Author: HFNewsAdmin

Posted on

WORKERS SAY THEY FACED DISCRIMINATION WORKING FOR THE CHICAGO UTILITY

Peoples Gas accused of racial discrimination by several employees.

Nearly a Dozen Former and Current Peoples Gas Workers Say in the Federal Lawsuit that the Company Racially Discriminated Against Black Employees in the Chicago Area

Letitia Jackson was excited about her job at one of the state’s largest utility companies, where few other professionals of color worked.

“For me to be the face of a Black woman that could say I know how to do construction, I know how to do piping,” Jackson said. “I was really proud of that and to say that I work at Peoples Gas — that was something I was proud of.”

But her aspirations of climbing the ranks of Peoples Gas fizzled as she started experiencing a culture she and other workers say discriminates against employees of color. She’s among 11 former and current Peoples Gas employees who filed a federal lawsuit against Peoples Gas, saying that non-Black workers sexualize workers and customers of color and face racial slurs.

According to the lawsuit, Peoples Gas assigned Black workers to an area that includes the South Side, and they frequently get assigned to jobs in neighborhoods without security where some have faced attacks. The workers also allege that the company did not address concerns about workplace racism and hazards.

Peoples Gas said the accusations aren’t true.

“We adamantly deny the allegations made by these individuals, including the extreme and false claims of racial bias, and will vigorously defend the suit. We provide a workplace with equal opportunities for all employees, including a long-standing unionized field workforce,” the utility stated.

During Jackson’s time with the company, she endured comments from coworkers about her clothes and speculation about what she would do for money, according to the lawsuit. It was part of a pattern other workers reported experiencing. One worker said coworkers speculated about his sex life because he is a Black man, while others heard fellow employees make sexual comments about Black customers.

Garland Eleby, another plaintiff, remembers on his first day of work hearing a white coworker using a racial slur.

“Nobody flinched,” said Eleby, who still works for Peoples Gas. “Nobody looked up or asked, ‘Hey, what’s wrong with you?’ Nothing. It rolled off the tongue like he said it every day.”

In addition to placing a more significant proportion of its Black employees in the South Side service area, the company also places them in communities with higher rates of crime. The lawsuit describes how current and former employees have been the victims of attacks, robberies, and attempted robberies.

Eleby claimed that after being assigned to work in an area overnight where a car wreck had disrupted service, he and several coworkers were robbed at gunpoint a little over a year into his career. He claimed that later, they had to remain in the same location for six or seven hours.

“I was really upset,” Eleby said. “I was disgusted. It was like we got sent into a battle with no proper gear or anything. It was just like no regard for how we felt.”

Recalling a shooting she saw while on the job, Jackson said, left her so shaken up that she drove in reverse.

When I returned to the shop, my supervisor only offered me a hot dog,” she said. “I am crying, bawling in tears, wanting to go home, and I was told, well, you’ll have to use your own [paid time off] to go home.”

Letitia Jackson, a former Peoples Gas employee, is among nearly a dozen former and current employees filing a federal lawsuit against the company over alleged safety and racial discrimination.

In a written statement, Peoples Gas said it utilizes private security and works with the Chicago police to support the safety of employees when deemed appropriate.

The lawsuit says discriminatory practices for Black employees affected overtime, promotions, and discipline.

“I just want to come to work and do my job,” said Towns, who has returned to Peoples Gas. “Do the best job that I could possibly do and just go home. I hate to have to be the person here to bring light to this particular situation, but it’s inevitable.”

Jason Towns, who’s one of those suing, said he thinks racism played a role in his termination in 2022. He was part of a crew that damaged an underground service line, but Towns said his white coworker was not disciplined.

It’s one of the reasons why Towns said he felt compelled to speak out after seeking other avenues of change with no results.

“I just want to come to work and do my job,” said Towns, who has returned to Peoples Gas. “Do the best job that I could possibly do and just go home. I hate to have to be the person here to bring light to this particular situation, but it’s inevitable.”

Based on reporting by Elvia Malagón.

Posted on

RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION LAWSUIT – TRIPLE CANOPY, INC. TO PAY $110,759

Religious discrimination, retaliation for refusing accommodation for employees beard.

Government Contractor Settles Federal Lawsuit Alleging It Failed to Provide Religious Accommodations and Retaliated Against Employee

Summary:

  • Triple Canopy, a Virginia-based company providing protective services to federal agencies, will pay a former employee $110,759 and provide other relief to settle a religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
  • Triple Canopy denied a religious accommodation to an employee who held a Christian belief that men must wear beards because the employee was unable to provide additional substantiation of his beliefs or a supporting statement from a certified or documented religious leader.
  • The EEOC filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.
  • Under a three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, in addition to monetary relief for the affected employee, Triple Canopy will institute and disseminate a new religious accommodation policy; provide training on religious discrimination and retaliation; and report to the EEOC quarterly on any complaints of religious discrimination and retaliation.

Triple Canopy, Inc., a company based in Reston, Virginia that provides protective services to federal agencies, has settled a religious discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by agreeing to pay a former employee $110,759 and provide other relief, as announced by the agency.

“Title VII broadly defines religion; it applies not only to mainstream religious beliefs that are part of a formal religious group, but also to all aspects of an individual’s religious observance, practice, and belief. When religion conflicts with a work requirement, employers must provide an accommodation unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.”

The EEOC’s lawsuit claims that Triple Canopy refused to provide a religious accommodation to an employee who believed that men must wear beards due to their Christian faith because the employee was unable to provide additional evidence of his beliefs or a statement from a certified or documented religious leader. The lawsuit also stated that Triple Canopy retaliated against the employee by subjecting him to intolerable working conditions that resulted in his constructive discharge.

The alleged behavior is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandates that employers accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would result in undue hardship and prohibits retaliation against anyone who complains about discrimination. The EEOC filed the lawsuit (EEOC v. Triple Canopy, Inc., Civil Action No.1:23-cv-1500) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its voluntary conciliation process.

“This lawsuit raised serious issues of discrimination and retaliation. We are pleased that Triple Canopy was willing to agree to an early resolution that will compensate the affected former employee and also improve its handling of religious accommodation requests going forward.”

Under a three-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, in addition to monetary relief for the affected employee, Triple Canopy will create and disseminate a new religious accommodation policy, provide training on religious discrimination and retaliation, and report quarterly to the EEOC on any claims of religious discrimination and retaliation.

Debra M. Lawrence, the EEOC’s Philadelphia Regional Attorney, stated, “This lawsuit raised serious issues of discrimination and retaliation. We are pleased that Triple Canopy was willing to agree to an early resolution that will compensate the affected former employee and also improve its handling of religious accommodation requests going forward.”

Mindy E. Weinstein, director of the EEOC’s Washington Field Office, stated, “Title VII broadly defines religion; it applies not only to mainstream religious beliefs that are part of a formal religious group, but also to all aspects of an individual’s religious observance, practice, and belief. When religion conflicts with a work requirement, employers must provide an accommodation unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.”

Posted on

Age Discrimination by Medical Group Imposing Mandatory Retirement Age

Age Discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles safeguard your rights to a workplace free from age discrimination.

Scripps Clinical Medical Group recently settled an age and disability discrimination charge filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The federal agency investigated the allegations and found that the company violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by imposing a mandatory retirement age on physicians, regardless of their abilities to perform their jobs.

To settle the case, Scripps Clinical Medical Group entered into a four-year conciliation agreement with the EEOC. The company will pay $6,875,000 to a class of individuals impacted by the mandatory retirement policy. Additionally, the company has rescinded the policy, and the Board of Directors will reaffirm this action.

Scripps Clinical Medical Group will inform employees that the company does not have any policy in which age is a factor in making employment decisions. The company will also review, revise, and distribute its policies and procedures against discrimination based on age and disability. Moreover, it will require division heads, department heads, executive leadership, and members of human resources to attend training on the ADEA and ADA. The EEOC will monitor compliance with this agreement.

The EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows emphasized the importance of protecting older workers and identified discrimination against them as one of the Commission’s priorities in its new Strategic Enforcement Plan. Anna Y. Park, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office, commended Scripps Clinical Medical Group for addressing the concerns in this charge and for rescinding its discriminatory policy.

Jacquelyn Famber, director of the EEOC’s San Diego Office, noted that mandatory retirement age based on assumptions and stereotypes is against the law, and the EEOC will continue to pursue such discriminatory policies. Older workers are valuable members of our workforce, and their age should not be used to make employment-based decisions.

Posted on

Over $3 Million Award in Racial Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation Lawsuit

Sexual harassment, race discrimination and retaliation lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

A Georgia woman has won more than a $3 million judgment in a racial discrimination, sexual and race harassment, and retaliation lawsuit Marshall v. Tidal Wave Response, LLC and its owner, John Myers.

According to Channel 2 Action News and the law firm Buckley Bala Wilson Mew LLP, Tiphony Marshall won the largest single-plaintiff verdict in the Northern District of Georgia’s history.

“The case involved evidence of virulent racial and sexual harassment of Ms. Marshall,” said the law firm in a press release. “Culminating in a violent incident that caused her to flee from the workplace.”

Marshall was an office manager for the water damage restoration company in the Atlanta suburb of Chamblee, Georgia, and claimed she was subjected to “abusive and misogynistic” treatment by her employer, including being forced to change his baby’s diapers, enduring comments about his penis and racial intimidation.

Marshall began working for the company in February of 2018 but resigned on Aug. 6, 2021, after being subjected to Myers’ harassment on “a near-daily basis,” which ended after a confrontation where he threw hot coffee at Marshall.

Myers forced her to watch his infant and change the child’s diapers, calling it a “task suited for a woman.” He also forced her to do the job of a terminated project manager, commented on his penis size, and mocked his interpretation of Black vernacular.

Myers forced her to watch his infant and change the child’s diapers, calling it a “task suited for a woman.”

“The case involved evidence of virulent racial and sexual harassment of Ms. Marshall,” said the law firm in a press release. “Culminating in a violent incident that caused her to flee from the workplace.”

Other reported harassment included Myers repeatedly questioning Marshall about her sex life and implying she was sleeping with a co-worker. Myers also asked Marshall if she thought a potential employee was “hot” and asked about her breast size. The complaint noted Myers’ making “sexually charged noises” and saying he was “sexually aroused” as well.

The court heard that Myers would also suggest that Marshall “get with” the men he interviewed, and he would often comment on her physical appearance and whether she was wearing form-fitting clothing.

The Tidal Wave owner also falsely told a room full of employees that Marshall had been raped and tried to pay her commissions with $100 bills that he’d rubbed on his crotch area. Myers also made comments about the size of his penis and would yell for Marshall from the bathroom to “come and help [ ] hold it” while he urinated.

The lawsuit also alleges Myers told Marshall and a group of Black and Hispanic employees that he was “better than” them. He also said they would never “get anything better” than their current jobs with Tidal.

The lawsuit also contends that he mocked his idea of Black vernacular, once saying to Marshall, “Do I call you Black? Do I call you African American? Do I say ‘yo, what’s up?’” Myers also “would skirt around the use of derogatory racial slurs” but stopped just before using the slurs. He also allegedly punched holes in his office walls and threatened violence against employees.

The lawsuit states that Marshall confronted her boss about the extra duties on Aug. 4, two days before she left her position with the company. The complaint says that Myers “became irate, shouted profanities, and threw a cup of hot coffee near her,” causing Marshall to “fear for her safety” and flee the office.

The jury deliberated for four hours before awarding Marshall back pay of $50,113.82. She was also awarded compensatory and punitive damages for race discrimination, racial harassment, sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, with the total awarded being $3,470,393.82.

After the verdict, Marshall’s attorney Ed Buckley said Myers and his lawyers fled the courtroom before the proceedings had ended.

“This is the first time I’ve had the defendant and their lawyers flee the courtroom during a trial,” Buckley said in a statement. “The admissions and evidence were presumably so overwhelming that they did not want to face the jury.”

Read more by Niko Mann.

Posted on

Racial Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment – SFSD Clerks Awarded Over $1 Million in Lawsuit

Trust the attorneys of Helmer Friedman LLP to aggressively protect employee rights to a workplace free from discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Two Black employees of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department have sued the city, alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation while on the job. Danielle Dillard and Kim Lee work as clerks processing warrants for criminal suspects. They claim that they have been subjected to a workplace culture of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

It Broke Me Down

The conditions at work worsened for Dillard and Lee after they complained about alleged discriminatory acts by co-workers and superiors that had been happening for several years. Among several other claims, Dillard says a supervisor referred to her as a “monkey” in 2016 after she introduced herself as a clerk and shop steward with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1021 union.

Ms. Dillard would spend her lunch and rest times crying due to the hostile atmosphere she found herself in, not being able to speak at all to colleagues.

Dillard claims she received racial discrimination complaints from other Sheriff’s Department employees as a union shop steward and brought them to Captain James Quanico, who oversees Dillard’s unit. A month later, Dillard claims she was served with a cease-and-desist order stating she could not communicate with employees in her division. Lee’s discrimination allegations also began in 2016.

On November 15, 2023, a jury awarded Danielle Dillard $523,400 and Kim Lee $616,000 for their racial discrimination lawsuit against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and the City Attorney’s Office released a joint statement claiming they oppose harassment and discriminatory behavior.

“As one of the most diverse sheriff’s departments in the nation that values equity and inclusion, any form of harassment or discriminatory behavior is antithetical to our values. We are surprised and disappointed by the outcome of this case and will be working with the City Attorney’s Office to evaluate any next steps.”

Posted on

Anxiety Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Citizens Bank

Federal laws protect employees from discrimination, employer retaliation.

Anxiety Disability Discrimination Lawsuit against Citizens Bank Settles for $100,000

Citizens Bank has been accused of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing to accommodate a call center employee who developed an anxiety disorder. The employee requested reassignment to a position that did not require him to field calls with aggravated customers over the phone. Despite having hundreds of nearby job openings, Citizens Bank refused to reassign the employee or discuss alternative accommodations until he returned to his job at the call center, the same position his disability prevented him from performing. As a result, the employee was forced to resign.

“We’ve seen a huge uptick in the number of potential or prospective clients calling us since the pandemic began with regard to either mental health issues in general or anxiety and PTSD.” Andrew H. Friedman – in an Law360 article entitled, No Letup in Sight as Anxiety-Related EEOC Charges Mount.

The EEOC filed a lawsuit (EEOC v. Citizens Bank, N.A., Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00362) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC alleges that Citizens Bank violated the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against employees with disabilities and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, including reassignment.

According to the EEOC, 2600 workers lodged anxiety-related disability discrimination charges in 2021. Citizens Bank has agreed to a 30-month consent decree that includes monetary relief and other measures to support employees with disabilities. The bank will offer noncompetitive reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for employees with disabilities. The bank will also revise its reasonable accommodation policy, train its employees on noncompetitive reassignment as a reasonable accommodation, provide specialized training to its human resources department, and appoint an internal monitor to ensure compliance with the decree.

The EEOC is committed to enforcing the ADA and ensuring that qualified employees with disabilities can return to work. Citizens Bank will implement company-wide policy changes and pay $100,000 to a former Cranston, Rhode Island, call center employee to resolve the disability discrimination lawsuit.

More information about disability discrimination is available at https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources.

Posted on

Papa John’s Pizza Disability Discrimination Lawsuit Settled for $175,000

Disability discrimination laws protect blind employees accommodations for service dogs. Helmer Friedman LLP vigorously protects the rights of all employees.

Federal Agency Charges Pizza Chain Failed to Accommodate and Fired Blind Employee Because of Disability Settled

“Congress passed Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act to remove the barriers to employment faced by workers with disabilities, and for Mr. Barnes, his service dog does just that,” said Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office. “The EEOC will continue its fight to ensure that all employees, regardless of disability status, have an equal opportunity to earn the privileges and benefits of employment.”

Papa John’s Pizza, an international chain of pizza restaurants based in Louisville, Kentucky, has settled a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by agreeing to pay $175,000 and provide other relief. The lawsuit was filed after the company failed to accommodate and fired a blind employee because of his disability.

In early 2020, Michael Barnes, who is legally blind and relies on his service dog for his commute, applied for a job at his local Papa John’s restaurant in Athens, Georgia, after hearing from a friend that the company hired individuals with vision impairments. Barnes was hired but could not start until his accommodation request to bring his service dog was formally granted by Papa John’s. However, the company denied Barnes’s accommodation request and fired him before he worked a single shift.

Such conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). “The ADA prohibits employers from terminating employees because of a disability and denying them equal employment opportunities,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

“Not allowing blind and visually impaired people to travel to and from work in the way that affords them confidence and independence is akin to telling sighted workers who rely on the flexibility and independence of driving that they may not travel to work by car,” said Karla Gilbride, the EEOC’s general counsel. “We are glad that Papa John’s has agreed to provide training to its employees and hope that in the future, no other job applicant who uses a service dog will experience the discrimination that Mr. Barnes faced.”

Under the two-year consent decree resolving the lawsuit, Papa John’s will pay $175,000 in monetary damages to Barnes, train its employees on the ADA, review its employment policies, and allow the EEOC to monitor complaints of discrimination or retaliation.

“The EEOC will continue its fight to ensure that all employees, regardless of disability status, have an equal opportunity to earn the privileges and benefits of employment,” said Darrell Graham, district director of the Atlanta office.

“We are glad that Papa John’s has agreed to provide training to its employees and hope that in the future, no other job applicant who uses a service dog will experience the discrimination that Mr. Barnes faced,” said Karla Gilbride, the EEOC’s general counsel.

“The Commission is steadfast in its commitment to making sure all employees have an equal opportunity to earn and enjoy the privileges and benefits of employment, regardless of their disability status,” added Darrell Graham, district director of the EEOC’s Atlanta office.

For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.

Posted on

Equal Pay and Anti-Retaliation Protection Act

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

New California Law Makes It Easier for Employees to Establish Retaliation Claims for Alleged Labor Code Violations

CA SB 497 Retaliation Law 2024

On October 8, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed Senate Bill No. 497, officially establishing the “Equal Pay and Anti-Retaliation Protection Act.” The act aims to protect employees who engage in certain protected activities under specified sections of the California Labor Code from experiencing any adverse employment action within 90 days of such activity. If an employee does face such action, the act sets up a “rebuttable presumption of retaliation” against the employer. The Equal Pay and Anti-Retaliation Protection Act will take effect on January 1, 2024.

Under the new law, the burden of proof for showing that the adverse employment action was based on a legitimate non-retaliatory reason will lie with the employer. Additionally, an employee who wins the case will be entitled to civil penalties for each violation. Suppose an employer is found to have retaliated against an employee for Section 1102.5 protected activity. In that case, the employer may be liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 per employee for each violation. This civil penalty is already available for Section 98.6 protected activity.

The new presumption standard and civil penalties remind employers in California that they must take employee complaints seriously and avoid any actions against an employee that could be considered unlawful retaliation.

Posted on

Religious Harassment by Chipotle Manager

Nationality Discrimination & Harassment is illegal. Helmer Friedman LLP Los Angeles Nationality Discrimination lawyers.

Areej Saifan, a 19-year-old Muslim employee at a Chipotle restaurant in Kansas was subjected to religious harassment by her supervisor, Kevin Silva Garcia, who repeatedly asked her to remove her hijab. The harassment continued for several weeks, with the assistant manager even pulling off the her hijab, and exposing her hair. Despite reporting the behavior to a shift supervisor, no action was taken to address the harassment, leading the employee to resign. The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against Chipotle on behalf of the employee, seeking backpay and other damages. This kind of harassment is unacceptable and goes against the right to work free from discrimination based on religious beliefs and practices. Chipotle must take responsibility for the actions of its employees and ensure that such behavior is not tolerated in the workplace.

Posted on

School District Fails to Protect Employee from Racist Attacks by Parents

Internet troll or cyberbully posting hate speech on Social Media, in comments online.

Black Ex-employee Sues Rockwood for Discrimination

Brittany Hogan, the former Director of Educational Equity and Diversity at Rockwood School District, filed a lawsuit in February 2021, alleging that she was subjected to racial abuse by parents and that the administration ignored her complaints. Hogan served the district for eight school years but resigned in April 2021.

The lawsuit claims that Hogan received threatening messages through various channels, including email, phone, and social media, after promoting an anti-racism book called “Stamped” in December 2020. While the book was part of the district’s One Read program, Hogan did not choose it. District officials brought her in to discuss ways to promote the book, but Hogan faced backlash as a result.

The suit said Hogan began receiving racist messages through the district’s Twitter account, with one message saying Hogan and another Black Rockwood official should “work at a different school district where the students were Black.”

In January 2021, Hogan and her secretary began receiving threatening and profane phone calls and email messages, the suit said. One caller demanded that Hogan’s secretary disclose Hogan’s physical location. An email from a parent read, “I hope you sleep well at night …” which the lawsuit claims implied that Hogan might not be safe at night.

The lawsuit said Hogan’s secretary notified administrators about the threatening messages. It also said administrators took no action to protect Hogan, who at the time worked at an unsecured building near one of the district’s middle schools that made her vulnerable to possible altercations.

In February, a human resource employee told Hogan in a telephone call that things had become “out of control.” Still, the lawsuit said she received no assistance or written response.

On Feb. 4, 2021, Hogan emailed her supervisors to tell them she would not participate in the scheduled Feb. 10, 2021, reading of “Stamped” on Zoom with the community. In the email, she said she was being “trolled,” or harassed, by white supremacists on the Twitter diversity account, according to the lawsuit.

She also wrote in that email, “As the only Black woman in district leadership, I am concerned and uncomfortable of how quickly I’ve become the scapegoat of white rage,” the lawsuit said.

During a superintendent’s cabinet meeting in the first week of February 2021, copies of the threats Hogan had received on Twitter were given to every cabinet member. The lawsuit said the only action taken was on Feb. 8, 2021, when then-Superintendent Mark Miles told Hogan to block Twitter accounts harassing her.

Hogan’s lawsuit against the district alleges that they violated her rights by allowing race-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The case lists several incidents throughout the 2020-2021 school year, supposedly demonstrating that Rockwood officials sidelined Hogan, making it impossible for her to perform her job effectively. The lawsuit claims the district created a hostile work environment, leading to Hogan’s constructive discharge.

Following the lawsuit, the Rockwood School District settled for $175,000 through an insurance policy, which included attorney fees and other costs. Hogan’s attorney, Javad Khazaeli, expressed Hogan’s desire to move on from the situation and focus on future endeavors.