Author: HFNewsAdmin

Posted on

Walmart Pays $87,500 to Settle Unlawful Retaliation Lawsuit

Walmart settles Retaliation Lawsuit.

Two Adult Children Were Unlawfully Rejected for Jobs Because of Mother’s Prior Sex Discrimination Complaint

A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., L.P. (doing business as Walmart stores in Albuquerque) for retaliation. The lawsuit claimed that Walmart Store #835 on Eubank in Northeast Albuquerque refused to hire Ramona Bradford’s adult son and daughter for entry-level positions because Ms. Bradford had filed a sex discrimination charge against Wal-Mart with the EEOC.

Retaliation against employees because of their opposition to discrimination or participation in protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC also alleged that Ramona Bradford was a victim of retaliation because her two adult children were being denied employment because she was complaining about discrimination and her charge filing.

The consent decree settling the suit provides for monetary relief for the Bradfords, as well as an injunction prohibiting retaliatory practices, training for managerial employees on retaliation, and posting a notice advising employees of their rights under Title VII.

Retaliation continues to be a high priority for the EEOC, which receives more retaliation charges than any other kind of discrimination charges. The EEOC is pleased that this case could be resolved for the Bradfords and mandates that Wal-Mart train its managers about retaliation.

Eliminating policies and practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes or that impede the EEOC’s investigative or enforcement efforts is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

Posted on

Race and Religious Harassment at Trucking Company

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Trucking Company Allowed Harassment of Former Employee Because of His Race and Religion, Federal Agency Charges

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Wheeler Trucking for violating federal civil rights laws. The lawsuit alleges that the company subjected an employee at its Lorain County, Ohio location to harassment based on his religion and race. The former employee was also denied a religious accommodation he requested, and faced retaliation when he complained about the harassment. Ultimately, he was separated from employment.

According to the EEOC, Wheeler Trucking personnel frequently and severely harassed the former employee using racial slurs and derogatory terms. The former employee complained multiple times, but the company failed to take meaningful action to address the harassment or prevent future incidents. When the former employee spoke out against the discrimination and harassment, the company’s treatment of him worsened, leading to his separation from employment.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation, race discrimination, and religious discrimination. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (EEOC v. Wheeler Trucking d/b/a Wheeler Trucking, Inc. and Wheeler Logistics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01874) after the EEOC’s attempt to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process failed.

Posted on

ResourceOne Sued for Harassment Based on Genetic Information, Race, National Origin

Hostile Work Environment | Workplace bullying attorneys Helmer Friedman LLP.

EEOC Charges Printing Distribution Company Supervisor Called Employee ‘Ape,’ ‘Congo,’ and Other Slurs After Viewing DNA Results

A printing distribution company in Tulsa, Oklahoma, is facing charges of racial and national origin discrimination after a supervisor allegedly harassed an employee with derogatory slurs like “ape” and “Congo” upon learning about her DNA ancestry results. The commercial printing, direct mail, and direct marketing company, Worldwide Printing and Distribution, Inc., doing business as ResourceOne, is accused of violating the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by creating a hostile work environment for the employee and failing to take corrective action despite her repeated complaints.

The incident highlights the importance of protecting employees from discrimination and harassment based on their genetic information, national origin, or race. It is essential for employers to foster a safe and inclusive workplace free from offensive name-calling and slurs that can create a toxic work environment. As more people choose to learn about their ancestry through DNA testing, it is crucial to ensure that this information is not misused to create an unlawful environment at work.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Worldwide Printing and Distribution, Inc., seeking monetary relief for the victim and an order prohibiting similar discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The EEOC emphasizes the need for employers to protect their workers from all forms of harassment and discrimination, including those based on genetic information, national origin, and race.

Update:

August 14, 2024 – Printing and Distribution, Inc., doing business as ResourceOne, a Tulsa commercial printing, direct mailing and direct marketing company, will pay $47,500 and furnish other relief to resolve a harassment lawsuit.

Posted on

Sexual Harassment and Retaliation of Tenants

Sexual harassment retaliation by landlord.

Dad, Son Refused to Fix Tenant’s Gas Leak After She Reported Sexual Harassment

The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Javier Salazar Jr., Javier Salazar Sr., and Ricardo Covarrubias, a maintenance worker, the manager, and the owner, respectively, of rental properties in Bakersfield, California, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Preying on renters who have few housing options is abhorrent and illegal.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleges that Javier Salazar, Jr., a maintenance worker, sexually harassed a female tenant from December 2018 through March 2019 by repeatedly asking the tenant to engage in sexual acts with him, asking her to be in a relationship with him, describing the sexual acts he wished to engage in with her and persistently commenting on her appearance.

The Justice Department is committed to holding accountable any person in the housing sector who sexually harasses, assaults or retaliates against tenants, from the housing owner to the maintenance worker. A home should be a place of refuge and sanctity, not sexual assault and exploitation, and we will continue to use the Fair Housing Act to hold violators accountable.

According to the complaint, on two occasions, Javier Salazar Jr. touched the tenant’s body without her consent. He secretly took digital photographs of framed print pictures in her home of her and her daughter. The tenant reported Salazar Jr.’s conduct to Salazar Sr., who was both the property manager and Salazar Jr.’s father. After she reported the harassment and threatened to contact a lawyer or the police if it continued, the Salazars refused to fix a leaking gas line in her dwelling, causing her to go without heat for one month and consequently forcing her to move out. The complaint also alleges that the property owner, Covarrubias, is vicariously liable for the Salazars’ conduct because they were his agents when they engaged in sexual harassment and retaliation.

“Sexual harassment in rental housing preys on tenants who are especially vulnerable, including those who rely on their housing provider for critical maintenance services,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department is committed to holding accountable any person in the housing sector who sexually harasses, assaults or retaliates against tenants, from the housing owner to the maintenance worker. A home should be a place of refuge and sanctity, not sexual assault and exploitation, and we will continue to use the Fair Housing Act to hold violators accountable.”

“For four months this tenant refused the repeated sexual advances by the maintenance worker at her rental home, and when she reported the sexual harassment, she faced retaliation,” said U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert for the Eastern District of California. “The actions of Salazar Jr. and the failure or refusal of Salazar Sr. and Covarrubias to act on the tenant’s behalf caused her harm and distress. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will hold accountable any landlord who enables or engages in sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Housing Act.”

“Preying on renters who have few housing options is abhorrent and illegal,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Demetria McCain of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “HUD will continue to work with DOJ to enforce the law and protect tenants.”

The lawsuit arose from a complaint the former tenant filed with HUD. After HUD investigated the complaint, it issued a charge of discrimination, and the matter was referred to the Justice Department. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages to compensate the victim and a court order barring future discrimination.

The Justice Department’s Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative is part of the Civil Rights Division in coordination with U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide. The initiative aims to address and raise awareness about sexual harassment by landlords, property managers, maintenance workers, loan officers, or other people who have control over housing. Since launching the Initiative in October 2017, the Justice Department has filed 34 lawsuits alleging sexual harassment in housing.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division enforces the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.

Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of sexual harassment by Javier Salazar Jr., or at rental dwellings owned or managed by Ricardo Covarrubias or Javier Salazar Sr., or who have other information that may be relevant to this case should call the Justice Department’s Housing Discrimination Tip Line at 1-800-896-7743, email the Justice Department at
fairhousing@usdoj.gov, or submit a report online.

Posted on

Racial Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit Against Riverwalk Post-Acute Settled

Race harassment is illegal discrimination.

A skilled nursing facility in California, Riverwalk Post-Acute, has agreed to pay $865,000 to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC alleged that the facility continually allowed black employees to be subjected to racial harassment by residents, co-workers, and a supervisor, including frequent and offensive race-based remarks and slurs since 2018.  The EEOC claimed that the facility’s management failed to respond adequately to multiple complaints of harassment, instead telling employees to tolerate the abuse. The settlement also includes injunctive relief aimed at preventing workplace harassment and retaliation, which includes retaining an EEO monitor, reviewing and revising policies and procedures on discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, creating a structure for employees to report discrimination and harassment, and providing training on anti-discrimination laws.

Posted on

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Ohio Landlord

Sexual abuse causes long term harm to victims.

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against Joseph Pedaline, owner and manager of residential rental properties in Youngstown, Ohio, for sexually harassing female tenants in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Pedaline allegedly subjected tenants to repeated sexual comments, touched them without their consent, entered their homes without permission, offered to waive rent or perform repairs in exchange for sexual contact, and threatened to evict those who refused his advances. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, a civil penalty, and a court order barring future discrimination. The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.

Read more about the case on the DOJ website.

Posted on

Employee’s Claims Under FEHA Properly Dismissed

If you have information about violations of The False Claims Act contact an attorney for information about Whistleblower protection and rewards.

Employee’s Claims Under FEHA Based On Her Termination For Refusing To Get A Flu Vaccine Without A Medically Recognized Contraindication To Getting The Flu Vaccine Were Properly Dismissed

Hodges v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, 2023 WL 3558767 (2023)

Deanna Hodges is a former employee of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. As a condition of her continued employment, she was required to get a flu vaccine unless she obtained a valid exemption—one establishing a medically recognized contraindication to getting the flu vaccine. Her doctor wrote a note recommending an exemption for various reasons, including her history of cancer and general allergies. None of the reasons was a medically recognized contraindication to getting the flu vaccine. Cedars denied the exemption request. Hodges still refused to get the vaccine. Cedars terminated her. Hodges sued Cedars for disability discrimination and related claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The trial court granted Cedars’s motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed:

  • There is no triable issue of fact as to physical disability discrimination.

Plaintiff argues her cancer history and neuropathy amount to a physical disability because they “make it impossible for her to work as she cannot work as she cannot get vaccinated. Her disabilities limited her ability to safely receive the vaccine.” To be clear, the plaintiff admits her cancer history and neuropathy in no way otherwise limited her ability to work.

By this argument, the plaintiff asserts she has a physical disability within the meaning of section 12926, subdivision (m)(1), which provides that a physiological condition that affects one or more enumerated body systems and “limits a major life activity” is a “physical disability” for purposes of FEHA. Working is expressly defined as a major life activity.

In moving for summary judgment, Cedars introduced evidence that the plaintiff was not disabled and could not prove she was disabled. It offered official guidance from the CDC and testimony from [a medical expert] that there were only two medically recognized contraindications for getting the flu vaccine. It offered testimony from the plaintiff and [plaintiff’s physician] that she had never been diagnosed with either contraindication. [Plaintiff’s physician] further acknowledged that none of the conditions he listed on her exemption form were recognized contraindications for getting the flu vaccine. If this were not enough, Cedars also offered evidence that, before she was terminated, [plaintiff’s physician] advised plaintiff to reconsider her decision not to get the vaccine and that, under CDC guidelines, plaintiff’s cancer history was not a contraindication but rather an indication—a condition making it advisable—that a person get vaccinated.

Posted on

Racial Harassment, Discrimination and Infliction of Emotional Distress at Tesla

Tesla must pay $137 million to a Black employee who sued for racial discrimination.

A former Black contractor, Owen Diaz, who worked as an elevator operator at Tesla’s factory in Fremont, California, has been awarded $137 million by a federal jury in San Francisco over claims that he was subjected to racial harassment and discrimination at work.

Owen Diaz filed a lawsuit claiming that he and others were called the N-word by Tesla employees, that he was told to “go back to Africa,” and that employees drew racist and derogatory pictures that were left around the factory.

Diaz complained about the discriminatory treatment to Tesla and contracted companies Citistaff and nextSource, but nothing was ever done to stop it.

The jury award included $130 million in punitive damages and $6.9 million in emotional damages, according to the verdict, which is believed to be the largest award in a racial harassment case involving a single plaintiff in U.S. history.

Diaz’s attorney, Larry Organ, hopes this verdict sends a message to corporate America to look at their workplace and take proactive measures to protect employees against racist conduct.

Tesla’s vice president of people, Valerie Capers Workman, stated that Tesla followed up on Diaz’s complaints and that the staffing agencies fired two contractors and suspended another. Workman acknowledged that in 2015 and 2016, Tesla was not perfect, but the company has come a long way from five years ago.

 

Original reporting by Joe Hernandez at NPR.

Posted on

Prospective Release Of Claims Did Not Violate Civil Code section 1668

Age discrimination and harassment are illegal.

Prospective Release Of Claims Did Not Violate Civil Code section 1668 (A Statute Providing That A Contract Releasing A Party From Future Violations Of Law Is Invalid As Against Public Policy)

Castelo v. Xceed Financial Credit Union, 2023 WL 3515225 (2023)

Xceed Financial Credit Union employed Elizabeth Castelo as its Controller and Vice President of Accounting. In November, Xceed informed Castelo her employment would be terminated effective December 31st. On November 19, the parties entered into a Separation and General Release Agreement, in which, among other things, Xceed agreed to pay Castelo a severance payment in consideration for a full release of all claims, including a release of age discrimination claims. The Agreement also provided that, as of Castelo’s separation date, she would have to sign Exhibit “A” to the Agreement reaffirming her commitment to abide by the terms of this Agreement and effectuating a full release of claims through her December 31st separation date. The releases extended to all known and unknown claims arising directly or indirectly from Castelo’s employment. Xceed intended that Castelo would sign the reaffirmation on the date of her separation (December 31st). However, Castelo signed it on the same date she signed the main Separation Agreement, on November 19th.  Xceed did nothing to correct that error. Castelo remained employed by Xceed until December 31. In January, Xceed paid Castelo, and Castelo accepted the settlement payment. Castelo made no attempt to revoke the Separation Agreement or Reaffirmation at any time before or after receiving payment.

In August, Castelo filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination and wrongful termination in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The parties stipulated to arbitration. Xceed filed a motion for summary judgment based on the releases in the Separation Agreement and the Reaffirmation, and the arbitrator granted the motion. Castelo moved to vacate the arbitration award, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by enforcing a release made unlawful by Civil Code section 1668, which prohibits pre-dispute releases of liability in some circumstances. The trial court denied the motion to vacate and entered judgment confirming the arbitration award. The Court of Appeal affirmed:
The arbitrator correctly ruled the release did not violate Civil Code section 1668. Castelo signed the separation agreement after she was informed of the decision to terminate her but before her last day on the job. At the time she signed, she already believed that the decision to terminate her was based on age discrimination and that she had a valid claim for wrongful termination. The alleged violation of FEHA had already occurred, even though the claim had not yet fully accrued. Accordingly, the release did not violate section 1668 because it was not a release of liability for future unknown claims.

Posted on

Happy Labor Day!

Happy Labor Day

Labor Day is just around the corner, which means it’s time to break out the grill, gather your loved ones, and have a blast. But do you ever stop to think about the history behind this awesome holiday? If you’re curious and want to impress your friends and family with some fun facts, check out this quick rundown of Labor Day.

Labor Day is an epic celebration of the achievements of American workers, observed every year on the first Monday in September. The roots of this holiday go back to the late 1800s when labor activists worked tirelessly to establish a federal holiday recognizing the incredible contributions that workers make to America’s strength, prosperity, and well-being.

But before it was a nationwide holiday, Labor Day was recognized by individual states and passionate labor activists. The movement to secure state legislation began with municipal ordinances in 1885 and 1886. New York was the first state to introduce a bill, but Oregon was the first to pass a law recognizing Labor Day on February 21, 1887. And the momentum only grew from there – by the end of the decade, more than half of all states had adopted the holiday. It wasn’t until 1894 that Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September a legal holiday.

The question of who founded Labor Day is a hotly debated one. Some believe it was Peter J. McGuire, a co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, who suggested the idea of a “general holiday for the laboring classes” back in 1882. But others argue that it was actually machinist Matthew Maguire who proposed the holiday while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York. Recent research seems to support Maguire’s claim, and the Paterson Morning Call even declared him the “undisputed author of Labor Day as a holiday.” Regardless of who came up with the idea, both McGuire and Maguire attended the country’s first Labor Day parade in New York City in 1882 – a historic moment that would pave the way for generations of hardworking Americans to celebrate their contributions to this great nation.