Author: HFNewsAdmin

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.

Posted on

Stories of Resilience: Overcoming Wrongful Termination After a Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Facing a breast cancer diagnosis is already an overwhelming experience, but the thought of losing your job because of it can add a significant emotional and financial burden. Many survivors worry about how their employers will react and whether they’ll be able to maintain their livelihoods. This blog aims to shed light on this challenging topic by discussing your rights, sharing personal stories, and providing actionable advice for those dealing with similar situations.

Understanding Your Rights

When diagnosed with breast cancer, it’s vital to understand your legal rights as an employee. Laws such as the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state disability laws are in place to protect you.

FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for serious health conditions, which includes cancer. This enables you to take necessary time off for treatment or recovery without the fear of losing your job.

ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, which can encompass cancer. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as modified work schedules or time for medical appointments, unless doing so would cause significant hardship to the business.

Despite these protections, there have been instances where employers have cited false reasons for termination following an employee’s breast cancer diagnosis. Understanding your rights is crucial in safeguarding your employment and taking action if discrimination occurs.

Navigating the Conversation

Discussing a breast cancer diagnosis with your employer can be daunting. However, open communication is essential for ensuring you receive the necessary support and accommodations.

Before initiating the conversation, prepare yourself by understanding what accommodations you may need, such as flexible hours or remote work options. Document everything—emails, conversations, and any agreements reached.

During the conversation, emphasize your commitment to your role and desire to continue contributing to the team. Be clear and concise about your needs, and work collaboratively to find a solution that benefits both parties.

It’s important to remain informed about your company’s policies regarding medical leave and accommodations. By approaching the discussion professionally and proactively, you’re more likely to receive the support you need.

Financial Resources

The financial strain of breast cancer treatment can be overwhelming, especially if your employment is impacted. Fortunately, several resources are available to help alleviate this burden.

Disability Benefits can offer financial support if you’re unable to work due to your diagnosis. Both short-term and long-term options may be available through your employer or government programs like Social Security Disability Insurance.

Insurance Coverage should be reviewed to ensure you’re receiving all benefits to which you’re entitled. Some insurance plans offer coverage for specific treatments, support services, or even transportation to medical appointments.

Additionally, community resources such as nonprofit organizations and cancer support groups can provide financial assistance, counseling, and other essential services during this challenging time.

Personal Stories

Real-life experiences of breast cancer survivors highlight the challenges and triumphs faced when dealing with job loss due to a diagnosis.

Kara Jorud was a store manager at Michaels when she was fired after being diagnosed with breast cancer. Despite the company’s claims of policy violations, a jury found that her rights under FMLA, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and ADA were violated. Michaels was ordered to pay more than $8 million in damages for wrongful termination.

Imelda Tamayo faced a similar situation when she was terminated from Oakland Children’s Hospital after requesting extended medical leave for recovery. The hospital eventually settled for $300,000 and revised its policies to better accommodate employees with medical conditions.

Megan Rizzo-Canny shared her fight against wrongful termination during breast cancer treatment. After being laid off, she pursued legal action and was able to secure disability benefits and maintain her health insurance, proving that standing up for one’s rights can lead to positive outcomes.

Linda O’Brien, another survivor, won millions in a discrimination suit after being wrongfully fired. Her story is a powerful reminder of the importance of advocating for oneself and the impact of legal protections.

Conclusion

While losing a job after a breast cancer diagnosis is a difficult and emotional experience, understanding your rights and seeking the necessary support can make a significant difference. Remember that you’re not alone—many have successfully navigated this challenging path.

If you face discrimination or wrongful termination, consider contacting an experienced employment lawyer to protect your rights. Connecting with support groups and tapping into available resources can also provide invaluable assistance.

Ultimately, your health and well-being should remain a top priority. By staying informed and advocating for yourself, you can move forward with strength and resilience, knowing that brighter days lie ahead.

Posted on

Empowerment Through Knowledge: Navigating Disability Rights and Employment Law

Disability laws protect employees from being fired for requesting reasonable accommodations while battling illness. Disability discrimination lawyers Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Breast cancer patient fired for requesting temporary accommodation during treatment

Waging a war against a major illness is one of the most challenging experiences anyone can face. The emotional, physical, and mental toll it takes can be overwhelming. At the heart of this struggle lies an issue that makes this battle even more daunting: the fear of losing one’s livelihood. Fortunately, laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are in place to ensure that women battling major illnesses have one less thing to worry about – job security.

The ADA unequivocally protects employees by prohibiting discrimination based on disability. It ensures women struggling with significant health conditions, like breast cancer, have the right to request reasonable accommodations that would allow them to continue performing their job efficiently and effectively. Fear of demotion, termination, or discrimination should never add to the immense stress these women face while battling for their lives.

A recent case underscores the importance of this protection. A surgical sales coordinator at Mia Aesthetics, battling breast cancer, requested telework as a reasonable accommodation while undergoing chemotherapy treatments. Telework would not have hindered the coordination role, and the employee provided medical documentation in support. However, the company denied this request and instead offered a part-time front desk role, resulting in decreased earnings and increased person-to-person contact. When the employee did not accept this role, her employment was terminated.

Mia Aesthetic’s actions were deemed a clear violation of the ADA. The law states that firing an employee because of a disability is discriminatory, which was the case here. The ADA also requires employers to perform an individualized assessment to determine if an employee can execute their roles with suitable accommodations.

The justice system stepped in to protect the employee’s rights, filing a lawsuit against Mia Aesthetics. This case is a potent reminder that no woman should have to worry about losing her job while she’s fighting for her life.

In light of the challenges faced by employees dealing with discrimination linked to their health conditions, it is crucial for those affected to know their rights and seek appropriate support. Anyone who has experienced such discrimination is strongly encouraged to contact an employment law attorney. These legal professionals can provide invaluable guidance, helping victims understand the complexities of their situation and navigate the legal landscape to secure the protections afforded to them under the law. Taking action not only empowers individuals to advocate for themselves but also contributes to a broader movement against discrimination in the workplace.

Posted on

Asphalt Paving Systems Case: Costs of Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

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

The Asphalt Paving Systems Case

A Stark Reminder of the Costs of Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

In a society that aspires to achieve equality and justice, the allegations against Asphalt Paving Systems (APS) by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2023 serve as a stark reminder of the harsh realities of racial discrimination in certain workplaces. This case involved 12 Black workers who endured a hostile environment at APS, a company based in Zephyrhills, Florida. Their experiences included being denied basic facilities such as access to indoor bathrooms and enduring continuous racial slurs from co-workers and supervisors.

Such incidents underscore the critical importance of laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to protect employees from racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace. APS’s violation of this law created a hostile environment for its Black employees, undermining their rights to equal employment opportunities and adversely affecting their emotional and mental well-being.

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.

Title VII explicitly states, “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.” This vital provision emphasizes that employment should be free from discrimination, ensuring a working environment where everyone can thrive, regardless of their racial or ethnic background. It also sets the expectation for employers to foster a workplace devoid of harassment based on these protected characteristics, reinforcing the necessity of equitable treatment in all aspects of employment.

Beyond the moral and ethical dimensions, businesses that engage in racial discrimination face significant financial and reputational repercussions. In July 2024, APS was ordered to pay a hefty $1.25 million in damages to compensate the victims of its discriminatory practices.

Moreover, cases like these highlight the necessity of robust anti-discrimination policies within organizations. Companies must not only comply with laws like Title VII but also actively cultivate an inclusive culture, implementing practices that protect against racial discrimination and harassment.

While monetary penalties for racial discrimination are substantial—and rightly so—the hidden costs to businesses can be even greater. Companies that persist in such behaviors risk damaging their reputation, potentially deterring high-quality talent from applying, customers from purchasing their products or services, and investors from supporting their business.

As illustrated by the APS case, the costs of racial discrimination extend beyond financial penalties. It undermines employee morale and productivity, and in some instances, it can threaten the commercial viability of the company itself. This serves as a powerful reminder that businesses should strive to create an inclusive work environment free from racial discrimination and harassment—not only because it is the law but because it is sound business practice.

Posted on

Persistent Workplace Discrimination and Retaliation

Sexual harassment causes long term damage to the victims psyche.

Discrimination in the Workplace Persists

Discrimination in the workplace is an ugly truth that still prevails despite the numerous laws and regulations designed to combat it. Companies that engage in discriminatory practices harm not only the affected employees but also the overall workplace environment. What’s worse, many of these organizations resort to retaliation against those brave enough to speak out or investigate discrimination. This article aims to shed light on these issues, providing valuable insights and actionable steps for workplace equality advocates and HR professionals.

Understanding Workplace Discrimination

Workplace discrimination manifests in various forms, each with unique challenges and consequences. Understanding these types is crucial for addressing them effectively.

Gender Discrimination

Gender discrimination remains a significant issue in many workplaces. It includes unfair treatment based on one’s gender, which can lead to disparities in pay, promotions, and job opportunities. Statistics show that women, especially women of color, are more likely to experience workplace discrimination. For instance, according to a Pew Research Center study, 42% of working women in the U.S. have faced gender discrimination at work.

Racial Discrimination

Racial discrimination involves treating employees differently because of their race or ethnicity. This type of discrimination can severely impact an individual’s career progression and mental well-being. For example, a survey conducted by Glassdoor found that 61% of Black employees report experiencing or witnessing racial discrimination in the workplace.

Age Discrimination

Age discrimination typically affects older employees, who may be unfairly overlooked for promotions or forced into early retirement. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reported that in 2019, 21.4% of all discrimination charges filed were related to age.

The Reality of Retaliation

When employees report discrimination, they often face retaliation instead of support. This can take various forms, from demotion and job termination to subtle acts of intimidation, making it difficult for individuals to come forward.

Case Study 1: Pro Pallet

Pro Pallet, a Pennsylvania-based construction company, has been ordered to pay $50,000 to settle a lawsuit concerning discrimination and retaliation. The case arose when a human resources manager at Pro Pallet received a sexual harassment complaint against the company’s general manager. As she began investigating the matter, the president and owner of Pro Pallet reprimanded her for fulfilling her responsibilities, reallocated key job duties to other employees, and excluded her from company meetings.

Case Study 2: Hatzel & Buehler

In another case, Hatzel & Buehler, an electrical contractor, was mandated to pay $500,000 to settle an age discrimination lawsuit. The vice president of the New Jersey branch engaged in discriminatory recruiting and hiring practices by instructing recruiting firms to focus on younger candidates for project manager and estimator positions while outright refusing to hire older applicants who did not fit his preferred age range. The lawsuit also claimed that this vice president neglected to maintain records related to job applicants and hiring, violating federal law.

Case Study 3: Altman Specialty Plants

Altman Specialty Plants has been ordered to pay $172,000 to settle allegations of sexual harassment and retaliation. An investigation found that a supervisor at the company’s Austin, Texas, location subjected female employees to sexual harassment and maintained a sexually hostile work environment for an extended period.

Moreover, employees who reported the harassment faced retaliation, which created a chilling effect and rendered Altman’s Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policies and complaint procedures ineffective. Such conduct allegedly violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex, including sexual harassment, as well as retaliation for participating in protected activities.

The Impact on Employees

Discrimination and retaliation have far-reaching consequences for employees.

Emotional Toll

The emotional toll of discrimination can be devastating. Victims often experience anxiety, depression, and a sense of isolation. This emotional strain can affect every aspect of their lives, from personal relationships to overall mental health.

Financial Impact

Financial instability is another significant consequence. Victims of discrimination and retaliation may lose their jobs, face demotions, or be forced to take lower-paying positions. This financial strain can lead to long-term economic challenges.

Professional Damage

Professionally, discrimination and retaliation can derail careers. Skilled employees may find their career progression halted, and the stain of being “a troublemaker” can follow them to future job opportunities.

The Role of Advocates and HR Professionals

Advocates and HR professionals play a pivotal role in creating safer, more inclusive workplaces.

Support Systems

Establishing robust support systems is crucial. HR departments should have clear policies and procedures for reporting discrimination, ensuring that employees feel safe and supported.

Training and Education

Regular training and education programs can help prevent discrimination. These programs should focus on raising awareness about different types of discrimination and the importance of diversity and inclusion.

Open Communication

Encouraging open communication is essential. Employees should feel comfortable discussing their concerns without fear of retaliation. Regular surveys and anonymous reporting channels can help identify issues before they escalate.

Strategies for Change

Combatting discrimination and retaliation requires a concerted effort from both companies and employees.

Legal Obligations

Companies must understand and adhere to their legal obligations regarding discrimination. This includes complying with anti-discrimination laws and promptly addressing any complaints.

Ethical Responsibilities

Beyond legal obligations, companies have an ethical responsibility to foster a respectful and inclusive workplace. This involves creating a culture where diversity is celebrated and discrimination is not tolerated.

Actionable Steps

  1. Policy Development: Develop and regularly update anti-discrimination policies. Ensure these policies are clearly communicated to all employees.
  2. Training Programs: Implement regular training sessions on diversity, inclusion, and anti-discrimination practices.
  3. Support Systems: Establish strong support systems for victims of discrimination and ensure that they have access to necessary resources.

Conclusion

Workplace discrimination and retaliation are pervasive issues that require immediate attention. By understanding the different forms of discrimination, recognizing the reality of retaliation, and taking proactive steps, advocates and HR professionals can make significant strides toward creating more equitable work environments.

The responsibility to foster a safe and inclusive workplace does not rest solely on the shoulders of HR professionals and advocates. It requires a collective effort from all levels of the organization, from top management to individual employees. Together, we can break the silence, address these issues head-on, and pave the way for a future where everyone feels valued and respected.

Let’s continue this conversation. Share your experiences and strategies for overcoming discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Your insights could be the catalyst for change in other organizations.

Posted on

Wage Theft $912,594 Recovered: Understanding Your Rights and Protections

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

As we navigate the complex world of labor laws, it is essential to understand the rights and protections that safeguard workers against wage theft. Whether it be through crafty tip pools or employers illegally retaining tips from credit card purchases, workers must be aware of their rights to receive the overtime pay to which they are entitled.

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is one such piece of legislation that works to uphold these rights. A recent case involving a Londonderry brewery and restaurant, Pipe Dream Brewing LLC, highlights the need for workers to be aware of these protections. The establishment was found to have violated the FLSA by retaining tips paid via credit card transactions and denying overtime wages to exempt employees.

These infractions resulted in the recovery of $912,594 for 44 employees. This sum included back wages, withheld tips, and liquidated damages. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, which facilitated the recovery, also assessed $5,148 in civil money penalties for the tip-related violations.

“No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left.”

The law is explicit—managers, supervisors, and employers are strictly forbidden from participating in tip pools or pocketing any portion of employees’ tips for any reason. These protections ensure that workers can fully realize the wages they have lawfully earned.

Federal and State laws, such as California Labor Code Section 351, offer robust protection against wage theft. This code explicitly prohibits employers and their agents, including supervisors and managerial personnel, from sharing in or retaining any portion of a gratuity intended for employees. The law clearly states that gratuities are the sole property of the employees to whom they are given:
“No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left.”

This case clearly illustrates the costly consequences for employers who attempt to circumvent these laws. It emphasizes the importance of employees understanding their rights and the mechanisms in place to protect them. The Wage and Hour Division offers resources like the Workers Owed Wages online search tool to assist those in claiming back wages, should they believe they are owed.

As employees, it is crucial to stay informed about the specific laws that protect us from wage theft, tip pooling, and other unscrupulous practices. The Fair Labor Standards Act safeguards serve as a robust shield, ensuring that workers get the pay they have worked hard for and duly deserve.

Posted on

Discrimination and Harassment: Addressing the Scourge in the Construction Industry

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

Recent studies and investigations suggest that the construction industry stands out from its peers due to a significant prevalence of hate, bias, and discrimination. More so, the industry is marked by egregious instances of harassment. This has made the sector a focal point for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the current Biden administration, which has singled out industries where women and workers of color are underrepresented.

In the post-Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act era, this focus on hostile work environments in construction has intensified. A noteworthy step was an EEOC hearing dedicated to investigating the culture of racism and sexual harassment within construction. The agency’s yearlong study culminated in a June 2023 report highlighting hostility and discrimination on construction sites.

The construction industry’s unique characteristics make it a hotbed for such adverse behaviors. A homogenous workforce and cyclical and project-based work leave workers exposed to discrimination. These acts of hostility range from taunting tradeswomen and vandalizing black workers’ toolboxes to retaliatory transfers or unfair reduction of hours.

With an urgent need to root out bias, six major general contractors inaugurated Construction Inclusion Week. This initiative mirrored the sector’s successful ‘Safety Week,’ aimed at eliminating bias at building sites.

The EEOC guide proposes five key strategies to combat discrimination and promote a healthier working environment. These include committed and engaged leadership, consistent accountability, comprehensive harassment policies, trusted complaint procedures, and regular interactive training. These are not legal mandates, but adopting these practices will significantly safeguard employers against liability in the event of grievances.

Addressing bias and harassment is not only about creating a conducive work environment; it’s also a strategic move to combat the industry’s labor shortage. Creating an attractive working environment efficiently recruits and retains a diverse workforce, from women to people of color.

Tackling discrimination and harassment has dual advantages. It improves workplace safety and ensures continuous workforce supply aligned with the industry’s growth and needs. Adopting practices that foster a harassment-free workplace is a step in the right direction, not just a compliance checklist.