guilty of sexual harassment against four female attorneys, yet the aftermath saw Miller herself facing a barrage of retaliatory tactics aimed at undermining her authority and diminishing her professional standing.

Miller’s accusations painted a picture of a toxic work culture marked by gender-based slurs and an erosion of respect. Her courage in cooperating with the investigation against Logalbo positioned her as both a target and a tenacious advocate for justice within her ranks. Despite the denials from Spitzer and Nelson, the jury sided with the truth, acknowledging the wrongful treatment Miller endured.

Her attorney, Bijan Darvish, hailed the decision as not only a personal vindication for Miller but also a pivotal moment for future generations of women in law. The verdict sends a powerful message that sexual harassment and retaliation will not be tolerated, serving as a beacon of hope and change for women striving to make their mark in male-dominated environments.

This case underscores the ongoing challenges women face in the workplace, emphasizing the critical need to confront issues of harassment head-on and foster an environment of equality and respect. Tracy Miller’s story is one of resilience, courage, and the unyielding pursuit of justice—one that will undoubtedly inspire and empower others to follow in her footsteps.

Posted on

Celebrating Our LGBTQIA+ Community!

Helmer Friedman LLP celebrates Pride Month with our LGBTQIA+ community.

LOVE  *  RESPECT  *  FREEDOM  *  TOLERANCE   *  EQUALITY  *  PRIDE

Posted on

Reverse Discrimination

Battling sex discrimination to make our world more inclusive.

Reverse Discrimination and the U.S. Supreme Court’s Unanimous Decision

Reverse discrimination is an intriguing and multifaceted topic in the realm of employment law, fostering rich discussions about whether individuals from historically privileged groups, such as White or male employees, can claim discrimination if they feel they’ve been treated unfairly due to their majority status. Traditionally, courts imposed an additional hurdle on these plaintiffs known as the “background circumstances” rule. However, a transformative moment arose on June 5, 2025, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services.

For many years, five federal circuit courts upheld this “background circumstances” rule, requiring plaintiffs from majority groups to provide substantial evidence of discriminatory biases held by their employers. This sometimes created an uneven playing field, imposing heavier proof requirements on majority plaintiffs compared to their minority counterparts. The ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services marks a significant turning point, dismantling this disparity and realigning Title VII’s implementation with its original intent.

Greg Helmer, of Helmer Friedman LLP represents two Major League Soccer (“MLS”) coaches in reverse discrimination lawsuit against an MLS team.

In this pivotal case, Marlean Ames, a straight woman employed at the Ohio Department of Youth Services, claimed discrimination when a gay man received a promotion in her stead. The Supreme Court delivered a resounding unanimous verdict, concluding that the “background circumstances” rule contradicted Title VII, which aims to uphold equal protection against discrimination for everyone, regardless of demographic status.

Helmer Friedman LLP discusses nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to U.S. Supreme Court.Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson eloquently articulated the Court’s position, pointing out that the previous rule placed an unwarranted evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs and strayed from the foundational texts and historical applications of Title VII. This decision highlights that claims of discrimination should be assessed on a level playing field, emphasizing the importance of protecting all individuals, as reinforced by the Court’s earlier ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020).

The Ames ruling ushers in a significant shift for employers, who should prepare for an anticipated rise in discrimination claims across all demographic segments, including those traditionally viewed as part of the majority. This decision calls for a fresh evaluation of employment practices to ensure that they align with the Court’s mandate for equal treatment, moving away from outdated frameworks that previously imposed additional burdens on majority-group claimants.

In a thoughtful concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch spotlighted the broader implications of the McDonnell Douglas framework, which has guided assessments of discrimination claims since 1973. While this framework wasn’t directly challenged in Ames, they suggested that it might be re-evaluated in future cases, encouraging lower courts to follow general summary judgment standards applied in cases outside Title VII.

Age discrimination laws protect older employees from discriminatory policies - Helmer Friedman LLP.

This ruling, in conjunction with other significant decisions such as Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (2023) and Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), is revitalizing the landscape of employment discrimination law. Employers are encouraged to focus on fostering equitable workplaces that champion the principles of non-discrimination across all demographics. By prioritizing compliance with the refined interpretations of Title VII articulated by the Supreme Court, organizations can create a more inclusive and harmonious work environment. Together, let’s embrace this opportunity for positive change and ensure that every individual is treated fairly and with respect!

Posted on

Understanding Concerted Activity Rights

Farm worker employees right to unionize.

Understanding Concerted Activity Rights and What They Mean for Employees

The right to organize, demand fair treatment, and advocate for better working conditions is a foundational labor right that’s been fought for over decades. Understanding concerted activity rights is essential for both employees and employers, yet it remains a topic many are unfamiliar with. Recent cases, such as the Redwood Empire Vineyard Management (REVM) incident, underscore the importance of knowing and protecting these rights.

This guide will walk you through the basics of concerted activity, highlight the significance of the REVM case, and provide actionable advice to help employees recognize and address violations of their rights.

What Is Concerted Activity?

At its core, concerted activity refers to actions taken by employees as a group or on behalf of a group to improve their wages, working conditions, or other employment terms. These actions are protected under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a federal law passed in 1935 to safeguard employees’ rights to organize and engage in collective efforts without fear of retaliation from employers.

Examples of Concerted Activities:

  • Organizing or joining a strike to demand higher wages.
  • Petitioning management as a group to improve workplace safety.
  • Discussing wages, hours, or working conditions openly with coworkers.

Concerted activity applies regardless of union membership. This means employees in both unionized and non-unionized workplaces are legally protected when engaging in concerted efforts to address workplace concerns.

Why Does This Matter?

These protections ensure that employees can collectively address inequalities and improve workplace environments without facing undue consequences.

The REVM Case A Violation of Rights

The REVM case is a poignant example of how these rights can be breached and what consequences follow when employers violate these laws.

What Happened at REVM?

REVM, a vineyard management company in California, required its farmworkers to sign contracts that prohibited them from renegotiating their wages. When some employees participated in protests demanding hazard pay, the company retaliated by refusing to include them in future work lists and laying them off. These actions were deemed violations of the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act.

The ALRB Investigation

The Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) determined that REVM’s actions were unfair labor practices. The company was found guilty of:

  • Retaliating against employees for participating in protected concerted activities.
  • Including unlawful clauses in employee contracts discouraged workers from asking for better pay.

Settlement Outcome

REVM reached a settlement to pay $33,548 to affected employees and agreed to remove prohibitive clauses from its contracts. The ALRB also required the company to educate workers about their rights and commit to respecting their ability to organize in the future.

This case serves as a stark reminder that retaliation for engaging in collective activities is unethical and illegal.

Employee Rights in California

California employees benefit from a combination of federal and state laws that protect their rights to challenge workplace inequalities.

What Does At Will Employment Mean?

California is an “at-will” employment state, which means an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any legal reason. Similarly, employees can quit without notice. However, “at-will” rules do not permit terminations based on illegal reasons, such as retaliation, discrimination, or for participating in protected concerted activity.

Key Protections in California:

Under both state and federal regulations:

  • You have the right to discuss wages and working conditions with coworkers.
  • You cannot be fired for organizing or taking group action to address workplace issues.
  • Anti-retaliation laws protect you from being punished for engaging in protected activities.

It’s crucial for workers to know that these protections apply whether or not they are part of a union.

Identifying and Addressing Retaliation

Employer retaliation can take many forms, often subtle or disguised to intimidate employees or discourage further action. Recognizing these signs is the first step toward safeguarding your rights.

Signs of Retaliation:

  • Being excluded from work opportunities or projects.
  • Sudden negative performance reviews after participating in collective activities.
  • Demotions, loss of benefits, or changes in job responsibilities.
  • Threatening or intimidating behavior from managers or supervisors.

Steps You Can Take:

  1. Document Everything

Keep detailed records of any interactions, contracts, or changes in your employment terms following collective actions. This documentation can serve as crucial evidence.

  1. Maintain Communication with Coworkers

A group effort strengthens legal protections and presents a unified voice that employers cannot easily dismiss.

  1. File a Complaint

If retaliation occurs, file a formal complaint with the ALRB in California or the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for other cases. These organizations will investigate and address the violation.

  1. Reach Out to Legal Experts

Consulting with a labor rights attorney ensures you receive tailored advice and representation if needed.

How Organizations Like ALRB Can Help:

Labor organizations like the Agricultural Labor Relations Board provide education, resources, and enforcement mechanisms to protect your rights. If you’re unsure where to begin, they are an excellent first point of contact.

The Power of Collective Action

The REVM case illustrates the risks workers face when challenging unfair practices but also the power and strength gained through collective action. By standing together, these workers not only secured financial compensation but also initiated systemic changes that protect future employees.

Employers may try to silence their workforce through legal loopholes or intimidation, but your rights as an employee are backed by federal and state laws. Becoming familiar with concerted activity protections is the first step toward a fairer workplace for all.

Moving Forward and Seeking Justice

Understanding concerted activity rights is not just about reacting to workplace challenges; it’s about using collective action as a proactive tool for systemic change. Every employee who speaks up strengthens protections for others in similar circumstances.

If you’ve faced retaliation or suspect your rights have been violated, don’t wait. Contact a qualified labor rights attorney for guidance. Together, we can ensure that no worker feels powerless in advocating for fair treatment.

Take control of your rights. Speak up. Seek assistance. Stand with your coworkers for a workplace that values fairness, respect, and equality.

This post utilizes information reported by Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí

Posted on

Race and Sex Harassment Settlement Highlights Workplace Lessons

Stop Racism, race harassment, discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Settlement for Race and Sex Harassment Provides Justice and Lessons for All Workplaces

Workplace discrimination and harassment are more than just violations of personal dignity; they undermine morale, affect productivity, and leave lasting scars on employees. This truth came to light in a high-profile lawsuit involving Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy, who recently settled for $697,500 due to egregious allegations of race- and sex-based harassment. The settlement offers monetary compensation to the affected employees and highlights the critical importance of ensuring safe and inclusive workplaces.

This article will unpack the details of the settlement, its legal implications under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the broader lessons businesses and employees can learn to prevent such violations in the future.

Understanding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark law that prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It serves as a foundation for equality in American employment, ensuring that no one is subjected to discrimination or harassment at work. Specifically, it covers:

  • Discrimination in hiring, firing, and promotions
  • Harassment based on race or sex
  • Retaliation against employees for reporting discrimination

This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Through litigation, investigations, and outreach, the EEOC works to uphold these civil rights, as seen in its handling of the recent case against Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy.

Details of the Harassment Allegations

The lawsuit against Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy revealed a deeply troubling pattern of workplace misconduct. Employees reported:

  • Persistent racial harassment, including repeated use of the “n-word” and other racially derogatory language by management and colleagues.
  • Sexually degrading behavior, such as sharing pornographic images and making offensive remarks aimed at women.
  • Retaliation against those who raised complaints. For example, within days of voicing concerns about harassment, several employees were unlawfully terminated.

This series of alleged incidents reflects clear violations of Title VII, spotlighting how systemic issues, when left unaddressed, can fester and harm both employees and the organizational culture.

Legal Violations in the Case

Effective training, anti-discrimination policies, and pathways for complaining about discrimination without retaliation are essential for providing a workplace free of harassment and discrimination,” said EEOC Houston District Office Regional Attorney Rudy Sustaita.

Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy were accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in multiple ways:

  1. Race-Based Harassment: The pervasive use of racial slurs and targeting of Black employees created a hostile work environment.
  2. Sex-Based Harassment: The degrading behavior toward female employees constituted a violation of federal law prohibiting sex-based harassment.
  3. Retaliation: Firing employees for reporting harassment is strictly prohibited under Title VII. Such actions discourage others from stepping forward, perpetuating the cycle of abuse.

These violations reflect a failure not only to meet legal requirements but also to uphold fundamental workplace ethics.

Settlement and Its Implications

The settlement of $697,500 was a significant step toward justice for the impacted employees. But monetary relief was only part of the resolution. The consent decree also included actionable measures to prevent future violations:

  • Policy Overhaul: The companies must implement comprehensive anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies.
  • Mandatory Training: All employees, including management, are required to undergo training on Title VII, workplace harassment, and retaliation.
  • Regular Reporting: The companies must provide regular updates to the EEOC on training progress and any complaints of discrimination.

Such measures underscore the importance of preventative action, demonstrating that accountability extends beyond financial compensation.

Why Reporting Discrimination Matters

One key takeaway from this case is the value of speaking up about workplace harassment. Reporting discriminatory behavior is critical for several reasons:

  • Holds Employers Accountable: It forces organizations to confront and rectify toxic cultures.
  • Prevents Further Harm: By addressing issues early, you can protect yourself and others from ongoing abuse.
  • Triggers Legal Protections: Under Title VII, individuals who report harassment are protected from employer retaliation.

Still, reporting can feel daunting, especially when fear of backlash looms large. This underscores the need for robust workplace protections and trusted avenues for employees to raise concerns safely.

Building Safer Workplaces

Employers can take proactive steps to foster inclusive environments and guard against discrimination:

  • Establish clear anti-discrimination policies and communicate them to employees.
  • Conduct frequent training on workplace diversity, sensitivity, and harassment laws.
  • Implement effective reporting mechanisms to handle complaints promptly and confidentially.
  • Build a culture of accountability where everyone, regardless of position, is held to the same standards.

These actions not only protect employees but enhance organizational reputation, making businesses more attractive to top talent and clients alike.

Take Action If You Experience Discrimination

If you’ve faced race- or sex-based harassment at work, know that the law is on your side. Contacting a discrimination lawyer is a powerful step to hold employers accountable and secure justice. Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP specialize in workplace discrimination cases, offering the expertise and advocacy you need to take on even the biggest employers.

Workplace equality isn’t just a legal requirement; it’s a moral imperative that empowers productivity, trust, and innovation. By addressing harassment and advocating for fairness, we create businesses that thrive on respect and inclusion.

Posted on

Widespread Age Discrimination

Trade union members discrimination, age discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

It’s vital to engage in open and heartfelt discussions about an issue that truly impacts many in our workforce: age discrimination. It’s particularly significant that workers aged 65 and older are now the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. workforce, with those over 75 not far behind. Acknowledging and addressing the unique challenges they face is essential. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics projects a staggering 78% increase in workers aged 75 and above, and a 25% rise in those aged 65 to 74 by 2030. Yet, despite these encouraging trends, ageism continues to be a pervasive issue. A recent AARP survey found that 9 out of 10 individuals aged 50 and older feel that age discrimination is widespread, with nearly two-thirds having either experienced it personally or witnessed it firsthand.

9 out of 10 individuals aged 50 and older feel that age discrimination is widespread, with nearly two-thirds having either experienced it personally or witnessed it firsthand.

The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) highlights the importance of legal protection for workers aged 40 and above under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). This important legislation aims to shield experienced candidates from being overlooked, to discourage biased language in job postings, and to promote a nurturing workplace culture that values age diversity.

The experience and reliability that come with age are irreplaceable assets any organization can cherish. Workers over 40 bring a wealth of knowledge and insights gained through years of navigating complex business landscapes and adapting to the ever-changing economic and technological tides. Contrary to common stereotypes, these individuals are often incredibly dependable, deeply committed, and remarkably adaptable. However, despite their valuable contributions, many face various forms of age discrimination, including unequal pay, limited promotional opportunities, biased hiring practices, and unfair terminations.

A recent court ruling serves as a poignant reminder of the real-world impacts of age discrimination. CrossCountry Mortgage was ordered to pay over $2.1 million in damages following a jury and appeals court decision favoring Cheryl Shephard, a dedicated senior accountant who was let go at age 65 in June 2022. Cheryl believed her dismissal was rooted in her age rather than her work performance. The court found inconsistencies in CrossCountry’s reasoning and acknowledged violations of the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act. This case underscores the urgent need for compassion and fairness in our workplaces.

Creating change to eliminate age discrimination calls for awareness and decisive action from organizational leadership. Companies need to embrace unbiased recruitment practices, remove ageist language from job descriptions, and cultivate inclusive environments that genuinely appreciate the strength that diversity, including age diversity, brings. Providing training for managers to recognize and challenge age biases, along with fostering mentorship and skill development opportunities, can create more equitable workplaces where everyone feels valued.

If you or someone you know has faced age discrimination, it’s important not to stay silent. Reach out to the appropriate authorities and consider seeking guidance from an experienced employment lawyer who can help you understand your rights. By standing together against age discrimination, we can foster workplaces where talent and experience are embraced and celebrated, regardless of age. It’s time to fully appreciate the immense value that older workers bring to our organizations and honor their important contributions.

Posted on

ADA Provisions Extend Beyond Conventional Notions of Disability Discrimination

Corrections officer -Employment law decision disability discrimination.

Navigating Workplace Rights with Legal Expertise

In employment law, the case of John Nawara highlights the challenges individuals may encounter when asserting their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This case serves as a significant example of both employers’ obligations and the determination employees must possess to protect their rights.

John Nawara began his tenure with the Cook County Sheriff’s Office in 1998 and served as a correctional officer for nearly two decades. However, in 2016, his career took a critical turn following several difficult interactions with colleagues, including a superior officer, an HR manager, and an occupational health nurse. These incidents raised concerns that prompted his employer to require a fitness-for-duty evaluation, leading to a series of legal proceedings that examined the interpretation of the ADA.

The decision to place Nawara on paid leave while awaiting a medical examination raised important questions regarding ADA compliance, particularly concerning medical inquiries and evaluations. Cook County required Nawara to sign medical authorization forms, which he initially resisted. This resistance resulted in a shift from paid leave to unpaid leave. Eventually, he agreed to the examination and was cleared to return to work. Despite this clearance, the requirement for a medical examination without a clear justification led Nawara to pursue legal action, claiming his employer had violated ADA guidelines.

As the case advanced through the legal system, it garnered considerable attention and support, notably from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The central legal issue was whether Cook County’s insistence on a medical examination constituted a form of disability discrimination, highlighting that an employee might invoke ADA protections even without a recognized disability.

The ADA imposes strict limitations on when employers can demand medical examinations from current employees, stipulating that such requests must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Nawara, supported by the EEOC, argued that the demand for a medical examination was unjustified and violated these standards. Ultimately, the appeals court ruled in Nawara’s favor, affirming his right to receive back pay—a landmark decision indicating that the ADA’s provisions extend beyond conventional notions of disability discrimination.

This case serves as an important reminder to both employees and employers about the nuances of ADA provisions. Employers must exercise caution and ensure any medical examinations or inquiries are properly justified, while employees should be aware of their rights and protections.

Nawara’s experience illustrates that the path to justice can be complex and emotionally taxing. Therefore, it is crucial for individuals facing such issues to seek consultation with experienced employment attorneys. These legal professionals offer vital guidance and advocacy, enabling employees to navigate their rights and responsibilities effectively, thus highlighting the essential role of legal expertise in fostering fair outcomes in the workplace.

Posted on

Sex Discrimination: Nationwide Implications of Texas Ruling

Gender identity discrimination is illegal - Helmer Friedman LLP.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This order states that the federal government will use “biological” male and female categories. It also directed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to remove parts of the Harassment Guidance that do not align with this order.

Since the Executive Order, the EEOC has been unable to make any changes to the Harassment Guidance. The EEOC needs a majority vote from its five members to do this. However, the Commission has not had enough members since late January 2025 because three positions are vacant. Although Acting Chair Andrea Lucas disagrees with the guidance parts that conflict with the Executive Order, she cannot change them without a quorum.

On May 15, 2025, a federal court in Texas ruled that the Harassment Guidance’s definition of “sex” was unlawful because it went beyond the biological categories of male and female. The court found that the guidance misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. The Bostock case only addressed whether firing someone for being homosexual or transgender violated Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination. The court confirmed that Bostock did not expand the definition of “sex” and did not cover issues like bathrooms or locker rooms.

The Texas court’s decision vacated parts of the Harassment Guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity. This includes guidance on harassment in sex-segregated facilities and the use of preferred pronouns.

This decision affects not only the case parties but also applies nationwide. The Texas court decided that its ruling impacts agency action more broadly.

Despite this ruling, the EEOC cannot remove its vacated guidance parts because it still lacks a quorum. However, the EEOC has made some changes on its website to show which parts of the Harassment Guidance have been vacated, marking those sections in gray and adding alerts about the changes.

The Bostock decision is still in effect. Title VII continues to protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Although the EEOC may not pursue litigation on these issues based on its recent actions, it still has the authority to do so. Employees can still file private claims for such discrimination.