Category: Fair Employment and Housing Act

Posted on

Reporting a Hostile Work Environment: Your Rights & Legal Steps

End sex / gender discrimination in hiring, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Reporting a Hostile Work Environment: When the Office Becomes a Battlefield

For Tazaria Gibbs, a warehouse employee in Memphis, the workday didn’t just bring physical labor—it brought an onslaught of unwelcome sexual comments and an operations manager who refused to take “no” for an answer. When she reported the harassment to three different supervisors, expecting protection, she was instead met with silence. No reports were filed. No investigations were launched. Eventually, when she refused to meet her harasser alone, she was fired for “insubordination.”

This isn’t just a story of bad management; it is a textbook example of a hostile work environment. It is also the center of a federal lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against DHL Supply Chain in January 2025.

While the term “hostile work environment” is often tossed around to describe a rude boss or an annoying coworker, the legal reality is far more specific—and far more damaging. It describes a workplace permeated by discriminatory conduct so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment.

If you dread walking through the office doors because of harassment or discrimination, understanding your rights isn’t just about policy—it’s about survival and justice.

What is a Hostile Work Environment?

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state laws like the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a hostile work environment is not defined by general unpleasantness. It is defined by discriminatory harassment.

To meet the legal standard, the conduct must be unwelcome and based on a protected characteristic, such as race, religion, sex (including pregnancy and gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), or disability. Furthermore, the behavior must be either severe (a single, egregious incident, such as a sexual assault) or pervasive (a pattern of ongoing incidents) enough to create an abusive environment that a reasonable person would find intimidating or hostile.

Behaviors That Cross the Line

Harassment can take many forms, often escalating from subtle slights to overt abuse. Common examples include:

  • Sexual Harassment: This includes unwanted touching, lewd jokes, the display of inappropriate images, or quid pro quo offers (trading employment benefits for sexual favors).
  • Discriminatory Slurs: The use of racial epithets, derogatory comments about a person’s age, or mocking a person’s disability or accent.
  • Intimidation and Bullying: Physical threats, blocking someone’s movement, or sabotaging work performance based on protected characteristics.
  • Retaliation: Punishing an employee for filing a complaint or participating in an investigation.

The Human Cost of Workplace Hostility

The impact of a hostile work environment extends far beyond legal definitions. For the employee, the psychological toll can be devastating. Victims often experience severe anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, and a loss of professional confidence. The stress of navigating a minefield of harassment daily can manifest physically, leading to health issues that force employees to take sick leave or resign entirely.

For companies, the cost is equally high, though measured differently. Toxic cultures breed high turnover, low productivity, and reputational damage. As seen in the EEOC v. DHL Supply Chain case, the failure to address complaints can lead to federal lawsuits, costly settlements, and mandated federal oversight.

Securing Compensation

Victims of a hostile work environment have the right to seek justice. Remedies available under state and federal law include:

  • Back Pay and Front Pay: Compensation for lost wages and future earnings.
  • Emotional Distress Damages: Compensation for the pain, suffering, and mental anguish caused by the harassment.
  • Punitive Damages: Financial penalties intended to punish the employer for egregious conduct and deter future violations.
  • Reinstatement: Being hired back into your position (though many victims choose not to return).

Employer Responsibilities: The Duty to Act

Employers cannot turn a blind eye to harassment. Under the law, they have an affirmative duty to prevent and correct discriminatory behavior. Ignorance is rarely a valid defense, especially when supervisors are involved or when the conduct is widespread.

Mandatory Policies and Training

Employers must establish clear, written anti-harassment policies that define prohibited conduct and provide a safe avenue for reporting complaints. In California, for example, employers with five or more employees are required to provide sexual harassment training to both supervisory and nonsupervisory staff. This training is designed to educate the workforce on what constitutes harassment and how to intervene.

The Investigation Requirement

When a complaint is made—or when an employer should reasonably know harassment is occurring—they must launch a prompt, impartial, and thorough investigation. As noted in the EEOC’s guidance, an effective investigation involves interviewing the complainant, the alleged harasser, and witnesses, followed by taking appropriate corrective action to stop the behavior.

In the DHL case, the EEOC alleged that supervisors failed to report Gibbs’ complaints despite a policy requiring them to do so. This failure to act is often where liability attaches to the company.

Taking Action: A Guide for Employees

If you are currently trapped in a hostile work environment, taking immediate and strategic action is critical to protecting your rights and your well-being.

1. Document Everything

Create a detailed record of every incident. Write down dates, times, locations, the names of those involved, and exactly what was said or done. Save emails, text messages, and notes that provide evidence of the harassment.

2. Report the Behavior

Follow your company’s policy for reporting harassment. This usually involves notifying Human Resources or a supervisor. If your supervisor is the harasser, report it to their boss or the designated HR representative. Submitting your complaint in writing creates a paper trail that the employer cannot easily deny later.

3. Do Not Fear Retaliation—Report It

Retaliation is illegal. Employers are prohibited from firing, demoting, or harassing employees for filing a complaint or participating in an investigation. If you face retaliation, document it immediately, as this constitutes a separate legal violation.

4. File a Formal Charge

If your employer fails to address the issue, you may need to file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or a state agency like the California Civil Rights Department (CRD).

  • Time Limits: In general, you must file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the last incident. This deadline is extended to 300 days if a state or local agency enforces a law prohibiting the same conduct.

5. Seek Legal Representation

Navigating employment law is complex. An experienced attorney can help you understand the strength of your case, guide you through the reporting process, and represent you in settlement negotiations or court.

Case Study: EEOC v. DHL Supply Chain

The lawsuit filed against DHL Supply Chain (USA) serves as a stark warning to employers who ignore harassment. The EEOC charged that the company violated federal law when supervisors at its Memphis facility ignored complaints of sexual harassment and actively discouraged female associates from speaking out.

According to the suit, after Tazaria Gibbs complained about an operations manager, she was fired for insubordination. The EEOC’s investigation revealed that numerous other women had been subjected to harassment by male coworkers and supervisors, and that the company consistently ignored these pleas for help.

The lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent future discrimination. It highlights a critical lesson: having a policy on paper is meaningless if the culture on the warehouse floor allows harassment to thrive unchecked.

Conclusion

A workplace should be a collaborative environment, not a battleground. No one should be forced to choose between their dignity and their paycheck.

If you are facing a hostile work environment, you do not have to fight alone. Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP offer skilled legal advocacy to help address these injustices. With over 20 years of experience, a strong history of case victories, and a commitment to personalized client support, Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through the legal process and work to secure the justice and compensation you deserve. Don’t hesitate to reach out for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation.

Posted on

The $103 Million Verdict: Age Discrimination in the Workplace

Laws protect against age, gender, race discrimination. Helmer Friedman LLP represents discrimination victims.

The $103 Million Wake-Up Call: Age Discrimination in the Workplace

For thirty-one years, Joy Slagel was a loyal employee. She built a career, managed cases, and even won awards for her customer service. But in the corporate world, three decades of experience doesn’t always guarantee respect—sometimes, it paints a target on your back. After a leadership change in 2012, the atmosphere at her workplace shifted. Older colleagues began disappearing, forced into resignation or fired outright. Slagel found herself isolated, criticized for “setting the bar too high,” and eventually terminated without explanation after returning from medical leave.

Her story isn’t an anomaly, but the outcome was historic. A Los Angeles jury recently ordered her former employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., to pay $103 million in damages. The verdict sends a thunderous message to boardrooms across America: discriminating against older workers is not just unethical; it is a massive financial liability.

Age discrimination remains a pervasive, often silent issue in the modern workforce. While we frequently discuss diversity in terms of race and gender, age bias often flies under the radar until it causes irreparable harm to careers and health. Whether it manifests as a subtle comment about “fresh energy” or a blatant firing of senior staff, ageism is illegal, harmful, and costly.

Federal Age Discrimination Laws

Understanding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

At the federal level, the primary shield against this bias is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). This law explicitly protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. It applies to both employees and job applicants.

Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. This is a broad umbrella that covers nearly every aspect of the working relationship, including:

  • Hiring: Employers cannot refuse to hire a candidate simply because they are over 40.
  • Firing and Layoffs: Targeting older workers for redundancy during restructuring is prohibited.
  • Compensation and Benefits: Older workers cannot be paid less or denied benefits offered to younger counterparts.
  • Promotions and Training: denying career advancement or upskilling opportunities based on age is illegal.

The law applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including employment agencies, labor organizations, and federal, state, and local governments. Additionally, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) amended the ADEA to prohibit employers from denying benefits to older employees, recognizing that the cost of providing benefits should not be used to discourage hiring experienced talent.

California Age Discrimination Laws

Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is a California law that offers strong protections against age discrimination for individuals aged 40 and older. Under FEHA, age discrimination occurs when an employer treats a job applicant or employee less favorably because of age. This can include actions such as denying promotions, terminating employment, or refusing to hire someone solely based on their age. FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees and requires that all workplace decisions be based on merit and qualifications rather than age. Additionally, FEHA prohibits practices like including age preferences in job advertisements or enforcing seemingly neutral policies that disproportionately affect older workers without legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. This law serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that older employees are treated fairly and have equal opportunities in the workplace.

While the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) offer similar federal safeguards, they aim to prevent age discrimination but differ in scope and application. FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees and includes broader protections against various types of discrimination beyond age discrimination. In contrast, the ADEA specifically addresses age discrimination and applies to employers with 20 or more employees, making its coverage threshold stricter.

Another key distinction between the two laws is the age group protected. Under the ADEA, the law specifically protects individuals aged 40 and older from discrimination. FEHA, however, doesn’t explicitly set a minimum age but prohibits age-based discrimination more generally, which may allow for a broader interpretation within California. Additionally, claims under the ADEA are typically filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), while FEHA claims are processed through the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). This emphasizes the overlap yet distinct processes these laws provide. Together, FEHA and ADEA establish a comprehensive framework to protect workers from age discrimination, especially in jurisdictions like California, where state and federal regulations intersect.

How Age Discrimination Manifests in Real Life

Bias rarely announces itself with a megaphone. Instead, it often creeps into the workplace through coded language and subtle exclusions. While the law is clear, the application of discrimination can be murky.

In hiring, it might look like job postings that seek “digital natives” or caps on years of experience, effectively filtering out older applicants before they even apply. In the office, it can be social exclusion—being left out of meetings, overlooked for challenging assignments, or subjected to “jokes” about retirement or adaptability to technology.

The most damaging forms often occur during restructuring. Companies looking to cut costs often target higher-salaried employees, who tend to be older workers with long tenure. If a layoff disproportionately affects those over 40, it may violate the ADEA.

Similarly, promotions may be withheld under the guise that an older employee “lacks long-term potential” or “isn’t a cultural fit,” phrases that often serve as smokescreens for bias.

Anatomy of a Verdict: The Liberty Mutual Case

To understand the severity of age discrimination, one need look no further than the recent case against Liberty Mutual. The details, as presented in court, paint a disturbing picture of a systematic effort to push out older workers.

According to court filings, the environment at Liberty Mutual shifted dramatically around 2012 following the promotion of a new regional claims manager, Ariam Alemseghed. The complaint alleged that a pattern emerged where employees in their 50s and 60s were forced to resign. Eventually, of the approximately 120 employees in the department, only two were over 40. Joy Slagel was one of them.

The harassment Slagel endured was calculated. Despite a spotless 30-year record, she was suddenly criticized for being a bad team player. The complaint detailed how she was ignored during morning greetings and singled out during meetings. When she won a customer service award and a $1,000 gift for her exemplary work, the regional manager allegedly undercut the achievement by telling her she “got lucky” and that it “would never happen again.”

The stress of this hostile environment took a physical toll. Slagel’s blood pressure worsened, forcing her to take a short-term disability leave. While she was away, the company sent a courier to retrieve her laptop—an unusual move that foreshadowed her fate. Upon her return, her access badge had been deactivated. She was called into a conference room and fired, effective immediately. She was replaced by a white male in his late 20s.

The jury’s verdict—$20 million in compensatory damages and $83 million in punitive damages—was a direct rejection of these tactics. Justin Shegerian, the lead trial attorney, stated that the verdict is a “resounding message” that juries will hold employers accountable for such harm.

Strategies for Employees Facing Discrimination

If you suspect you are being targeted because of your age, it can feel isolating. However, there are steps you can take to protect yourself and build a potential case.

Document Everything

Paper trails are essential. Keep a detailed record of discriminatory comments, exclusion from meetings, or sudden negative shifts in performance reviews that contradict your actual output. In the Liberty Mutual case, the timeline of events—from the leadership change to the specific comments made during the award ceremony—helped establish a pattern of behavior.

Know Your Rights Regarding Waivers

Employers sometimes ask departing employees to sign waivers releasing the company from ADEA claims, often in exchange for a severance package. Under the OWBPA, these waivers must meet strict standards to be valid. You must be given at least 21 days to consider the agreement and seven days to revoke it after signing. Most importantly, you should be advised in writing to consult an attorney. Do not sign away your rights without legal counsel.

Oppose the Behavior

Retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices is illegal. If you report age discrimination to HR or file a charge, and your employer punishes you for it, that retaliation is a separate legal violation.

For employers, the $103 million verdict against Liberty Mutual should serve as a stark warning. The costs of age bias extend far beyond legal fees; they damage reputation, morale, and institutional knowledge.

“This verdict is a resounding message to corporations nationwide: age discrimination is illegal, it is harmful and juries will hold employers accountable,” Justin Shegerian, lead trial attorney and founder of Shegerian & Associates, said in a statement.

Preventing discrimination starts with culture. Employers must ensure that performance reviews are based on objective metrics, not subjective feelings that can mask bias. Leadership training is crucial—managers need to understand that comments about “fresh blood” or “digital natives” can be evidence of discriminatory intent.

Furthermore, audits of hiring and firing practices can reveal statistical anomalies before they become lawsuits. If a reduction in force impacts 80% of your workforce over 50, you have a problem. Building an inclusive workplace means valuing experience as an asset, not a liability.

Upholding Dignity in the Workforce

Joy Slagel gave 31 years to a company that ultimately treated her as disposable. The jury’s decision to award her over $100 million restores a measure of justice, but it cannot undo the stress and indignity she suffered.

Age discrimination is not merely a legal issue; it is a human one. We will all age. Creating a workplace that respects tenure and experience protects everyone’s future. Whether you are an employee facing bias or an employer seeking to avoid liability, understanding the high stakes of age discrimination is the only way forward.

Posted on

Sexual Harassment in Housing Affects Tenants Learn About Rights

Gender-based discrimination, sex harassment lawyers Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Sexual Harassment in Housing: Settlements

Sexual harassment in housing is a pervasive issue that often goes unnoticed. However, a recent legal settlement has highlighted this topic, reaffirming the importance of protecting tenants from harassment and ensuring landlords are held accountable. This post will explore the details of a severe sexual harassment in housing case, its implications for tenants and landlords, and the resources available to those affected by such behavior.

Understanding the Fair Housing Act and the Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative

To comprehend the significance of the recent settlement, we must first understand the legal framework addressing housing discrimination.

What is the Fair Housing Act?

The Fair Housing Act, enacted in 1968, prohibits discrimination in housing-related transactions based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status. This federal law ensures individuals can access and enjoy housing without fear of prejudice or harassment.

The Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative

Launched by the Department of Justice in 2017, the Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative aims to eradicate sexual harassment by landlords, property managers, maintenance personnel, and others in control of housing. The initiative combines enforcement actions, public awareness campaigns, and collaboration with local organizations to address this devastating issue. Since its inception, the initiative has filed 27 lawsuits and secured over $9.7 million in relief for victims.

The Allegations and Settlement in the Nolen Properties LLC Case

One of the most significant cases under this initiative involves Joel Nolen, Shirlee Nolen, and Nolen Properties LLC. Here’s a breakdown of the accusations and the ensuing settlement:

Allegations Against Joel Nolen

The Department of Justice’s lawsuit, filed in February 2023, alleged that Joel Nolen engaged in sexual harassment of female tenants for over a decade. The specific accusations include:

  • Unwelcome Sexual Acts: Allegedly forcing tenants into sexual acts in exchange for housing-related benefits.
  • Physical Violations: Engaging in unwelcome touching and entering tenants’ homes without consent.
  • Retaliation: Threatening eviction or taking other adverse actions against tenants who rejected his advances.
  • Solicitation of Explicit Content: Demanding explicit photographs from tenants or prospective tenants.

Such actions violate tenants’ rights under the Fair Housing Act and highlight tenants’ vulnerability when landlords abuse their power.

Terms of the Settlement

Under the terms of the settlement, which awaits court approval, Nolen Properties LLC has agreed to several measures:

  1. Financial Compensation:
    – A total of $960,000 will be distributed among 19 identified victims.
    – A $40,000 civil penalty will be paid to the United States.
  2. Operational Restrictions:
    – Joel and Shirlee Nolen are permanently barred from managing any residential rental properties.
    – They must hire independent property managers to oversee their rental units.
  3. Policy Implementation:
    – Staff are required to be trained on housing discrimination.
    – New policies aimed at preventing future discriminatory practices.
  4. Tenant Relief– Vacating discriminatory evictions.
    – Take the necessary steps to repair the credit of the affected tenants.

This settlement signifies a substantial win for the victims and sets a precedent for similar cases.

Implications for Landlords and Tenants

What This Means for Landlords

The settlement against Nolen Properties LLC sends a powerful message to landlords and property managers:

  1. Zero Tolerance for Harassment: Engaging in or enabling sexual harassment is a direct violation of the Fair Housing Act and will result in legal repercussions.
  2. Training and Policies Matter: Proactively implementing non-discrimination policies and training programs can prevent violations and protect both tenants and property owners.
  3. Accountability is Non-Negotiable: This case demonstrates that landlords can face severe consequences, including financial penalties and restrictions on property management.

Empowering Tenants

For tenants, this case underscores the importance of knowing their rights:

  1. Safe Housing is a Right: Every tenant deserves to feel safe in their home, free from harassment or retaliation.
  2. Speak Up Without Fear: Reporting harassment can lead to accountability for landlords and justice for victims.
  3. Access to Legal Support: Resources are available to assist tenants who experience housing discrimination or harassment.

Resources for Victims of Sexual Harassment in Housing

If you or someone you know has faced housing discrimination or sexual harassment, there are resources to help:

  1. Justice Department’s Housing Discrimination Tip Line:
    – Call 1-800-896-7743 for assistance or to report incidents.
  2. Submit a Report Online:
    – File a complaint via the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division at justice.gov/crt.
  3. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD):
    – Call 1-800-669-9777 or visit HUD’s Fair Housing Complaint Page to report your case.
  4. Legal Aid Services:
    – Many states offer free or low-cost legal aid services for tenants dealing with discrimination.
  5. Local Fair Housing Organizations:
    – Community-based organizations may provide direct support or advocacy for tenants.

Ongoing Efforts to Combat Sexual Harassment in Housing

This settlement is a step forward, but the fight against sexual harassment in housing requires continued vigilance. Public awareness campaigns, stricter enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, and more robust tenant protections are essential to creating a future where all individuals can live without fear of harassment.

If you believe you’ve been a victim of housing discrimination or harassment, don’t hesitate to use the resources listed. Seeking justice protects your rights and helps create safer environments for others.

Justice starts with speaking out.

Posted on

Gender Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation at OC Assessors Office

Gender-based discrimination, sex harassment lawyers Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

A confidential report has revealed serious allegations against Orange County Assessor Claude Parrish. The report, commissioned by the county and obtained by LAist, details instances of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation within his office. It uncovers a concerning pattern of behavior from Parrish, raising alarms about his treatment of employees and adherence to workplace policies.

At the heart of the investigation are claims of gender discrimination and harassment of a subordinate suffering from a medical disability. The report outlines how Parrish belittled the employee’s chronic medical condition, referring to it dismissively as a “tummy ache,” infringing upon her privacy by sharing her sensitive medical details with colleagues and making intrusive comments about her diet. His inappropriate actions extended to advising her to stop taking her prescribed medication, amounting to a gross violation of her personal health decisions.

More disturbingly, Parrish allegedly retaliated against this employee for taking medically necessary leave, punishing her by transferring her to another department. His consistent use of language that portrayed female employees as subordinate to male counterparts further underscores the gender-based nature of his discrimination.

These actions are in direct violation of both county policy and state law, enforceable under laws like the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which protects employees from discrimination and harassment based on disability and gender, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to accommodate employees with disabilities. Retaliation against an employee for exercising their rights under these laws is also prohibited.

The county’s Human Resources department issued a formal cease-and-desist order to Parrish, accompanied by a recommendation for anti-harassment training, underscoring the seriousness of the violations. Yet, despite the gravity of the situation, Parrish remains in office, continuing to manage a staff as an elected official, insulated from immediate dismissal by the Board of Supervisors.

The revelations underscore a critical need for vigilance and transparency in workplaces, especially given the power dynamics between elected officials and their subordinates. They also highlight the importance of reporting misconduct to appropriate channels, ensuring accountability at all levels.

For victims of workplace harassment, discrimination, or retaliation, consulting with an employment attorney can be essential. Skilled in navigating the complexities of employment law, an attorney can provide valuable guidance, ensuring that rights are protected and appropriate measures are taken. Legal counsel can aid in holding perpetrators accountable and securing a safe and respectful working environment.

Posted on

Calamitous Conditions: Calliope Correia’s Harassment Lawsuit Against the CSU System

Sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation have physical lasting effects on victims.

Allegations of workplace harassment, discrimination, and negligence have sent shockwaves through California State University (CSU). Calliope Correia, a dedicated horticultural nursery manager at the university’s campus farm in Fresno, has bravely filed a lawsuit against the board of trustees, claiming gross misconduct that reveals a deeply troubling pattern of injustice within the CSU system.

In her lawsuit, Correia describes her painful experiences, asserting that she was targeted because of her gender and sexual orientation. Despite voicing her concerns, her complaints were either ignored or inadequately addressed, leading to a climate of fear and retaliation rather than resolution. This alleged misconduct runs afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), both of which unequivocally condemn discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, asserting that harassment that fosters a hostile work environment is illegal.

Correia’s legal documentation outlines a harrowing journey marked by both emotional and mental distress, stretching over several years. Several individuals from Fresno State, including John Bushoven, chair of the department of Plant Science, have been implicated in her claims. Despite submitting numerous complaints to the university’s human resources department and Title IX office, Correia alleges that no meaningful actions were taken to rectify the situation, leaving her with feelings of neglect and despair.

This troubling situation indicates a significant breach of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines that highlight the employer’s automatic liability for supervisory harassment leading to negative employment outcomes. The guidelines emphasize that employers are obligated to promptly investigate complaints and enact corrective measures to protect employees from retaliation.

Despite enduring a traumatic ordeal that has taken a toll on her health, Correia stands resolutely against the injustices she faced. Her civil complaint seeks $750,000 in damages and is one of several ongoing lawsuits directed at the CSU board concerning workplace harassment, suggesting a systemic issue that may extend throughout the entire university network.

Correia’s experience serves as a critical reminder of the necessity for organizations to cultivate an environment of equal opportunity and respect for all employees. Employers must establish effective mechanisms to prevent workplace discrimination and harassment and must respond decisively when complaints arise.

Moreover, it underscores the imperative for employees to be aware of their rights. Those who find themselves in similar circumstances would benefit from consulting with an employment attorney experienced in workplace harassment. These legal advocates can offer vital guidance on documenting incidents, filing complaints, and pursuing legal action when warranted. They assist victims in navigating the complex landscape of employment laws, empowering them to assert their rights and strive for justice. Above all, they endeavor to ensure that no employee endures the suffering and indignity that Calliope Correia has bravely brought to light.

Posted on

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

Constitutional rights, discrimination 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

Employee’s Claims Under FEHA Properly Dismissed

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

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

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

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

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed:

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Prospective Release Of Claims Did Not Violate Civil Code section 1668

Age discrimination and harassment are illegal.

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

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

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

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

Posted on

SB 523: The Contraceptive Equity Act of 2022

Helping Employees Recover and Enforcing Employment Laws Helmer Friedman LLP.

On June 24, 2022, the radical, activist, and far-right-wing conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court did something that even the über conservative Lochner-era Supreme Court didn’t do. The (Trump) Court, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito Jr. in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022), reversed a pair of cases that Justice Antonin Scalia’s acolyte, Judge Michael Luttig, had called “super stare decisis” – Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). In doing so, the five radical right-wing Justices took away a fundamental constitutional right (the right to choose) for the first time in U.S. history. Perhaps most surprising about the Dobbs decision is that the right to choose was cavalierly stolen from the Country even though it was repeatedly affirmed and re-affirmed year after year for nearly 50 years in opinions written by and/or concurred in by 16 Justices – 10 different Republican Justices nominated by 5 different Republican Presidents and six Democratic Justices.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in his concurring opinion, advocated for the Supreme Court to go even further toward a dystopian world straight out of The Handmaid’s Tale and reverse all of the Court’s prior substantive due process decisions, including Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), which held that the right to privacy protected against state restrictions on contraception.

Governor Gavin Newsom signs SB 523 Contraceptive Equity Act.

In response to both the horrific Dobbs decision and threats by Republicans to take away other reproductive rights Americans have taken for granted for decades, Governor Newsom signed SB 523, the Contraceptive Equity Act of 2022, into law on September 27, 2022. This law amends California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) to add “reproductive health decision-making” as a legally protected category. “Reproductive health decision-making” is defined to include, but not be limited to, “a decision to use or access a particular drug, device, product, or medical service for reproductive health.”