Author: HFNewsAdmin

Posted on

Title VII Violations and a $250,000 Award: Analyzing the Monson Fruit Co. Sexual Harassment Case

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

Agricultural Workers Faced Harassment and Retaliation by Manager

In a recent development, Monson Fruit Co., a prominent produce company, has agreed to pay a settlement amount of $250,000 and provide injunctive relief to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit. This case has brought to light serious allegations of workplace misconduct, revealing unacceptable practices that contradict the legally protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In fiscal year 2023, the EEOC recovered over $60 million for violations of Title VII involving sex harassment.

At the heart of the lawsuit, a Latina agricultural worker reported experiencing repeated unwelcome advances and requests for sex from a manager in 2019. However, rather than addressing the issue, Monson management allegedly retaliated by firing her spouse, who was also an employee at the company.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly states that it is unlawful to harass an employee based on that person’s sex and to retaliate against individuals who report or oppose sexual harassment in the workplace. According to this law, employers are obliged to promptly investigate and end the misconduct once they receive a complaint about it. By failing to act on the reports and instead terminating the victim’s husband’s employment, Monson management stands accused of breaking this law.

Aside from the financial settlement, Monson is also required to implement additional policies and procedures to increase its compliance with Title VII. These measures include a new reporting hotline and a more comprehensive training program for supervisors and managers on the investigation of sexual harassment claims. Furthermore, the alleged harasser will be removed from any supervisory positions.

In light of these developments, EEOC Senior Trial Attorney James H. Baker emphasized the importance of building a robust EEO infrastructure for the protection of both employees and companies from workplace harassment. In fiscal year 2023, the EEOC recovered over $60 million for violations of Title VII involving sex harassment.

In conclusion, this case underscores the critical importance of an experienced sexual harassment lawyer for anyone who experiences workplace sexual harassment. A competent lawyer can help victims navigate the complexities of Title VII, ensuring appropriate action is taken and justice is served. Remember, everyone has the right to a safe, respectful, and non-threatening workplace environment.

Posted on

Celebrating Dolores Huerta: A Beacon of Hope and Empowerment for Hispanic Heritage Month

Racial discrimination in the workplace lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Every year, during Hispanic Heritage Month, we pause to celebrate the rich histories, cultures, and contributions of American citizens whose ancestors hailed from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America. This year, we pay a special tribute to an inspiring figure who has left an indelible mark on American history – Dolores Huerta.

Born on April 10, 1930, in the small mining town of Dawson, New Mexico, Dolores Clara Fernandez Huerta was destined for greatness. The seeds of social justice were planted in her early life, inspired by her mother’s sense of community and activism and her father’s political endeavors. As a young child, Dolores migrated to Stockton, California, where she was exposed to the cultural diversity of working families of Mexican, Filipino, African-American, Japanese, and Chinese heritage. This rich tapestry of multicultural influences significantly shaped her worldview.

Driven by the sight of her students coming to school barefoot and hungry, Dolores left her teaching career and embarked on a lifelong mission to fight economic injustice. She co-founded the United Farm Workers (UFW) union alongside César Chávez, becoming a prominent part of an instrumental movement that sought to improve the working conditions of farm laborers in the United States. Her motto, “Sí, se puede” (Yes, we can) echoes timelessly as a rallying cry for social justice.

Dolores’ political activism left a profound impact, leading to the enactment of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975. This pioneering law granted farm workers in California the right to collectively organize and bargain for better wages and working conditions. Her efforts also reached beyond the UFW, branching into women’s rights and the broader feminist movement, challenging gender discrimination within the farm workers’ movement and beyond.

Despite numerous threats and a brutal physical assault, Dolores persevered, embodying the strength and resilience of the communities she represented. Recognized globally for her tireless advocacy, Dolores received numerous accolades, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012, the highest civilian award in the United States.

Now, at age 93, Dolores continues her legacy, inspiring new generations of activists through her foundation. Her work serves as a shining example of grass-roots democracy, promoting social justice and public policy changes that uplift the working poor, women, and children.

The story of Dolores Huerta is beautifully captured in the 2017 documentary, “Dolores”. The film presents an exhilarating portrait of a woman whose impact on American life, though often overlooked, was nothing short of transformative. It serves as a powerful call to action, reminding us all of the power of collective action in service of social justice.

This Hispanic Heritage Month, we celebrate Dolores Huerta’s enduring legacy, which is a testament to the transformative power of collective action and a beacon of inspiration for future generations of activists.

Posted on

9 Years of Hell – Ethnicity Discrimination at UAB

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

The University of Alabama at Birmingham has been ordered to pay nearly $4 million to Dr. Fariba Moeinpour, an Iranian-born former cancer research scientist, who alleged that she endured nearly a decade of harassment from a co-worker due to her nationality. Dr. Moeinpour, now 62 years old, filed a lawsuit against the university in October 2021, claiming the harassment was a daily occurrence and that the institution consistently ignored her complaints.

Dr. Moeinpour is a naturalized U.S. citizen who began her tenure at the UAB lab in February 2011. Unfortunately, her employment was terminated in February 2020 following a confrontation with her supervisor. The co-worker accused of harassment, identified in court documents as Mary Jo Cagle, allegedly made derogatory comments about Dr. Moeinpour’s name, referring to it as a “weird a** name,” and even told her to “go back to Iran.” In a particularly alarming incident, Cagle is accused of driving her vehicle toward Dr. Moeinpour and her daughter in the UAB parking lot while brandishing a firearm and hurling racial slurs at them.

In a further troubling development, after Dr. Moeinpour reported the harassment, her supervisor, Clinton Grubbs, who is not named in the lawsuit, allegedly dismissed her concerns by stating he was powerless to act against Cagle due to fears for his safety. He reportedly claimed that taking action could lead to severe repercussions, including losing his job or even facing harm. Grubbs allegedly suggested that Cagle was associated with the mafia and recounted a disturbing incident where four men showed up at his home to intimidate him after he threatened to fire Cagle.

The lawsuit details a disturbing account where Dr. Moeinpour sought help from Grubbs regarding the lack of action taken against Cagle. Instead of providing support, Grubbs reportedly called the police, indicating he would damage her reputation. He claimed that the discussions regarding her complaints were merely “his word against hers.” When Dr. Moeinpour insisted that she could prove her case, Grubbs allegedly physically assaulted her, grabbing her by the chin, knocking her down, and injuring her face in the process. He then reportedly fell on top of her and restrained her, leading her to slap him in self-defense.

When a UAB police officer arrived at the scene, Dr. Moeinpour admitted to hitting Grubbs in an attempt to stop his assault. Instead of addressing her claims, the officer escorted her out of the building, and she reportedly fainted when informed she was being arrested. Upon regaining consciousness, Dr. Moeinpour found herself restrained to a gurney in the emergency room, with both her ankles and wrists handcuffed. She was subsequently taken to jail and held overnight, which added to the distress of her situation.

In the police report filed by UAB, Dr. Moeinpour was characterized as an “out of control” aggressor. However, Grubbs surprisingly informed the police that he did not wish to press charges and mentioned that he and Dr. Moeinpour had been in a relationship over the past year, which she firmly denied, asserting they had never been romantically involved. Ultimately, Dr. Moeinpour was terminated from her position on February 13, 2020, for alleged violations of the university’s policy against fighting and absenteeism, despite her claims of being assaulted by Grubbs and without any investigation into her allegations or consideration of evidence.

Throughout the four-year trial, witness testimonies and audio recordings that supported Dr. Moeinpour’s claims were presented to the jury. One key witness, a mall security guard, recounted an incident where Cagle followed Dr. Moeinpour and her daughter around the mall, subjecting them to racial slurs. Dr. Moeinpour’s legal team also provided documentation showing her persistent attempts to report the harassment to human resources over the years.

The federal jury ultimately determined that Cagle acted with “malice and reckless indifference” toward Dr. Moeinpour’s federally protected rights based on her nationality. The jury ruled that the university’s decision to arrest Dr. Moeinpour constituted an “adverse employment action.” On Monday, the jury mandated that UAB pay Dr. Moeinpour $3.8 million, while Cagle was ordered to pay her $500,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $325,000 in punitive damages.

Reflecting on her ordeal, Dr. Moeinpour expressed the emotional toll this experience had taken on her life, stating, “Day and night, I was looking for a job, any job, but nobody would hire me because my name was tarnished. Now, my good name has been restored.” In response to the verdict, UAB spokeswoman Alicia Rohan emphasized that the university “does not tolerate harassment, retaliation, or discrimination of any kind.” However, she also indicated that the university disagrees with the jury’s verdict and is “considering next steps” in the legal process.

Posted on

High Tech, Low Inclusion: The EEOC Report on Diversity in the Tech Sector

New Whistleblower Program administered by the DOJ.

The high-tech sector, known for spearheading advancements in science and technology, seems to be lagging when it comes to inclusion and diversity. A report recently published by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) titled “High Tech, Low Inclusion: Diversity in the High Tech Workforce and Sector from 2014 – 2022” dissects the current state of diversity in this sector, offering a sobering insight into the extent of the problem.

Behind the Figures

The EEOC’s findings show a disturbing trend of underrepresentation for certain demographic groups in the high-tech sector. Women and Black workers, in particular, are being left behind. The figures reveal that despite being nearly half of the U.S. workforce, women make up only 22.6% of the high-tech workforce in all industries and a meager 4% in the high-tech sector. The representation of Black and Hispanic workers in the high-tech workforce has seen negligible progress over the years.

The Issue of Age Discrimination

The report also highlights age as a factor in employment discrimination within the high-tech sector. Interestingly, the high-tech workforce skews younger than the total U.S. workforce. In the high-tech world, over 40% of the workforce belongs to the 25-39 age group, compared to 33.1% in the overall workforce. Workers over 40 have seen their representation in the high-tech sector decrease from 55.9% to 52.1% from 2014 to 2022.

Moreover, the EEOC report notes that discrimination charges filed by tech professionals were more likely to involve issues of age, pay, and genetic information than those filed in other sectors.

The Call for Change

EEOC Chair, Charlotte A. Burrows, asserts that “America’s high tech sector, which leads the world in crafting technologies of the future, should not have a workforce that looks like the past.” The Commission is committed to identifying and resolving instances of discrimination that contribute to these disparities.

The EEOC report concludes with a call for employers in the high-tech sector to actively investigate and overcome barriers to employment. Proactive policies geared towards boosting inclusion are needed to ensure that everyone gets a fair shot at high-tech opportunities.

Were You Denied a Job In High Tech?

If you applied for a job in the high-tech sector and believe that you were discriminated against due to your age, race, gender, or ethnicity, it’s advisable to consult with an experienced employment attorney.

Discrimination is not just ethically wrong, it’s illegal. Your rights are protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal laws – laws that are in place to ensure everyone has equal opportunities in the job market. Don’t hesitate to stand up for your rights and seek legal counsel if you’ve been unfairly denied a job in the high-tech sector.

Posted on

How Your Data is Being Used Against You: The Privacy Risks of MAIDs

When websites sell your data it puts your life, your livelihood and your future at risk contact the lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In our digital age, privacy has become a paramount concern for everyone. Data anonymity is often the key to safeguarding this privacy. However, what if we told you that companies can de-anonymize your data?

Despite tech firms’ constant reassurances that mobile user tracking IDs are anonymous, an entire industry exists that links these IDs to real individuals and their addresses, effectively dismantling this veil of anonymity. This industry accomplishes this by correlating mobile advertising IDs (MAIDs) collected by applications with a person’s full name, physical address, and other personally identifiable information (PII).

Simply put, your data could be used to identify you, leading to significant privacy breaches. This is particularly concerning for those who trust that their information is secure when signing up for websites or apps. Consider, for instance, the implications for users of a dating app like Grindr. People have been ‘outed,’ resulting in serious harm and discrimination, and, in the case of one Catholic priest, his life and reputation were destroyed.

So how does this work? A MAID is a unique identifier assigned to each device by a phone’s operating system. Apps frequently capture a user’s MAID and share it with third parties. Companies like BIGDBM and FullContact then link this data to full names, physical addresses, and other PII—a process known as ‘identity resolution’ or ‘identity graphing.’

These revelations underscore the urgent need for greater transparency and enhanced privacy regulations regarding data collection and handling. As users, we must advocate for our rights and urge tech companies to prioritize the security of our data. Before signing up for any platform, it’s crucial to read their privacy policy carefully, although even that may not be sufficient.

In a world where data is the new gold, let’s ensure our ‘digital selves’ remain uncompromised.

Posted on

Pregnancy Discrimination: Real Stories, Real Change Needed

Pregnancy discrimination lawyers Beverly Hills Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a nation that upholds equality as a core value, the fight against pregnancy discrimination remains a significant challenge. Recent high-profile cases, notably involving Frontier Airlines, highlight the ongoing struggles faced by pregnant and breastfeeding women in the workplace.

Frontier Airlines became embroiled in two substantial lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and local partners in Denver on behalf of eight pilots and flight attendants. The plaintiffs claimed that the airline penalized pregnancy-related absences and denied crucial accommodations for pregnant and breastfeeding employees, including prohibiting breast pumping while on duty. These discriminatory practices inflicted considerable harm on these women, affecting both their professional lives and personal well-being. Many were forced to take unpaid leave during their pregnancies and had their requests for breast pumping accommodations denied upon returning to work.

Fortunately, U.S. laws offer some protections against such discrimination. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits employers from discriminating based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Additionally, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons, including pregnancy and childbirth.

Nonetheless, the struggle persists. The lawsuits against Frontier Airlines culminated in a settlement in the Freyer case, resulting in significant policy changes aimed at better accommodating pregnant and nursing employees. However, these developments underscore the need for further improvements and highlight the urgent necessity for progress on both corporate and legislative fronts.

As we pursue greater equality in the workplace, we must remember individuals like Erica Hayes, who made an unimaginable sacrifice while trying to maintain her income during pregnancy. Erica experienced a miscarriage after imploring her supervisors for lighter lifting duties while working at a Verizon warehouse.

In another instance, Dallas Barber and Stylist College, Inc., a barber shop and school in Dallas, found themselves the defendants in a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit when a pregnant applicant applied for a hair braider position and performed a skills test successfully. Despite her qualifications, the owner informed her that they already had a pregnant employee and did not wish to hire another.

These experiences serve as a poignant reminder of the real and devastating consequences of pregnancy discrimination. They are not isolated incidents but rather reflect systemic issues that demand our attention and action. Together, we can work to eradicate pregnancy discrimination, foster workplaces that respect and support all employees, and build a fairer society for future generations.

Posted on

In the Face of Disability Discrimination: A FedEx Employee’s Tough Road

Refusing reasonable accommodations is disability discrimination and it is illegal. Contact the ADA Lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

In an era where inclusivity should be a given, it is disheartening to witness drastic violations of employees’ rights, particularly those who are differently-abled. Employees employed by FedEx, a globally recognized shipping and logistics company, found themselves unemployed due to the corporation’s stringent 100 %-healed policy.

The story that stands out in this murky tide of exploitation is the tale of a Minneapolis-based FedEx driver. The unnamed woman who motivated the launch of a lawsuit against her employer had been subjected to unfair treatment due to medical restrictions. Her job as a ramp transport driver involved driving a tractor-trailer and operating mechanical equipment to load and unload freight. An injury had limited her lifting abilities, invoking FedEx’s 100 %-healed policy. The policy forced the ramp transport driver into a 90-day temporary light-duty assignment. When her medical restrictions remained after 90 days, she was placed on unpaid medical leave. FedEx ultimately terminated her employment due to her inability to work without restrictions – a harsh reality for someone who could have done her job with reasonable accommodations.

According to Gregory Gochanour, of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, “100%-healed policies, like the one FedEx has, cost qualified workers their livelihood without giving them individual consideration.” He further added, “Under the ADA, employers have an obligation to explore reasonable accommodations and not to screen out qualified individuals with disabilities who can do their jobs.”

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The act prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, mandates employers to provide reasonable accommodations enabling employees to perform their jobs, and bars employers from policies that screen out qualified individuals with disabilities.

To FedEx employees and others stuck in similar situations, know that you are not alone and your struggles are valid. The “100 %-healed” policy that cost you your employment directly violates the ADA, a federal law enacted to provide you with rightful protection and accommodation. Don’t let corporations like FedEx undermine your rights.

Fellow workers, you are invited to step up, speak out, and report such ADA violations. Please reach out to an experienced Disability Discrimination Attorney who can help you navigate this legal terrain and ensure that your rights are upheld. Stand tall against discrimination. Remember, no one can strip you of your rightful place in your workspace, let alone your inherent dignity.

Posted on

Disability Discrimination at a 25-Year High

Reasonable accommodations required by ADA, Disability discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Over 29,000 charges of disability discrimination were reported last year alone.

As we delve into the pressing issue of employment disability discrimination, recent data reveals a startling trend: discrimination incidents have surged to a 25-year high. This spike raises critical questions about the systemic barriers faced by individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Despite advancements in legislation aimed at promoting inclusivity and equal opportunities, the gap between policy intentions and workplace realities appears to be widening. This investigation seeks to unpack the underlying factors contributing to this alarming increase by reviewing three employers in different industries facing lawsuits for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “No qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” This foundational principle underscores the Act’s commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are afforded the same opportunities as their non-disabled counterparts. As the lawsuits unfold, examining how these employers allegedly neglected their responsibilities under this provision will be crucial to understanding the broader implications of their actions.

One of the cases involves the Ned NoMad hotel and members’ club in Manhattan. The hotel allegedly refused to accommodate an employee with a knee condition that limited her standing or walking to no more than 30 minutes at a time. Despite providing a medical note, the employee was not allowed to use a stool while performing clerical work at the host stand and was eventually terminated.

In another case, Smith’s Detection, Inc., a manufacturer of threat detection equipment, is being sued for demoting a disabled employee who requested personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect her hearing from manufacturing equipment noise. Instead of providing the PPE, the employer demoted the employee from her team lead position, resulting in reduced pay, and assigned her to a quieter area.

The third case involves Holsum bakery in La Porte, Indiana, which allegedly refused to modify a policy to allow an employee to use a walker, as required by her physician. The bakery’s failure to accommodate the employee made it impossible for her to access her workstation, restroom, and break room, resulting in her termination.

These alleged actions by the companies violate the ADA, which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities.

As these cases unfold, they not only shed light on the specific actions of these employers but also highlight a pressing need for accountability in the workplace regarding disability rights. Employees with disabilities face unique challenges, and it is essential that their rights are protected through appropriate legal channels. Therefore, the role of an experienced disability discrimination attorney becomes paramount. Such professionals not only bring expertise in navigating the complexities of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but also ensure that the voices of affected employees are heard and valued. Engaging legal representation can be crucial in pursuing justice and fostering a more inclusive and compliant work environment for all.

Posted on

$2,125,000 Paid by Staffing Agencies in Discrimination Lawsuits

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

The Cost of Discrimination: Analyzing Recent Legal Settlements in Staffing Agencies

Two recent high-profile settlements have spotlighted workplace discrimination, reminding staffing agencies of their legal obligations and encouraging employees to take a stand against unlawful behaviors.

Robert Canino, regional attorney for the EEOC Dallas District Office said, “Unfortunately, when a group of job seekers with certain disabilities is relegated to ‘For Future Consideration’ status, opportunities can be lost indefinitely. We are encouraged to see NTI’s earnest interest in committing to a more proactive effort, including working closely with other organizations that specialize in increasing opportunities for persons who simply need accommodations already known to be effective for blindness and low vision.”

In the first case, the National Telecommuting Institute (NTI), a Massachusetts staffing support company, has agreed to a $1.25 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination. NTI was accused of failing to accommodate and hire blind and low-vision job applicants, specifically those who used assistive technology such as screen readers. The ADA prohibits employment decisions based on an individual’s disability or need for reasonable accommodation.

In the suit, it was charged that NTI did not pursue placement or referrals for these individuals and also denied disability-related accommodations during pre-employment application processes. As part of the settlement agreement, NTI is committed to providing internal training on ADA rights, revising its policies regarding reasonable accommodations, and appointing an internal ADA coordinator and external monitor.

“The customer is not always right and, as EEOC’s guidance for employment agencies makes clear, staffing agencies violate the law when they comply with a client’s sex-based preference, or a preference based on any other prohibited characteristic,” said Nancy Sienko, director of the EEOC’s San Francisco District, which includes Washington. “Hiring and referrals should be based on a worker’s merits, not stereotypes.”

The second recent settlement involves SmartTalent LLC, a Washington-based staffing agency. The company will pay $875,000 to settle a sex discrimination lawsuit. The allegations involved SmartTalent complying with clients’ requests for male workers. This has resulted in a pattern of discrimination against women in hiring and job assignments since 2015, which infringes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. SmartTalent will draft and implement anti-discrimination policies as part of the settlement, train staff on Title VII requirements, and actively monitor compliance.

These cases underscore the importance of equal employment opportunity rights and shed light on the severe implications of violating these rights. If you believe you have been discriminated against due to your gender or disability, it’s essential to consult an experienced employment lawyer to understand and protect your rights. Discrimination has no place in the employment sector, and together, we can strive for fairer, more inclusive workplaces.

Posted on

Courage Under Fire: How Qiqiuia Young Prevailed against Stanford Health in a Racial Harassment Lawsuit

Racial harassment, and discrimination in hospital - Helmer Friedman LLP.

A judge has ordered Stanford University and Stanford Health Care to pay $10 million to QIQIUIA YOUNG, an African American woman who valiantly stood her ground amid a protracted legal struggle. Young accused Stanford Health of fostering an environment marred by racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation for whistleblowing, for which she bore the brunt.

One of the many incidents involved a co-worker donning attire resembling that of a Ku Klux Klan member during a Halloween event. The photograph of this incident circulated widely through the office, leaving an indelible mark on Young. Even after reporting the incident, instead of receiving support, Young experienced retaliation from her supervisors, including denial of promotional opportunities and equitable pay.

In another shocking instance, Young said that co-workers used racial slurs and mistreated black patients, including using the N-word. Despite bringing this to the attention of her supervisor, no substantial probe was initiated.

In 2017, Young made the bold choice of filing a lawsuit, alleging not only personal racial harassment but also mistreatment of black patients. Following her audacious move, an email was circulated by Stanford’s Dean and Stanford Health Care CEO to thousands of recipients, misleadingly indicating Young’s dishonesty in reporting such misconduct. However, the Alameda County Superior Court jury brought justice to light by declaring the email as defamatory towards Young.

Following a nearly decade-long David versus Goliath battle, as Young’s attorney aptly put it, the jury awarded Young a hefty $20 million in damages, albeit later reduced to $10 million by the Judge. But the victory goes beyond monetary considerations. Young, undeterred by the size and reputation of her adversary, firmly held her ground, serving as an inspiration for many within and beyond Stanford’s walls.

In her own words, “I couldn’t turn a blind eye to what people were doing. I had to speak out. And when I did, they tried to silence me.” But silence her, they could not. Her indomitable spirit and courage led her to triumph over adversity, bringing to light the deeply entrenched systemic racism and inspiring countless others to stand up against injustice.

Stanford Health Care, despite the verdict, continues to defend its stance. Nevertheless, this remarkable case serves as a wake-up call for organizations across the globe, reaffirming the importance of fostering an inclusive, respectful, and equitable work environment for all.