Category: Fair Employment and Housing Act

Posted on

Gender Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation at OC Assessors Office

Women's rights to privacy, reproductive health care, abortion care lost - wrongful death lawyers 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 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.”