Author: HFNewsAdmin

Posted on

Racial Harassment, Retaliation Lawsuit Settled for $105,000.

Helmer Friedman LLP protecting employee right to worplace free of racial harassment. Affordable Home Furnishings sued for racial discrimination.

Standing Up Against Workplace Racial Harassment: The Fight for Justice and Equality

Rise above the tide and stand against racial harassment in the workplace! Every individual has the right to a professional environment free from any form of racial discrimination. The lawsuit against Affordable Home Furnishings, where justice was served to an employee who faced racial harassment, serves as a profound testament to this belief.

The incident unfolded in their Florida Boulevard store where a white account manager racially harassed repeatedly using the word “n****r” while working with an African American manager-in-training. This deplorable act, followed by the inappropriate retaliatory firing of the manager-in-training for reporting the incident, was a gross violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Fearlessly, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spearheaded the fight for justice. The result – a consent decree that ensured Affordable Home Furnishings paid $105,000 in back pay and damages to the former employee. Further measures included the company implementing training requirements, revising policies, setting up a complaint hotline, providing regular reports to the EEOC, as well as posting a notice affirming their commitment to Title VII.

The EEOC’s stand against racial harassment sends a powerful message to America at large – racial harassment and discrimination have no place in our workplaces. Federal and state laws are steadfast protectors of every employee’s right to a harassment-free work environment. To learn more about the laws prohibiting race discrimination and retaliation, visit www.HelmerFriedman.com.

Remember, together we can build a future fueled by respect, understanding, and racial harmony. Each one of us carries the flame that can light up the darkness of racial discrimination. Let’s stop racial harassment in the workplace, today and every day.

Posted on

Pasadena Officer’s Case Highlights Importance of Whistleblower and Anti-Discrimination Protections

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

In an age where increased scrutiny is being directed toward police conduct, we must remind ourselves of the protections officers who blow the whistle on inappropriate behavior within their departments can count on. A recent case involving Officer Taisyn Crutchfield from the Pasadena Police Department exemplifies this.

Officer Taisyn Crutchfield, a Black officer, has lodged a claim against the City of Pasadena, alleging retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. This claim came after Crutchfield attempted to de-escalate a tense situation involving another officer and the son of a man killed by Sheriff deputies. Such a case invariably highlights the robust protections for individuals in such situations.

“She’s doing the right thing, she doesn’t believe in a code of silence. She doesn’t believe in circling the wagons,” attorney Bradley Gage said. “She believes in integrity, honesty and safety.”

Attorneys Bradley C. Gage and Ben Crump cite laws protecting law enforcement officers like Officer Crutchfield from retaliation and discriminatory treatment. These include the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, the Bane Act, and the Ralph Act.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, and other characteristics. Officer Crutchfield’s experience, if proven accurate, represents a clear violation of this Act.

The Peace Officer Bill of Rights Act (POBAR) ensures that officers are afforded their constitutional right to fair treatment. Officer Crutchfield’s allegation raises questions about whether her rights under POBAR were violated when she was placed on administrative leave following her intervention in the incident above.

Crutchfield was placed on paid administrative leave for six months after being sent back to the department, claiming that she was never given any reason for her punishment.

The Bane Act, also known as The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, protects from threats, intimidation, coercion, or attempts to interfere with someone’s state or federal statutory or constitutional rights. The Ralph Act also protects individuals from violence or threats of violence based on their race or ethnicity.

It’s crucial to remember that these laws work in combination to provide comprehensive protection to law enforcement officers. They allow officers to carry out their duties without fear of reprisal while also demanding an environment free from harassment and discrimination.

While the City of Pasadena has characterized the claim as inaccurate and pledged to contest the allegations, the incident serves as a potent reminder of the importance of these protective laws. Regardless of the outcome, it underscores how essential it is for law enforcement agencies to uphold these protections and ensure a fair, safe, and tolerant working environment for their officers.

Only through an unwavering commitment to these protections can we continue to build trust and integrity within our police forces and their relationships with the communities they serve.

Posted on

Thurgood Marshall

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Thurgood Marshall made immeasurable strides for the civil rights movement during his lifetime.

Working under his mentor and well-known civil rights icon Charles Hamilton Houston at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Marshall successfully argued Brown v. Board of Education which famously declared unconstitutional the “separate but equal” doctrine.

In 1965, Marshall became the first black person appointed to the post of U.S. Solicitor General. Two years later, he became the first black person appointed to the United States Supreme Court, where he served until 1991.

Posted on

Whistleblower Suing Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act Need Not Prove Their Employer Acted With “Retaliatory Intent” 

Helping Employees Recover and Enforcing Employment Laws Helmer Friedman LLP.

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Whistleblower Suing Under Sarbanes-Oxley Act Need Not Prove Their Employer Acted With “Retaliatory Intent”

On February 8, 2024, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 2024 WL 478566 (U.S., 2024) the U.S. Supreme Court held, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor, that a whistleblower seeking to invoke the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act need not prove that their employer acted with “retaliatory intent.” Instead, the whistleblower needs to merely show that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action.

Before discussing the details of the case, it is important to note that Murray continues an important and surprising trend at a Supreme Court (stocked with far right-wing conservative Justices) that is generally hostile to the rights of employees and consumers – it, almost uniformly, sides with employees in retaliation cases. So, as the following list demonstrates, the Supreme Court has sided with employees in 10 out of the last 13 cases stretching back nearly 20 years:

  • Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 2024 WL 478566 (2024)(siding with employee)
  • Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U.S. 149 (2018)(siding with employer)
  • Artis v. District of Columbia, 583 U.S. 71 (2018)(siding with employee)
  • Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016)(siding with employee)
  • Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 578 U.S. 266 (2016)(siding with employee)
  • Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (2015)(siding with employer)
  • Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014)(siding with employee)
  • Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U.S. 429 (2014)(siding with employee}
  • University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013)(siding with employer)
  • Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, 562 U.S. 170 (2011)(siding with employee)
  • Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011)(siding with employee)
  • Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (2011)(siding with employee)
  • Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson Cnty., Tenn., 555 U.S. 271 (2009)(siding with employee)
  • Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U.S. 474 (2008)(siding with employee)
  • Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)(siding with employee)

In Murray, the plaintiff, Trevor Murray, was employed as a research strategist at the UBS securities firm, within the firm’s commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) business. In that role, Murray was responsible for reporting on CMBS markets to current and future UBS customers. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations required him to certify that his reports were produced independently and accurately reflected his own views. Murray alleged that, despite this requirement of independence, two leaders of the CMBS trading desk improperly pressured him to skew his reports to be more supportive of their business strategies, even instructing Murray to “clear [his] research articles with the desk” before publishing them.

Murray reported that conduct to his direct supervisor, Michael Schumacher asserting that it was “unethical” and “illegal.” Schumacher expressed sympathy for Murray’s situation but emphasized that it was “very important” that Murray not “alienate [his] internal client” (i.e., the trading desk). When Murray later informed Schumacher that the situation with the trading desk “was bad and getting worse,” as he was being left out of meetings and subjected to “constant efforts to skew [his] research,” Schumacher told him that he should just “write what the business line wanted.” Shortly after that exchange (and despite having given Murray a very strong performance review just a couple months earlier) Schumacher emailed his own supervisor and recommended that Murray “be removed from [UBS’s] head count.” Schumacher recommended in the alternative that, if the CMBS trading desk wanted him, Murray could be transferred to a desk analyst position, where he would not have SEC certification responsibilities. The trading desk declined to accept Murray as a transfer, and UBS fired him.

Murray then filed a complaint with the Department of Labor alleging that his termination violated § 1514A of Sarbanes-Oxley because he was fired in response to his internal reporting about fraud on shareholders. When the agency did not issue a final decision on his complaint within 180 days, Murray filed an action in federal court.

Murray’s claim went to trial. UBS moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing, among other things, that Murray had “failed to produce any evidence that Schumacher possessed any sort of retaliatory animus toward him.” The District Court denied the motion.

The District Court instructed the jury that, in order to prove his § 1514A claim, Murray needed to establish four elements: (1) that he engaged in whistleblowing activity protected by Sarbanes-Oxley, (2) that UBS knew that he engaged in the protected activity, (3) that he suffered an adverse employment action (i.e., was fired), and (4) that his “protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment.” On the last element, the District Court further instructed the jury: “For a protected activity to be a contributing factor, it must have either alone or in combination with other factors tended to affect in any way UBS’s decision to terminate [his] employment.” The court explained that Murray was “not required to prove that his protected activity was the primary motivating factor in his termination, or that … UBS’s articulated reason for his termination was a pretext.” If Murray proved each of the four elements by a preponderance of the evidence, the District Court instructed, the burden would shift to UBS to “demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated [Murray’s] employment even if he had not engaged in protected activity.”

During deliberations, the jury asked for clarification of the contributing-factor instruction. The court responded that the jury “should consider” whether “anyone with th[e] knowledge of [Murray’s] protected activity, because of the protected activity, affect[ed] in any way the decision to terminate [Murray’s] employment.” When the court previewed this response to the parties, UBS indicated that it “would be comfortable” with that formulation.

The jury found that Murray had established his § 1514A claim and that UBS had failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have fired Murray even if he had not engaged in protected activity. The jury also issued an advisory verdict on damages, recommending that Murray receive nearly $1 million.

After the trial, UBS again moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the court denied. The court then adopted the jury’s advisory verdict on damages and awarded an additional $1.769 million in attorney’s fees and costs. UBS appealed the decision, and Murray cross-appealed on the issues of back pay, reinstatement, and attorney’s fees.

The Second Circuit panel vacated the jury’s verdict and remanded for a new trial. The court identified the central question as “whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s antiretaliation provision requires a whistleblower-employee to prove retaliatory intent,” and, contrary to the trial court, it concluded that the answer was yes.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the finding that Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s antiretaliation provision does not require that a whistleblower-employee prove retaliatory intent on the part of his or her employer:

The Second Circuit’s opinion requiring whistleblowers to prove retaliatory intent placed that Circuit in direct conflict with the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, which had rejected any such requirement for § 1514A claims. This Court granted certiorari to resolve this disagreement.

Section 1514A’s text does not reference or include a “retaliatory intent” requirement, and the provision’s mandatory burden-shifting framework cannot be squared with such a requirement. While a whistleblower bringing a § 1514A claim must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action, he need not also prove that his employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”

The Second Circuit and UBS both rely heavily on the word “discriminate” in § 1514A to impose a “retaliatory intent” requirement on whistleblower plaintiffs. As UBS acknowledges, the Second Circuit’s holding was “expressly predicated” on the word “discriminate.” That word, however, cannot bear the weight that both the Second Circuit and UBS place on it.

Consider the statutory text: No employer subject to Sarbanes-Oxley “may discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, harass, or in any other manner discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of ” the employee’s protected whistleblowing activity. § 1514A(a). To start, the placement of the word “discriminate” in the section’s catchall provision suggests that it is meant to capture other adverse employment actions that are not specifically listed, drawing meaning from the terms “discharge, demote, suspend, threaten, [and] harass” rather than imbuing those terms with a new or different meaning. Here, there is no dispute that Murray was “discharge[d],” and so it is not obvious that the “or in any other manner discriminate” clause has any relevance to his claim. According to UBS, though, “discriminate” in the catchall provision relates back to and characterizes “discharge,” such that “to be actionable, discharge must be a ‘manner’ of discriminating.” Accepting this statutory construction argument “for argument’s sake,” as this Court did in Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U. S. 644, 657 (2020), the question is whether the word “discriminate” inherently requires retaliatory intent. It does not.

An animus-like “retaliatory intent” requirement is simply absent from the definition of the word “discriminate.” When an employer treats someone worse—whether by firing them, demoting them, or imposing some other unfavorable change in the terms and conditions of employment—“because of ” the employee’s protected whistleblowing activity, the employer violates § 1514A. It does not matter whether the employer was motivated by retaliatory animus or was motivated, for example, by the belief that the employee might be happier in a position that did not have SEC reporting requirements.

Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 2024 WL 478566, *6-8 (U.S., 2024)(cleaned up).

Thankfully, the Supreme Court’s Murray decision will lower the arbitrarily high “retaliatory animus” hurdle that some courts have previously required employees to overcome in order to prevail on their Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation claim.

Posted on

Charlotte E. Ray

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

In 1872, Charlotte Ray became the first black female attorney in the United States. She was active in the NAACP and the suffragist movement.

Fun fact: she applied to and was admitted to Howard University Law School under the name “C. E. Ray,” in a possible attempt to hide her gender. #BlackHistoryMonth

Posted on

Legal Protections Against Gender Identity Discrimination

LGBTQIA+ people have the right to a workplace free from gender discrimination.

Let’s Talk Rights: Legal Protections Against Gender Identity Discrimination

Did you know that laws exist to prevent discrimination based on gender identity at your workplace? Yes, you read that right. And today, we’re going to talk about one such case that is a landmark development in the struggle for gender identity rights.

Recently, a case against T.C. Wheelers, a popular bar and pizzeria in Tonawanda, New York, made headlines. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit. The reason? Alleged sex-based harassment against an employee, Quinn Gambino, a transgender man. Employees and customers harassed him by making crude and derogatory references about his transgender status, including telling him that he “wasn’t a real man,” and asking invasive questions about his transition.

The EEOC alleged that the owners and staff repeatedly and intentionally misgendered Gambino by using female pronouns and failed to corral the behavior of employees and customers who engaged in similar conduct. Despite reporting the harassment to his manager on several occasions, the unsettling behavior continued until Gambino was forced to resign.

“The EEOC considers protecting members of the LGBTQIA+ community to be an important enforcement priority. We will continue to assure that transgender employees receive the full benefit of federal anti-discrimination laws in all industries.”

Such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, including discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression. After attempting to resolve the issue in a pre-litigation settlement, the EEOC filed suit.
The result? T.C. Wheelers agreed to pay Gambino $25,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. But, the resolutions went beyond that. T.C. Wheelers also had to enforce equal employment opportunity policies to prevent unlawful sex discrimination and harassment, especially towards transgender persons. Further, to ensure fairness, it hired an independent human resources monitor to supervise and investigate employee grievances.

This case represents a major victory for those who have been victims of gender identity discrimination in the workplace. But it’s more than that. It sends a strong message to employers nationwide that disrespecting an individual’s gender identity won’t be tolerated.

The EEOC’s New York District Director, Yaw Gyebi, Jr., emphasized the EEOC’s commitment to ensuring that transgender employees receive the full benefit of federal anti-discrimination laws in all industries, saying, “The EEOC considers protecting members of the LGBTQIA+ community to be an important enforcement priority. We will continue to assure that transgender employees receive the full benefit of federal anti-discrimination laws in all industries.”This case serves as a reminder that no one should have to experience discrimination based on their gender identity.

Posted on

The Far-Reaching Implications of Gender Identity Discrimination and Harassment

LGBTQIA+ people have the right to a workplace free from gender discrimination.

The social tapestry is intricately woven with various threads of identity, each deserving respect and validation. Gender identity, in particular, has been at the forefront of many societal debates and struggles for rights and recognition. Nevertheless, gender identity discrimination and harassment continue to fabricate a corrosive environment that not only strips individuals of their dignity but also inflicts long-lasting damage that echoes through their personal and professional lives.

In this extensive analysis, we will dissect the multifaceted consequences of gender identity discrimination and harassment. Our journey will delve deep into the physical, emotional, and social repercussions, as well as the legal landscape providing protection and recourse for victims. By illuminating these issues, we aim to instigate meaningful change and fortify the supportive scaffolding that individuals in the gender-diverse community need.

Defining the Harm: Understanding Gender Identity Discrimination

Gender identity discrimination occurs when an individual is treated unfavorably because of their gender identity or because they do not conform to traditional gender stereotypes. This form of discrimination can manifest in various settings—be it the workplace, educational institutions, healthcare environments, or within our communities. It chips away at the foundation of an individual’s identity and can result in profound, systemic harm that transcends mere instances of prejudice.

As we unpack the layers of discrimination, the far-reaching implications will become evident. First, we will explore how the psychological and emotional toll can lead to severe mental health issues. Then, we will investigate the professional ramifications that stifle career growth and economic stability. Social repercussions will also be illuminated, outlining the devastating effects on personal relationships and community integration. Finally, we will navigate the maze of laws and legal precedents that serve as both a shield and a weapon in the fight against gender identity discrimination and harassment.

The Invisible Wounds of Gender Identity Discrimination

Mental Health and Well-Being

The mental health of individuals subjected to gender identity discrimination is significantly at risk. Research consistently shows that transgender and gender non-conforming individuals face an increased prevalence of mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety disorders, and even higher rates of suicide attempts. The perpetual stress of potential exposure to discrimination and harassment is a heavy anvil on the psyche, often leading to a diminished sense of self-worth.

Increased Risk of Anxiety, Depression, and Suicidal Thoughts

The numbers paint a grim picture. A survey by the National Center for Transgender Equality revealed that 40% of transgender adults have reported attempting suicide. These alarming figures depict the gravity of the situation and the desperate need for societal change to provide a nurturing environment that fosters mental well-being. Disparities in healthcare access and the lack of support resources further compound these risks, leaving many to grapple with their emotional turmoil in isolation.

Physical Health Implications

Gender identity discrimination can also manifest in physical health challenges. The chronic stress associated with discrimination can lead to an array of health issues, such as cardiovascular problems, compromised immune systems, and even a shortened life expectancy. The cumulative impact of discrimination on both mental and physical health underlines the urgent need to address these systemic issues and provide comprehensive care to those affected.

The Professional Stalemate: Employment and Career Prospects Hindered

Difficulties in Finding and Maintaining Employment

One of the most tangible consequences of gender identity discrimination is the difficulty in securing and keeping a job. Studies have shown that transgender individuals are disproportionately affected by unemployment and underemployment. Discriminatory hiring practices and hostile work environments force many to navigate a professional landscape fraught with barriers that others take for granted.

Job Satisfaction and Career Advancement Opportunities

Job satisfaction and career advancement opportunities are often curtailed, even for those who manage to enter the workforce. Hostile or discriminatory work environments can erode an individual’s professional confidence and stifle their ability to grow and thrive. Limited job options and lower pay scales are remnants of a society still grappling with inclusivity and equal opportunity in the workplace.

Economic Hardships

The financial toll of gender identity discrimination is not to be underestimated. From losing one’s job to being unfairly compensated or not being offered promotions, the economic well-being of individuals is directly impacted. As a result, many face hardships in meeting their basic needs, which further exacerbates the stress and mental health struggles that are already prevalent within this community.

The Societal Divide: Social Isolation and Alienation

Isolation and Alienation from Community

The aftereffects of discrimination do not stop at the office door. Individuals often experience profound isolation and alienation from their communities, especially when those environments are not supportive. This alienation can lead to a breakdown in social structures and supports, leaving individuals to navigate their identities in a hostile or ignorant social fabric.

Strained Personal Relationships

The fabric of our lives is intricately woven with the threads of personal relationships. Yet, gender identity discrimination can lead to significant strains on these relationships. Be it within the family unit, amongst peers, or in romantic partnerships, the presence of discrimination can create discord, misunderstandings, and in severe cases, lead to the dissolution of these vital social bonds.

Reduced Quality of Life

The sum of these social consequences is a diminished quality of life. As individuals experience discrimination and societal rejection, the very activities and interactions that typically bring joy and fulfillment may become a source of stress and dissatisfaction. This undeniably lower quality of life further underscores the importance of creating a more inclusive and supportive social environment for all individuals, regardless of gender identity.

Navigating the Legal Terrain: Protections and Remedies

Laws and Protections Against Gender Identity Discrimination

In recognition of the pervasive discriminatory practices faced by transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, many jurisdictions have enacted laws specifically designed to protect their rights. These laws forbid discrimination on the basis of gender identity and, in some cases, require that individuals be afforded accommodations that allow them to express their gender identity.

Legal Recourse and Remedies for Victims

When discrimination and harassment occur, it’s crucial for victims to know their legal rights and the avenues available for recourse. Legal action can range from filing complaints with government agencies to pursuing civil litigation against the perpetrators. Not only does this provide an opportunity for justice, but it also sends a clear signal that such behaviors will not be tolerated.

Foster Inclusion: Addressing and Preventing Gender Identity Discrimination

Education and Awareness

A critical element in preventing discrimination is education and awareness. By providing knowledge on gender identity and the challenges faced by the gender diverse community, we can dispel ignorance and cultivate greater empathy and understanding. Educational initiatives in schools, workplaces, and within the community at large can help to normalize discussions around gender diversity and promote inclusivity.

Inclusive Policies and Practices

Organizations and institutions must take proactive steps to foster an inclusive environment. This includes developing and enforcing policies that explicitly prohibit discrimination and harassment based on gender identity, as well as providing training to employees on respectful and affirming practices. In addition, creating support networks and resources for individuals to seek guidance and redress is crucial in legitimizing the commitments made through policy.

Support Networks and Resources for Victims

For those who have experienced discrimination, support networks and resources can be a lifeline. Organizations such as the National Center for Transgender Equality and GLSEN provide a community and the resources necessary to navigate the challenges of discrimination. Access to legal counsel and other support services is key in empowering individuals to stand up against discrimination and seek remedies for the harm they’ve endured.

In conclusion, the consequences of gender identity discrimination and harassment are not just personal—they are societal, systemic, and wholly impactful. It is a call to action for all of us to stand in solidarity with the gender-diverse community, to champion their rights, and to ensure that discrimination and harassment have no place in our shared future. Let this be the catalyst for change, igniting a collective effort to create a world where every individual can live authentically and without fear of recrimination. For now, the ball is in our court to take the knowledge and insights from this discourse and transform them into actionable steps towards a more inclusive, equitable society.

Posted on

Whistleblower Case Against City of Florence Moves Forward: Judge Denies Dismissal

Sex discrimination is not only illegal, but it has been proven to negatively affect public safety.

Is your city safe? The question might seem straightforward, but for the people of Florence, the answer might be more complex than it seems. Sex discrimination is not only illegal but it has been proven to negatively affect public safety. Sarah Glenn, a city employee, alleges that the City of Florence has been systematically violating state and federal civil rights laws, even retaliating for exercising her First Amendment rights.

Glenn’s allegations include being treated less favorably than her male counterparts, being assigned menial tasks, and expressing genuine safety concerns that were ignored. The city attempted to dismiss Glenn’s First Amendment claim, arguing that her disclosures were not of public concern and could disrupt the workplace. However, a statement from US District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer suggests otherwise. He denied this motion, emphasizing that Glenn’s claims can’t simply be bulldozed as personal grievances.

The City is now seeking a summary judgment to resolve the First Amendment claim in their favor and is hoping to avoid a trial. However, it’s worth noting that this isn’t the first litigation against the City of Florence, as there’ve been multiple lawsuits, including allegations of misconduct by the former city manager.

This case reveals the dark side of sex discrimination. It obstructs justice, inhibits the free flow of information, and potentially risks public safety. It’s time to recognize these issues. Stand with Sarah Glenn. Stand up for equal rights and public safety.

Posted on

Unspoken Rides: Addressing the Pervasive Harassment and Discrimination in America’s Auto Dealerships

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a pervasive issue in auto dealerships throughout America.

The American auto dealership industry, boasting a backbone of shiny cars and robust sales pitches, hides an alarming and corrosive problem under its hood – sexual harassment. Despite being a cornerstone of America’s retail economy, auto dealerships have become notorious battlegrounds for gender respect and workplace equality.

In this probing examination, we will delve deep into the personal stories that shed light on the struggle many female employees face, survey the bleak statistics that run rampant across the industry, and provide concrete steps and resources for those affected by such improper conduct in their workplaces.

Personal Narratives of Harassment

Personal accounts bring the shocking reality of workplace harassment out of the shadows. In a Utah auto dealership, a former employee recounts days filled with anxiety and fear as her supervisor would casually assault female staff members, dealing out demeaning acts like smacks on the buttocks as casually as if he were giving out office memos.

The situation in Texas paints an equally grim picture, with managers at South Austin Nissan openly and relentlessly parading their predatory behavior. Women working there faced an ongoing onslaught of unwanted touching, lewd comments dissecting their appearance, and invasive inquiries into their private lives.

Moving west to San Francisco, the narrative continues with former employees, all women, who weathered unwelcome sexual advances, offensive remarks, and physical contact—all undermining not only their sense of security but their professional worth.

A Statistical Glimpse into the Workplace

Behind these personal stories lies a staggering trail of data:

  • According to the National Women’s Law Center, a harrowing 65% of women in dealership roles have dealt with sexual harassment at their job.
  • An EEOC study alerts us to over 60 official sexual harassment charges filed in the span of eight years, a period where the true scope of the issue likely exceeds recorded figures due to unreported incidents.
  • An Auto News survey tragically indicates that the immense majority—7 out of every 10 women in the dealership industry—experienced a form of sexual harassment.
  • From an occupational health psychology perspective, the non-physical damages are substantial too, resulting in a workplace rife with dissatisfaction, distress, and high turnover rates.

This data paints a sobering picture: the car sales floor, rather than being a place of negotiation and commerce, is often an arena of gender-based violation and abuse.

Stepping Stones to Change

These harrowing accounts and disheartening figures cannot fade into mere statistics. Change is imperative. To catalyze this transformation, advocacy must be a community affair – everyone is a stakeholder in making dealerships safe environments that uphold gender respect and equality. Here’s what can be done:

  • Workplace Policies – Dealerships must institute clear, robust, and non-negotiable policies against harassment, with transparent channels for reporting and addressing complaints.
  • Training Programs – Regular and compulsory training sessions can educate all employees on what constitutes sexual harassment and how to prevent it.
  • Peer Support – Fostering a culture where colleagues support one another and victims don’t feel isolated or helpless.

Legal Recourse and Support Systems

Empower yourself with knowledge and support:

  • EEOC Guidance – Connect with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for advice and action against employment discrimination.
  • Legal Expertise – A specialized workplace discrimination or harassment attorney can offer legal counsel and potentially represent your case.
  • Law Enforcement – If you’ve been physically harassed or assaulted, contact the local police.
  • Support from Nonprofits – Organizations like the National Women’s Law Center offer legal resources to women facing discrimination and harassment.
  • Community Networks – Join support groups where shared experiences and solidarity can foster recovery and collective action.

Conclusion: Toward a Respectful Workspace

Making our workplaces safe sanctuaries of productivity and respect demands courage, persistence, and unity. If you or someone you know is enduring sexual harassment within an auto dealership or any workplace, remember that silence benefits only the perpetrators. It’s time to revamp the industry not just from a business standpoint but from a foundational perspective that respects and values all employees equally.

Make Dealerships Safe: Advocate for Gender Respect and Equality

Now is the time for action, for support, and for change. Stand up for a harassment-free workplace, and navigate the road ahead with the dignity and equality every person deserves.

Posted on

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: A Lifeline Protecting Mothers From Workplace Discrimination

Discrimination based on gender stereotypes women with children is illegal. Call gender discrimination lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been a reliable shield for many employees in the past and continues to hold its significance in our society today. It is a federal law that serves as a powerful weapon against sex discrimination, especially for mothers who are often subject to baseless stereotypes in the workplace.

An example that stands out is the recent case lodged against Walmart by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). As the case revealed, a dedicated employee was denied a well-deserved promotion to a department manager position due to sex stereotypes. The reasons for overlooking her promotion revolved around her young children, implying that she may not be as committed or dedicated to advancing her career. Such stereotypes are exactly what Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 aims to fight against.

“Discriminating against a woman because of stereotypes about working mothers is sex discrimination, plain and simple,” said Gregory Gochanour, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Women with children deserve the opportunity to be judged fairly in the workplace based on their qualifications and abilities, not on assumptions about their commitment to their careers.”

This landmark legislation not only prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of sex, but also race, color, religion, and national origin. The law has been instrumental in protecting mothers from facing discrimination in the workplace. It ensures that they are given equal opportunities for recruitment, hiring, promotion and training.

The settlement follows an earlier ruling by the court rejecting Walmart’s motion to end the case without a trial. The court’s decision on the case highlighted that a promotion decision taken based on sex stereotypes was unjust. The courts referenced a U.S. Supreme Court case that unraveled the harmful sex stereotype presumption — that women are primarily mothers and secondarily workers. This presumption was deemed impermissible and countered the rights provided through Title VII.

The outcome of this lawsuit served as another win for Title VII, with Walmart agreeing to pay a sizable compensation of $60,000 to the aggrieved employee. Further, in an effort to prevent future discrimination, they committed to providing training that focuses on federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination and to report any further complaints to the EEOC.

This case serves as a clear reminder of how vital Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is in ensuring a fair and non-discriminatory playing field for mothers. It eradicates stereotypes, ensuring women are acknowledged for their skills, qualifications, and abilities rather than unfairly judged based on their circumstances. Discrimination against women, particularly rooted in stereotypes of working mothers, is regarded as sex discrimination, and this law serves as a bulwark against it.