Author: HFNewsAdmin

Posted on

Iron Hill Brewery to Pay $115,000 in Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Race discrimination, retaliation, workplace violation lawyers of Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Federal Agency Charged Restaurant Discriminated and Retaliated Against Black Employee

In a recent settlement, the current federal administration reaffirmed its commitment to protecting employees from workplace discrimination and retaliation. This time, Iron Hill Brewery of Buckhead, LLC and Iron Hill Brewery, LLC, a chain of breweries and restaurants across several states, found themselves in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spotlight.

According to the settlement, Iron Hill Brewery agreed to pay $115,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The suit alleged Iron Hill Brewery discriminated against an African American employee at its Buckhead location.

The employee, a sous chef-in-training, was allegedly dismissed due to his race and for reporting discrimination against women and Hispanic colleagues. An unmerited disciplinary action was swiftly followed by termination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such alleged conduct is prohibited. This significant law prevents employers from carrying out retaliation for engaging in protected activity and discrimination based on race.

Protected activity, as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, encompasses various actions taken by employees to oppose discrimination or participate in proceedings related to discriminatory practices. In this particular case involving Iron Hill Brewery, the protected activity refers to the sous chef-in-training reporting instances of discrimination within the workplace. Specifically, the employee raised concerns about discriminatory behavior targeting women and Hispanic colleagues, which is considered a protected act under federal law. By voicing these grievances, the employee engaged in a legally protected activity aimed at confronting and challenging unfair treatment. Consequently, when the employee faced unwarranted disciplinary action and subsequent termination, it was alleged to be retaliatory—an illegal response to their protected activity of reporting discrimination.

In addition to the considerable financial settlement, the decree necessitates nationwide training for Iron Hill Brewery employees centered on Title VII’s prohibitions against race discrimination and retaliation. Iron Hill Brewery must also institute an anti-retaliation policy providing examples of unlawful retaliation in the workplace. These moves illustrate the seriousness of the situation and the serious implications of breaching Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC Atlanta District Office Regional Attorney, Marcus G. Keegan, opined, “This settlement sends a strong message that the EEOC will continue to vindicate the rights of individuals with the courage to come forward to report discrimination against themselves or others in the workplace.”

This case serves as a stark reminder of employees’ rights. If you believe that you or someone you know may be experiencing or witnessing race discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace, don’t hesitate to seek legal advice. Reach out to a lawyer in your area who specializes in employment law. Remember, everyone deserves a respectful and fair working environment.

Posted on

Disability, Genetic Information Discrimination Suit Settled for $515,000

DNA genetic information discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Factor One Source Pharmacy Pressured Employees and Applicants to Fill Expensive Hemophilia Prescriptions with the Company

Factor One Source Pharmacy, LLC has agreed to pay $515,000 and provide other relief to resolve a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for disability and genetic information discrimination. The lawsuit alleged that the pharmacy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by pressuring employees and applicants to use its pharmacy services for expensive hemophilia prescriptions. The company unlawfully inquired about employee disabilities and genetic information and targeted individuals with hemophilia or family members with hemophilia for recruitment.

Employees who refused to use the company’s pharmacy services for hemophilia medications were reportedly fired or laid off, while those who complied retained their jobs, even if they had poorer performance reviews. This alleged conduct violated the ADA and GINA, which prohibit discrimination based on disability and genetic information.

The EEOC filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, and the settlement requires the new owners of Factor One to pay $515,000 in monetary relief, among other provisions. The company is also prohibited from employing or contracting with its prior CEO and owner, taking adverse employment actions against employees based on their non-use of the company’s pharmacy, and must provide ADA and GINA training to employees and conduct a survey on their treatment in the workplace.

EEOC officials emphasized the importance of preventing unlawful discrimination in the specialty pharmacy industry and highlighted that federal laws prohibit discrimination based on familial connections, such as family medical history under GINA and discrimination based on an employee’s relationship or association with an individual with a disability under the ADA.

Posted on

Understanding Employee Rights: Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

McDonald's franchise pays $1,997,500 in sexual harassment lawsuit.

The battle against sexual harassment in workplaces is one we should all be fighting. This provides a healthy work environment and supports the smooth operation of businesses. To illustrate this, I want to delve into the specifics of a recent case, EEOC v. AMTCR, Inc., AMTCR Nevada, Inc., and AMTCR California, LLC.

In this case, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) accused these affiliated entities that own and operate 21 McDonald’s franchises of subjecting male and female employees to sexual harassment. The harassment resulted in the constructive discharge of some employees. The charging party was a teenager who was subjected to sexual comments and advances, along with unwanted touching. Despite the complaints the charging party and his mother lodged, management took no corrective action. Instead, a manager suggested that the charging party should take the conduct as a compliment.

“Young workers are particularly vulnerable to harassment in the workplace as they are more likely to be unaware of their rights and can be taken advantage by their employer,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for EEOC’s Los Angeles District Office

Regrettably, this was not an isolated incident. Other male and female employees, some of them teenagers as well, were subjected to groping, sexually explicit comments, and sexual requests from coworkers and managers. A particularly disturbing event revealed that one male general manager conditioned hire on the acquiescence of male applicants to dates and sexual activity.

This case was resolved with a 3-year consent decree, providing $1,997,500 to 41 individuals and equitable relief. Nonetheless, it brings to light the drastic consequences of workplace sexual harassment and the subsequent legal actions that can ensue.

The law protects employees from sexual harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to the law, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin…”

The EEOC v. AMTCR case demonstrates how crucial it is for employers to foster a safe and respectful work environment. This includes having strict measures in place to prevent, address, and punish any form of sexual harassment. After all, every employee has a right to a workplace free of harassment and discrimination.

Posted on

The Power of Class Action Lawsuits: Merrill Lynch’s $20 Million Settlement on Racial Discrimination

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

Class action lawsuits are often seen as the vehicle of justice for the average person, allowing individuals to band together to hold even the most formidable, seemingly untouchable companies to account for their actions. A recent case involving Merrill Lynch, a Wall Street brokerage titan, has brought this to light, with the company agreeing to pay nearly $20 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging racial discrimination against its Black financial advisers.

This lawsuit claims that African American advisers employed by Bank of America-owned Merrill received less compensation and fewer promotions than their white counterparts. Furthermore, these employees were terminated at higher rates with fewer opportunities for advancement due to discriminatory practices entrenched in the company’s culture.

The repercussions of such systemic violations of African-American employees’ rights had to be addressed. The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida by four former Merrill advisers has set a precedent that even the biggest corporations can be held accountable for racial discrimination in the workplace.

Merrill has agreed to pay $19.95 million — beyond attorney fees and administration costs—to compensate those affected. The settlement is set to benefit approximately 1,375 eligible class members. A judge is yet to approve this settlement, but Merrill has also agreed to “programmatic relief” that includes reviews of diversity practices and pay equity analyses.

Bank of America has stated that the settlement allows them to focus on supporting Black financial advisers and their clients. Over the past decade, they have implemented policies and programs to improve diversity and inclusion. This initiative has resulted in an over 40% increase in the number of Black financial advisers at Merrill and a significant upturn in team representation.

The case against Merrill Lynch is not an isolated incident. They have faced similar allegations in the past, resulting in a $160 million settlement in August 2013. These cases underscore the power of class action lawsuits in ensuring even the most powerful entities are held accountable for their actions.

In the fight against race discrimination, class action lawsuits prove time and again that no company is too large or too powerful to be immune from legal recourse. This not only brings justice for those wronged but also forces companies to examine and modify their practices to ensure a more inclusive and equitable workplace.

Posted on

Lawsuit Shines a Light on Alleged Racial Harassment at Tesla

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

A California Superior Court recently ruled to validate a class-action lawsuit alleging “severe and pervasive race harassment” against Black employees at a Tesla factory in Fremont. This lawsuit not only affects the alleged victims but also sheds light on the controversial work environment within Tesla.

The claims stem from around 500 declarations, indicating that incidents of racial harassment have been frequent in Tesla’s Fremont factory for nearly eight years. These incidents include the use of racial slurs and derogatory language towards Black employees, as well as a lack of diversity within management positions at the factory. The plaintiffs argue that Tesla has created a hostile work environment for its Black employees, which violates California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

“There is much work to do, but we believe we will succeed in showing at trial that there has been a pattern and practice of pervasive race harassment at Tesla’s Fremont factory.” Matthew Helland from Nichols Kaster LLP

Despite having a complaint system since 2017, the lawsuit alleges that Tesla failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action in response to these accusations. Over 200 plaintiffs working at the Fremont facility reported hearing racial slurs, and about two-thirds of those who provided sworn statements claimed they witnessed anti-Black graffiti and racial slurs.

Further allegations from individual plaintiffs suggest a deeply rooted issue within the factory’s management and work culture, as they reported unchanged racist behaviors despite complaints to supervisors and human resources.

This is not the first time Tesla has faced allegations of unchecked racial harassment and discrimination. In 2021, a former elevator operator at the Fremont factory was awarded $137 million by a federal jury in San Francisco in a racial harassment lawsuit. The significant award underscores the severity of the emotional distress and hostile work environment endured by the plaintiff during his time at the factory.

The lawsuit criticizes the alleged “pre-Civil Rights Era race discrimination” as a standard procedure at the Tesla plant. It asserts that despite awareness of the issue, Tesla took no action to stop it. This accusation contradicts Tesla’s stance in a 2022 blog post, where the company strongly opposed discrimination and harassment and stated that it terminated employees engaged in misconduct.

The case will now focus on determining if there was a pattern of widespread racial harassment at the Fremont factory, whether Tesla was aware of it, and if Tesla took adequate steps to address it. According to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Noel Wise, this lawsuit will provide common facts that can simplify individual cases, as hundreds or thousands of workers may wish to seek damages from Tesla over their treatment.

This case further highlights the ongoing struggle for equality and respect in the workplace, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a safe and comfortable working environment for all, regardless of the company’s size or caliber.

Posted on

Triumph: Standing Against Gender Identity Harassment

Gender identity harassment is a civil rights violation - contact the gender identity harassment lawyers Los Angeles - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Today, we bring you an encouraging tale from the corporate world, a story of courage, resilience, and justice. This is the saga of a manager at Columbia River Healthcare Inc. who swam against the tide of adversity. This person, preferring gender-neutral pronouns, was subjected to harrowing discrimination and harassment, not only from the staff but also from the management of the organization.

For over six months, even after the manager had courageously disclosed their gender identity and choice of pronouns, the inappropriate and disrespectful behavior continued. It was a blatant disregard for the manager’s personal preferences and a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits any form of discrimination and harassment based on sex, including gender identity.

“Accidental slip-ups may happen, but repeatedly and intentionally misgendering someone is a clear form of sex-based harassment,” said Elizabeth M. Cannon, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “Employers have a duty to intervene when employees—including transgender, non-binary, and other gender non-conforming individuals—are treated maliciously in the workplace because of their gender identity. Training can be a powerful tool for informing employees of their rights and proactively preventing harassment.”

This manager, unfortunately, fell victim to a hostile work environment. They were continuously and intentionally addressed with pronouns that conflicted with their gender identity. Attempts to address this issue internally were futile, resulting in no appropriate action from Columbia River Healthcare.

However, this cold shoulder from management did not deter the supervisor from standing up for their rights. They had the courage to fight back against this clear violation of their rights.

It is worth noting that in the landmark case of Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Title VII’s protections extend to discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender identity or expression. This means employers cannot discriminate against their employees or potential applicants – by refusing to hire, firing, harassing, or any other means – based on their gender identity.

So, what happened to our brave manager at Columbia River Healthcare? After a prolonged struggle for justice, the manager triumphed. The healthcare company was required to compensate them, revise its non-discrimination policies, provide employee training, and ensure additional training for managers and staff involved in investigating employee complaints of discrimination and harassment.

If you or someone you know is enduring similar discrimination and harassment, be aware that legal avenues exist. Hiring a gender discrimination lawyer can be your best bet to navigate this challenging terrain. With their expertise in discrimination law, they can help you understand your rights and formulate the best legal strategy.

Remember, no one should ever endure humiliation or discrimination because of their identity. Stand up for your rights and keep this manager’s story a guiding light of hope, reminding you that justice can prevail.

Posted on

$800K Hiring Discrimination Settlement with Caterpillar Inc.

Your workplace should be free of discrimination and harassment. Contact the attorneys of Helmer Friedman LLP for information.

The U.S. Department of Labor has entered into a conciliation agreement with Caterpillar Inc. to resolve alleged systemic hiring discrimination against 60 Black applicants at a heavy equipment manufacturer’s production facility in Decatur, Illinois.

Caterpillar Inc. will pay affected job applicants $800,000 in back wages and interest and offer jobs to 34 eligible class members to resolve the allegations. In a proactive step towards change, the company has also agreed to ensure its hiring policies and procedures are free from discrimination and provide training to all managers, supervisors, and other company officials who oversee hiring decisions.

A routine compliance review by the department’s Office of the Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that Caterpillar discriminated against 60 Black applicants who applied for fabrication specialist/welder positions at its Decatur facility from March 30, 2018, to March 30, 2020. OFCCP enforces Executive Order 11246, which prohibits federal contractors from discriminating in employment based on race, sex, color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin.

“For the past 58 years, OFCCP has been at the forefront of defining and defending equal employment opportunity in the American workplace. We remain steadfast in our commitment to addressing employment policies and practices that create barriers to opportunity and perpetuate inequality,” reassured Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs Acting Director Michele Hodge. “Companies that accept federal contracts must diligently monitor their hiring processes to ensure applicants are not rejected based on unlawful practices.”

“Our agreement with Caterpillar exemplifies the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ (OFCCP) commitment to addressing and remedying preliminary indicators of discrimination in our compliance evaluations. As the enforcer of Executive Order 11246, OFCCP ensures that federal contractors like Caterpillar uphold equal employment opportunity. This agreement provides meaningful compensation and job opportunities to affected individuals and aims to ensure that all applicants, irrespective of their race, are considered equally for employment.”

Caterpillar Inc. has contracts to provide machinery to the U.S. Department of the Army, and since 2018, Caterpillar Inc. has held more than $481 million in federal contracts.

OFCCP has introduced the Class Member Locator, a powerful tool to identify applicants or workers who may be entitled to monetary relief and/or consideration for job placement as a result of OFCCP’s compliance evaluations and complaint investigations. If you believe you may be a class member who applied for a fabrication specialist/welder position with Caterpillar Inc. at its Decatur facility during the investigative period, we encourage you to use OFCCP’s Class Member Locator to learn more about this and other settlements.

Posted on

$200,000 to Clean Up a Hostile Work Environment of Sexual Harassment

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

The settlement reached with The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley underscores a pivotal moment in addressing workplace sexual harassment and retaliation

In a compelling tale of courage and justice, employees at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley, a cleaning service provider in eastern Wisconsin, stood up against the indignities and violations they faced at work.

“Sexual harassment violates the law, and this case shows despite all the public attention the issue has received, female workers remain vulnerable to harassment in the workplace because of their sex,” said Diane Smason, acting district director of the EEOC’s Chicago District.

The Cleaning Authority’s website boasts, “Professional Cleaning that leaves you stress-free.” However, this claim starkly contrasts with the experiences shared by employees, who describe a workplace riddled with stress and unfair practices. It’s ironic considering both the company’s promises and the reality depicted by its workforce. On one side, the company guarantees clients a spotless home and a worry-free experience, supported by meticulously crafted cleaning plans and eco-friendly products. On the other side, employee narratives highlight issues such as inappropriate touching, sex-based derogatory comments, and retaliation from management. Balancing these perspectives illuminates the complex nature of workplace dynamics within The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley. Their bravery in confronting adversity and unfair treatment culminated in a significant victory for themselves and other employees facing similar hostile conditions. On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley, accusing the company of fostering a hostile work environment and retaliating against female employees who resisted sexual harassment.

“An employer cannot fire employees because they oppose sexual harassment or threaten them to deter them from complaining,” said Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District. “Prosecuting such violations of Title VII is critical to ensuring the law fulfills its purpose.”

Imagine working a physically demanding job while enduring an employer’s inappropriate behavior and harassment. The job’s physical requirements are exhausting, demanding daily energy and endurance. The emotional burden of unwanted advances and improper conduct from an employer adds a distressing dimension to an already challenging situation. Employees often feel trapped, burdened by fear of retribution and a pervasive sense of helplessness. Against this backdrop, the significance of the employees’ actions at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley becomes evident; their resistance to harassment is a personal triumph and a beacon of hope for others in similar circumstances.

The lawsuit revealed instances of inappropriate touching, derogatory comments based on sex, and other harassing behaviors. Some employees felt compelled to quit their jobs, and one was even threatened into early retirement.

In a victory, The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley agreed to pay $200,000 and provide additional relief to settle the lawsuit, as announced by the EEOC on May 15, 2024. However, the impact of their actions extended further. Under a three-year consent decree, The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley will review, revise, and implement robust anti-discrimination policies prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation.

As part of this agreement, all employees will receive in-person training on sexual harassment, with managers and supervisors receiving additional training. Furthermore, an external monitor will be appointed for the first year to receive and review complaints related to harassment and retaliation.

The courage displayed by the employees has led to a substantial settlement and driven systemic changes at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley. Their brave actions serve as a powerful reminder of the ongoing fight against illegal sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environments that regrettably persist today.

Posted on

Sexism, Sexual Harassment, Hostile Environment at FDIC

Forced arbitration, Sexual harassment and discrimination lawyers. Non-compete agreements something akin to indentured servitude.

Shattered Career Dreams

Navigating Allegations and Accountability in Federal Agencies

The Wall Street Journal recently featured a compelling investigative report by Rebecca Ballhaus, unveiling a troubling culture at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The article exposes a toxic work environment marred by strip clubs, lewd photos, and boozy hotel stays.

For years, the FDIC has struggled with a pervasive “boys’ club” culture marked by sexism and frequent sexual harassment. This environment has particularly affected female staff, especially examiners, who have experienced discrimination, missed promotion opportunities, and felt marginalized in a culture that favors male accomplishments. The mishandling of misconduct claims has heightened employee turnover, with inappropriate actions by supervisors and managers fostering a consistently hostile work environment. Rather than address the core issues, the agency often merely transferred perpetrators, a move widely criticized for its ineffectiveness.

“The kind of abuses that were documented in the report are a totally unacceptable way to treat employees at the FDIC and not in line with the core values of the Biden administration,” Yellen told reporters.

Initially optimistic and ambitious new recruits quickly become disenchanted with the workplace, stifled under a glass ceiling maintained by improper conduct and a prevailing boys’ club attitude. Alarming are the claims tied to events led by field supervisor Hien “Jimmy” Nguyen, showcasing the blurred lines and poor judgment that perpetuate this toxic environment. Despite these allegations, Nguyen’s advancement within the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency highlights a disturbing lack of accountability in federal financial regulatory bodies.

Amidst the controversy stands Kevin Burnett, a former senior examiner at the FDIC, who provides a firsthand account of the toxic culture permeating the agency. Burnett’s experience, marked by over a decade of service, reflects a workplace fraught with challenges not just from the nature of the work itself but from a deeply embedded culture of exclusion and impropriety. He recounts instances where professionalism was overshadowed by the personal indulgences of his colleagues, leading to an environment where serious work and meritocracy were often sidelined. His observations shed light on a system struggling to reconcile its esteemed mission with the everyday realities of its internal culture, further complicating the lives of those committed to its success. Secretary Yellen’s condemnation of these practices reveals a deep disconnect between the administration’s declared values and the realities faced by its workforce.

Promising female professionals find themselves sidelined, their potential limited not by their capabilities but by a workplace culture that measures their value by their willingness to submit to a demeaning exchange—success at the expense of personal integrity. This toxic environment spills over into their personal lives, where mandatory social events and excessive drinking blur professional lines. Opportunities to lead projects are dangled and then snatched away, affecting their performance reviews and penalizing them for perceived shortcomings.

Attempts to challenge and change these norms often meet with indifference or retaliation, muffling demands for equitable treatment and sustaining a cycle of inaction. Consequently, the possibilities for career progression are bleak, overshadowed by the toxic dominance of a male-centric workplace. This grim reality forces many talented individuals to exit the FDIC, dismantling their aspirations and underscoring the urgent need for authentic workplace equality. This tale of wasted potential and deferred dreams is a compelling plea for systemic reform.

The FDIC faces severe scrutiny for fostering a work environment steeped in sexual discrimination and harassment, leading to notably high turnover rates, particularly among female examiners who feel marginalized. The tangible impact of this harmful culture extends beyond talent loss. Training a commissioned examiner represents a significant investment, approximately $400,000 over four years. With the resignation rate of examiners-in-training more than doubling recently, the financial strain is considerable, affecting the agency’s fiscal well-being.

Additionally, the FDIC confronts significant financial risks from costly lawsuits over sexual harassment and discrimination allegations. Recent instances of misconduct by supervisors and managers have led to numerous legal actions and complaints, and the agency’s reluctance to implement stringent disciplinary measures has only increased its legal vulnerability.

Beyond the financial costs, the cultural damage is profound. Persistent harassment and discrimination have depleted employee morale, undermining productivity and performance and exacerbating issues like poor mental health among the staff.

In summary, the ongoing culture of sexual discrimination and harassment at the FDIC incurs significant expenses—financially, through increased turnover, legal challenges, and training costs, and intangibly, through lowered morale, hindered employee retention, and a tarnished reputation.