How Bias in Scheduling Influences Workplace Equity

Race harassment is illegal discrimination.

Understanding and addressing discriminatory work schedules

Work schedules are an integral part of the professional environment. Many employees dictate the balance between their professional and personal lives. However, when work schedules are structured unfairly or discriminately, they rob individuals of opportunities, marginalize certain groups, and create hostile working conditions. Discriminatory work schedules are an urgent issue that deserves attention from both employees and employers alike.

This post explores what constitutes a discriminatory work schedule, its consequences on affected employees, and the legal protections to address these injustices. Most importantly, it provides actionable insights into how to combat discrimination in this context, ensuring equitable treatment for employees in the workplace.

What Are Discriminatory Work Schedules?

A discriminatory work schedule is one that disproportionately burdens or excludes employees based on protected characteristics. These characteristics include, but are not limited to, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, age, disability, and parental status.

For instance:

A supervisor consistently gives male employees challenging tasks or coveted shifts while relegating female employees to less desirable roles.
An employer imposes rigid schedules that fail to accommodate employees’ religious observances, despite knowing of their practice needs.
A manager denies flexible working hours to an employee with a disability while granting them to others.

Unfair scheduling practices often create systemic barriers to career advancement, wage growth, and job satisfaction, negatively impacting employee well-being.

The Consequences of Discriminatory Schedules

Discriminatory scheduling doesn’t just harm the individuals it targets; it harms businesses and workplace culture too. The ramifications are far-reaching:

For Employees:

Mental and physical health: Working disproportionately inconvenient or grueling hours can lead to stress, burnout, and health conditions like anxiety or high blood pressure.
Career setbacks: Employees assigned unfavorable schedules often miss out on promotions, training, or networking opportunities.
Financial impact: Unfair scheduling can lead to wage disparities or force affected employees to leave due to an inability to sustain the conditions.

For Businesses:

Low employee morale: A work environment seen as unjust fosters resentment and disengagement.
High turnover: Discriminatory practices drive talent elsewhere, increasing recruitment and training costs.
Legal risks: Employers engaging in discriminatory scheduling practices risk lawsuits, penalties, and reputational damage.

Legal Protections Against Discriminatory Work Schedules

Federal and state laws exist to protect employees from workplace discrimination, including discriminatory scheduling practices. Some key protections include:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This applies to schedules that exclude or burden employees from these protected classes. For example, denying flexible schedules for religious accommodations violates this law.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA mandates reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, including modified schedules if needed to perform essential job functions.

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

The FMLA protects employees needing time off for personal or family medical conditions. Any schedule that penalizes employees for using their lawful leave is discriminatory.

State Laws

States like California offer additional protections under laws such as the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). These laws often grant employees broader rights than federal laws. For example, FEHA protects against discrimination based on marital status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.

How To Identify Discriminatory Work Schedules

Recognizing discriminatory scheduling practices is the first step toward addressing them. Common red flags include:

Uneven distribution of coveted shifts or roles based on an employee’s gender, race, or other protected characteristic.
Lack of accommodation for religious observances, disabilities, or caregiving responsibilities.
Schedules designed to exclude certain employees from critical opportunities such as team meetings, training sessions, or client interactions.

If you notice these patterns, document incidents thoroughly. Records are crucial in reviewing patterns and providing evidence if the issue escalates to legal action.

Steps to Combat Discriminatory Scheduling Practices

Workplace equity starts with both employer initiatives and employee advocacy. Here are steps employees and businesses can take:

For Employees:

Document Incidents:

Keep a detailed log, including dates, times, and descriptions of discriminatory practices. Capture communication via emails or messages.

Report the Issue:

Raise your concerns with your HR department or your supervisor. Share your documentation and highlight the discriminatory patterns.

Know Your Rights:

Familiarize yourself with workplace protection laws like Title VII, the ADA, and your state’s anti-discrimination laws. Seek legal advice if needed.

Seek Legal Assistance When Necessary:

If your concerns are ignored, consult an employment lawyer. Firms with expertise in workplace discrimination, such as Helmer Friedman LLP, can offer guidance on exerting your rights.

For Employers:

Implement Anti-Discrimination Policies:

Establish clear, comprehensive policies that outline equitable scheduling practices and emphasize zero tolerance for discrimination.

Provide Training for Managers:

Educate leadership on unconscious biases and the legal requirements surrounding fair treatment in scheduling.

Offer Flexible Scheduling Options:

Accommodate employees’ personal and professional needs to foster an inclusive workplace.

Encourage Open Communication:

Create safe channels for employees to voice concerns without fear of retaliation.

Small Changes, Big Impact

Addressing discriminatory scheduling practices requires intentional and collaborative action, but the benefits are worth it. Equitable work schedules not only enhance individual lives, but they also create a more harmonious and productive workplace.

Discriminatory work schedules are more than just unfair; they are illegal and detrimental to organizational and employee well-being. By understanding your rights and taking proactive steps, you can help promote inclusivity and fairness.

If you’ve experienced unfair treatment in your workplace due to discriminatory schedules, consult the attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP for a confidential consultation. With over 20 years of representation in employment law, we’re here to advocate for justice and ensure a better future for employees everywhere.

January 13, 2026

TNT Cranes Discrimination Case: $525K Settlement Explained

Haitian welder experienced extreme racial harassment at work.

TNT Cranes Case: A $525K Settlement in Racial Harassment

A workplace should be a sanctuary of safety and professionalism, yet for some employees at TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc., it sadly turned into a distressing environment marked by racial intimidation. The recent lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has brought forth troubling allegations, resulting in a significant settlement and court-mandated reforms. This case serves as a poignant reminder that racial discrimination has no place in any industry and highlights the importance of seeking justice through legal accountability.

The legal action against one of North America’s largest crane service providers conveys a powerful message: allowing a hostile work environment can have serious consequences. For both employers and employees, this case illustrates vital lessons about the importance of reporting incidents, understanding legal protections against retaliation, and committing to the efforts required to foster a truly respectful and inclusive workplace. By learning from these experiences, we can all work towards ensuring that every employee feels safe and valued in their work environment.

Allegations of a Hostile Work Environment

The EEOC lawsuit painted a grim picture of the work conditions at a TNT Crane & Rigging facility in Texas. According to the complaint, four Black employees were systematically subjected to severe and pervasive racial harassment by both coworkers and supervisors. The allegations were not minor infractions but involved symbols and language rooted in a history of racial violence.

The complaint detailed the frequent use of derogatory racial slurs, including the n-word, by managers and other staff. Beyond verbal abuse, the workplace was allegedly contaminated with powerful symbols of hate. These included the open display of nooses and white supremacist symbols, such as lightning bolt stickers associated with such groups, on company equipment. One manager reportedly told a Black crane operator, “N—–, if you are going to bitch about it, you can turn that truck around and take your ass home,” when he asked for assistance.

This environment of intimidation was not only directed at Black employees. The EEOC also charged that the company retaliated against a white employee who spoke out against the harassment. After witnessing the conduct and reporting it to HR and management—including the presence of a noose—the white employee allegedly faced retaliation. These distressing incidents took place at the company’s Fort Worth plant. Shockingly, shortly after he reported the harassment, this employee had his tires flattened while parked at work and was confronted by a coworker who physically shoved him and hurled slurs at him. It is deeply concerning that such behavior could occur in a workplace, and it’s essential that these experiences be heard and addressed. Instead of addressing the harassment, his work hours were cut, he was ostracized by coworkers, and he was ultimately forced to resign due to the intolerable conditions created by his efforts to do the right thing.

The EEOC Lawsuit and Legal Action

The EEOC took up the case after its initial attempts to resolve the matter through conciliation failed. The agency filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging that TNT Crane & Rigging violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This foundational federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race and protects employees who report or oppose such discriminatory practices from retaliation.

The EEOC’s complaint outlined two primary violations:

Race-Based Hostile Work Environment: The company allegedly created or tolerated an environment so filled with racist conduct that it altered the conditions of employment for its Black workers.
Illegal Retaliation: The company was accused of punishing an employee for engaging in protected activity—namely, reporting racial harassment.

EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows connected the allegations to a broader pattern of misconduct, particularly within the construction industry. She noted that such harassment creates barriers that prevent workers from accessing and keeping good jobs. The lawsuit sought not only monetary damages for the affected employees but also significant changes to the company’s policies and practices to prevent future violations.

A Settlement for Accountability

Before the case could proceed to a full trial, the parties reached an agreement. TNT Crane & Rigging agreed to a $525,000 settlement to be paid to the five employees who suffered from the harassment and retaliation. While the company did not admit liability as part of the settlement, the resolution includes a three-year consent decree, which is a court-enforced order outlining extensive remedial measures.

The monetary relief was allocated among the victims to compensate for the damages they endured. However, the impact of the consent decree extends far beyond financial compensation. It imposes a series of strict requirements on TNT Crane & Rigging to foster systemic change and ensure future compliance with anti-discrimination laws. This settlement underscores that even without a trial verdict, the EEOC’s legal pressure can compel companies to enact sweeping and meaningful reforms.

Mandated Reforms and the Path Forward

The consent decree approved by the federal court is more than a settlement; it is a roadmap for corporate accountability. The mandated reforms are comprehensive and designed to address the root causes of the hostile environment.

Key components of the decree include:

Prohibition of Future Discrimination: The company is legally prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination, tolerating a racially hostile work environment, or retaliating against employees.
New Anti-Harassment Policies: TNT Crane must develop and implement robust anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies. These must clearly define prohibited conduct, outline complaint procedures, and state that violators will face disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
Mandatory Training: All Texas-based employees will receive training on Title VII and the new company policies. Furthermore, managers and personnel involved in investigations will receive specialized, intensive training on conducting fair and thorough investigations into harassment claims.
Improved Complaint Procedures: The company must establish multiple avenues for reporting complaints, ensuring employees can raise concerns without unreasonable burdens. This includes an employee hotline that goes directly to the Vice President of Human Resources.
EEOC Reporting: For three years, TNT Crane must report all new complaints of racial harassment, discrimination, or retaliation directly to the EEOC, detailing how each complaint was handled.

These measures place the onus on management to proactively monitor the workplace and act swiftly to correct any issues. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action against the managers themselves.

Broader Implications for Workplace Justice

The TNT Crane & Rigging case stands as a stark example of how the law can be wielded to protect employee rights and catalyze meaningful change across industries. Courts and regulatory bodies—in this case, the EEOC—play an indispensable role in holding employers accountable for maintaining fair and respectful workplaces. But the root issues at the heart of this lawsuit—racial harassment and hostile work environments—are far from isolated incidents.

Racial harassment often manifests in more than just isolated comments. It can be embedded in daily workplace culture through slurs, offensive imagery, jokes, and the open display of hate symbols. The consequences are profound, stretching from psychological distress to missed professional opportunities. At its worst, unchecked harassment breeds a climate where victims and witnesses alike feel powerless, discouraged from coming forward for fear of retaliation—a reality made clear in the TNT Crane case.

To counteract this, robust anti-discrimination policies are not just a legal formality; they are a frontline defense against workplace injustice. As outlined by Helmer Friedman LLP, prevention remains the best, most cost-effective tool for eliminating racial discrimination at work. This means employers must implement comprehensive written policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. They must also ensure these policies are not static documents gathering dust but are actively reinforced through regular, mandatory training sessions on racial sensitivity, diversity, and the applicable employment laws.

Effective complaint procedures are another critical safeguard. Employees should have clear, accessible paths to report harassment or discrimination—without undue burden, delay, or the risk of reprisal. Policies must specifically protect those who step forward, including both direct victims and bystander witnesses, from retaliation. When complaints are made, management must act swiftly and impartially, conduct thorough investigations, and implement corrective action when warranted.

For companies, the consequences of ignoring these obligations are illustrated not just in monetary settlements like the $525,000 paid by TNT Crane & Rigging, but in more serious reputational damage and organizational disruption. As state and federal law—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—make clear, employers can be held fully liable for failing to prevent or address racial discrimination and harassment.

This case is a reminder to every employer: a culture of tolerance for discrimination will ultimately collide with the force of the law. Regular training, enforced policies, transparent procedures, and leadership committed to true equity are not optional—they are the pillars of both legal compliance and workplace dignity.

If you have experienced racial discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at your job, know that you have significant rights under state and federal law. Consultations with experienced employment attorneys, like those at Helmer Friedman LLP, can provide clarity, protection, and a path toward resolution. Standing up against discrimination is not only your right; it is a catalyst for wider change. Your voice matters.

December 23, 2025

Denied for Your Faith? The Reality of Religious Discrimination

Freedom to worship - Workplace discrimination lawyers represent victims of religious discrimination.

Denied for Your Faith? The Reality of Religious Discrimination

For many, faith is not merely a weekend activity; it is the compass that guides daily life, influencing diet, dress, and ethical decisions. Yet, in the modern workplace, employees are often forced to make an impossible choice between their career and their conscience. Despite robust legal protections at both the state and federal levels, religious discrimination remains a pervasive issue in American offices, factories, and retail floors.

No worker should have to hide their identity or compromise their sincerely held beliefs to keep a paycheck. Understanding the nuances of the law—and the obligations of employers—is the first step toward combating unlawful treatment. Whether you are an employee seeking to understand your rights or a manager aiming to foster an inclusive environment, recognizing the signs of discrimination is essential for maintaining a just workplace.

Defining Religious Discrimination

At its core, religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of their religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), protection extends beyond belief to include religious observance and practice. Crucially, the law also protects those who have no religious beliefs, shielding atheists and agnostics from forced participation in religious activities or discrimination based on their lack of faith.

Discrimination can manifest in various employment decisions, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, and fringe benefits. It can also appear in the form of harassment—such as offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices—that is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment.

What Discrimination Looks Like in Practice

Religious discrimination is often subtle, but it can also be overt. It frequently arises when workplace rules collide with religious obligations. Here are several scenarios that may constitute unlawful conduct:

Refusal to Hire: An employer refuses to hire a qualified Jewish applicant because they disclose that they cannot work on Saturdays due to Sabbath observance.
Scheduling Conflicts: An employee is fired for missing work to attend a significant religious service, even after providing ample notice, while employees taking time off for secular reasons are accommodated.
Dress Code Violations: A company enforces a strict “no headwear” policy that disproportionately impacts Muslim women who wear hijabs or Sikh men who wear turbans, without offering a valid safety justification.
Harassment: A supervisor or colleague persistently mocks an employee’s religious garments, prayer habits, or dietary restrictions, isolating the employee from the team.
Forced Work: A manager demands that an employee work on their Sabbath, ignoring the fact that other qualified employees were willing to swap shifts.

Employer Obligations: The Duty to Accommodate

The law requires more than just “not discriminating.” Employers have an affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate employees’ religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause an “undue hardship” on the operation of the business.

Common accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or dress codes.

The Shift in “Undue Hardship”

For decades, employers could deny accommodations by proving that the request imposed more than a “de minimis”—or trifling—cost. This low bar allowed companies to reject requests for Sabbath observance or prayer breaks easily.

However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically with the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Groff v. USPS. The Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gerald Groff, an evangelical Christian postal carrier who refused to work Sundays. The Justices clarified that “undue hardship” must mean substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of the employer’s particular business.

This decision significantly strengthens protections for employees. Employers can no longer deny an accommodation simply because it is inconvenient or causes minor administrative annoyance; they must demonstrate that the accommodation would substantially burden the business.

Recent Legal Battles and Settlements

Recent high-profile cases illustrate that the courts and government agencies are taking a firm stance against religious discrimination. These cases, while the parties were not represented by Helmer Friedman LLP, provide important precedents and show the real-world impact of successful advocacy.

Mavis Tire Supply LLC

In late 2025, Mavis Tire Supply LLC agreed to pay over $303,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit. The case involved a Jewish applicant who applied for a management position. During the interview, he disclosed that his observance of the Sabbath would prevent him from working Friday evenings and Saturdays.

Rather than discussing accommodation, the company offered him a lower-paying technician role, claiming it offered better flexibility. When he reiterated his schedule restrictions, they rescinded the offer entirely. The settlement highlighted that employers cannot steer applicants away from leadership roles simply to avoid granting religious accommodations.

Lisa Domski v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

In a landmark verdict regarding vaccine mandates, a federal jury awarded $12.7 million to Lisa Domski, a former IT specialist at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. Domski, a devout Catholic, requested a religious exemption from the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, citing her objection to vaccines developed using fetal cell lines.

Despite working 100% remotely with no in-person contact, her request was denied, and she was terminated. The jury found that the company failed to accommodate her sincerely held beliefs. The massive award, which included $10 million in punitive damages, sends a clear message: employers cannot dismiss religious objections as insincere simply because they disagree with the employee’s theological interpretation.

Practical Steps for Employees

If you believe you are facing religious discrimination or have been denied a reasonable accommodation, taking immediate, organized action is vital to protecting your rights.

Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of all incidents. Note dates, times, locations, witnesses, and the specific comments or actions taken. If you requested an accommodation, keep copies of all written requests and the employer’s responses.
Review Company Policy: Check your employee handbook for policies regarding discrimination and accommodation. Follow the internal procedures for reporting grievances.
Report the Incident: Formally report the discrimination or denial of accommodation to your Human Resources department or a manager. doing this in writing creates a paper trail proving the employer was on notice.
Consult a Legal Professional: Employment law is complex and involves strict statutes of limitations. Consulting with an attorney who specializes in employment discrimination can help you navigate the EEOC complaint process or potential litigation.

Best Practices for Employers

To avoid litigation and foster a respectful work environment, employers should proactively review their policies in light of recent Supreme Court rulings.

Update Policies: Ensure the handbook explicitly prohibits religious discrimination and outlines a straightforward procedure for requesting accommodations.
Train Management: Managers are often the first point of contact for accommodation requests. They must be trained to recognize these requests and understand that “inconvenience” is not a valid reason for denial.
Engage in an Interactive Process: When an employee requests an accommodation, engage in a dialogue to understand their needs and explore potential solutions.
Assess “Undue Hardship” Carefully: Before denying a request, conduct a factual analysis. Will this truly cause substantial cost or disruption? If the answer is no, the accommodation should likely be granted.

Protecting Religious Freedom at Work

A workplace should be a space of professional contribution, not a battleground for personal identity. The freedom to practice one’s religion—or to practice no religion at all—is a fundamental right that does not evaporate when an employee clocks in.

As evidenced by the Groff decision and recent jury verdicts, the legal system is increasingly protective of these rights. Both employers and employees have a role to play in ensuring that the workplace remains diverse, inclusive, and compliant with the law.

Resources for Further Information

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Religious Discrimination Information
California Civil Rights Department (formerly DFEH): Employment Discrimination
Helmer Friedman LLP: Religious Discrimination Lawyers

December 18, 2025

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.

December 16, 2025

SHRM Hit with $11.5M Verdict: A Discrimination, Retaliation Case Study

SHRM Hit with $11.5M Verdict: A Warning for Discriminatory Employers

It is the world’s largest Human Resources organization—the entity that sets the standards for workplace conduct across the globe. Yet, in a stunning courtroom defeat, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) was found liable for the very behaviors it advises against.

On December 6, 2024, a Colorado jury handed down an $11.5 million verdict against SHRM in a racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a former employee. For the HR community, this verdict is more than just a headline; it is a seismic event that exposes the dangerous gap between corporate policy and actual workplace culture.

The case of Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management serves as a stark reminder: no organization, regardless of its reputation or expertise, is above the law.

The Case Against SHRM

Rehab Mohamed, a brown-skinned Egyptian Arab woman, joined SHRM in 2016 as an instructional designer. For four years, she was a model employee, earning positive performance reviews and two promotions. By early 2020, she had risen to the role of Senior Instructional Designer.

However, the trajectory of her career shifted dramatically under a new supervisor, Carolyn Barley. Mohamed alleged that Barley systematically favored white employees while subjecting Mohamed to excessive scrutiny, micromanagement, and exclusion from meetings.

According to the lawsuit, when Mohamed attempted to address this disparate treatment, she was met not with support, but with retaliation.

A Pattern of Retaliation

The timeline of events presented during the trial painted a damning picture of SHRM’s internal response mechanisms:

June 2020: Mohamed formally complained to leadership about racial discrimination.
July 2020: Mohamed escalated her concerns to SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. and the Chief Human Resources Officer.
August 2020: Instead of a fair resolution, Mohamed was subjected to a flawed internal investigation that dismissed her claims.
September 1, 2020: Mohamed was fired, allegedly for missing a project deadline—a deadline imposed only after she complained, and for which white colleagues were reportedly given extensions without penalty.

Inside the Trial: Why the Jury Sided with the Employee

The five-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado revealed evidence that directly contradicted SHRM’s defense. The jury’s decision to award $1.5 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $10 million in punitive damages signals a rejection of SHRM’s narrative.

Flawed Investigations

One of the most critical failures highlighted during the trial was SHRM’s internal investigation. The judge noted that a jury could reasonably conclude the investigation was a “sham.” The investigator assigned to the case had minimal experience and admitted to receiving only one training session on HR investigations—details he could not recall on the stand. Furthermore, evidence suggested that termination paperwork was being drafted the same day Mohamed was still raising concerns about retaliation.

Disparate Treatment

Testimony revealed a clear double standard. White colleagues testified that missing deadlines was commonplace and rarely resulted in discipline. Yet Mohamed was terminated for missing a deadline shortly after engaging in protected activity. This disparity undermined SHRM’s claim that the termination was performance-based, especially given Mohamed’s history of “Role Model” performance reviews.

Reckless Indifference

The massive $10 million punitive damages award indicates the jury believed SHRM acted with “reckless indifference” to Mohamed’s federally protected rights. The court found that HR essentially provided cover for the discriminatory manager rather than protecting the employee.

Implications for HR Practices

This verdict sends a powerful message to employers everywhere: promoting best practices is not enough; you must live by them.

The Danger of Performative HR

SHRM’s defeat highlights the risks of “performative” diversity and inclusion. Mohamed met with the highest levels of leadership, including the CEO, yet the organizational machinery still moved to silence her rather than solve the problem. Organizations that claim to champion equity must ensure their internal actions align with their public messaging.

Accountability for Retaliation

Retaliation remains one of the most common—and costly—mistakes employers make. As this case demonstrates, the timing between a complaint and an adverse action (like firing) creates a “temporal proximity” that serves as powerful evidence of retaliatory intent.

Protection for Whistleblowers

This case reinforces the critical legal protections for employees who speak up. Under federal law, employees who report discrimination in good faith are protected from retaliation, even if the underlying discrimination claim is not ultimately proven.

Understanding Your Rights: The Legal Framework

The verdict in Mohamed v. SHRM was grounded in two key federal statutes that protect employees from workplace injustice.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Crucially, it also prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose discriminatory practices or participate in investigations.

Section 1981

Unlike Title VII, Section 1981 specifically prohibits racial discrimination in contracts, including employment contracts. A key distinction is that Section 1981 has no statutory cap on damages, allowing for potentially unlimited compensatory and punitive awards when egregious conduct is proven.

Strategies for Employees Facing Discrimination

If you suspect you are being targeted because of your race, 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 SHRM case, the timeline of events—from the leadership change to the excessive scrutiny, micromanagement, arbitrary deadlines, and the flawed investigation—helped establish a pattern of behavior.

Conclusion

The $11.5 million verdict against SHRM is a vindication for Rehab Mohamed and a warning shot to corporations that prioritize reputation over rights. It demonstrates that juries are willing to hold even the most powerful “experts” accountable when they fail to protect their own people.

For employees, this case offers hope. It proves that with the right evidence and legal strategy, it is possible to stand up to systemic bias and win.

Disclaimer: While the parties in this case were not represented by Helmer Friedman LLP, the case offers crucial insights for employees facing similar situations.

Reps: SWAIN LAW, LLC, LOWREY PARADY LEBSACK, LLC (Case No. 1:22-cv-01625)

December 14, 2025

Happy Hanukkah

As the days grow shorter and the nights longer, a celebration of light, resilience, and faith begins. Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, is a story passed down through generations, a testament to the enduring power of hope in the face of darkness.

More than two millennia ago, the land of Judea was ruled by the Seleucid Empire. Its king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, sought to suppress Jewish culture and religious practice. He desecrated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the center of Jewish life, and outlawed core traditions. In response, a small band of Jewish rebels, led by Judah Maccabee and his family, rose up against the powerful army. They were known as the Maccabees, a name meaning “the hammers.”

Against all odds, after a three-year struggle, this small group of fighters successfully reclaimed the Temple. Their victory was not just a military one; it was a triumph for religious freedom. When they entered the Temple to rededicate it, they found it in disarray. They worked to purify it and relight the menorah, a sacred candelabrum meant to burn continuously.

Here, a new challenge arose. They could find only one small jar of consecrated olive oil, enough to light the menorah for a single day. Yet, a miracle occurred. The small amount of oil burned for eight nights, the time it took to prepare new, pure oil.

This is why Hanukkah is celebrated for eight nights. Each evening, another candle is added to the menorah, symbolizing the miracle and the growing light that pushes back the darkness. We eat foods fried in oil, like latkes (potato pancakes) and sufganiyot (jelly-filled pastries like donuts), to remember the oil that burned so brightly. We play with the dreidel, a spinning top that recalls a time when studying the Torah was forbidden, and children would pretend to play games while secretly learning.

Today, the story of Hanukkah speaks to a universal human experience. It is a reminder that even in moments of profound adversity, faith and resilience can lead to miraculous outcomes. It teaches us that the light of a single candle, like a single act of courage or hope, can defy the shadows. As we gather with loved ones, the glow of the menorah is more than just a tradition; it is a symbol of hope for all people, a celebration of light’s enduring power to overcome darkness, and the quiet strength found in unwavering belief.

December 9, 2025December 9, 2025

Discrimination Against American Workers: Your Legal Rights

Nationality Discrimination & Harassment is illegal. Helmer Friedman LLP Los Angeles Nationality Discrimination lawyers.

Protecting American Workers from Discrimination

When we consider workplace discrimination, our thoughts often gravitate toward the challenges faced by minority groups in terms of race, gender, or religion. However, it’s important to recognize that the legal frameworks in place to ensure fair treatment in the workplace, especially Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, encompass much broader protections. One significant but frequently overlooked aspect of this law is the protection against national origin discrimination.

For many professionals, the painful realization that they have been overlooked, sidelined, or let go in favor of foreign workers can be devastating. This experience strikes at the very heart of their financial security and professional self-worth. It’s crucial to understand that the protections against national origin discrimination also extend to U.S. citizens. Acknowledging this can empower individuals to stand up against unjust bias and advocate for their rights with confidence.

What is National Origin Discrimination?

National origin discrimination is a pressing issue that affects many individuals in the workplace, often causing significant distress. It occurs when an employer treats an applicant or employee unfavorably solely because of the applicant’s or employee’s country of origin. While discussions around this topic often highlight the importance of protecting immigrants, it’s essential to recognize that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes it clear that these protections extend to all national origin groups, including those from the United States.

Under federal law, no one should face unfair treatment or preferential treatment in the workplace because of their background. This means it’s illegal for employers to favor foreign workers over American workers, including when decisions are made based on visa status. If an employer allows their preferences for workers from specific countries, or those holding certain visas like H-1B, to influence hiring, firing, or pay scales, they may unfortunately be violating Title VII. It’s crucial for everyone to be treated fairly and with respect, regardless of their origins.

Types of Discrimination Against American Workers

Discrimination can be subtle, hiding behind corporate jargon, or it can be brazenly open. For American workers, bias often manifests in specific patterns that disadvantage them compared to their foreign counterparts.

Discriminatory Job Advertisements

One of the most visible forms of discrimination appears before a worker is even hired. Title VII strictly bars discriminatory job advertisements. An employer cannot publish job postings that indicate a preference for or requirement of applicants from a particular country or with a particular visa status.

For example, advertisements that state “H-1B preferred” or “H-1B only” are red flags. These postings suggest that the employer has already decided to exclude U.S. workers from consideration, regardless of their qualifications. By actively discouraging American applicants, companies create an uneven playing field that violates federal law.

Unequal Treatment

Unequal or Disparate treatment refers to intentional discrimination where an employer treats individuals differently based on a protected characteristic. This often happens among American workers during recruitment or termination processes.

Hiring Barriers: Employers may erect artificial barriers to make it more difficult for American applicants to apply. For instance, during the PERM labor certification process—a step companies take to hire foreign workers permanently—some employers may subject U.S. workers to more burdensome application requirements than H-1B visa holders, effectively discouraging them from pursuing the role.
Termination and “The Bench”: Disparate treatment also occurs in firing decisions. In the IT and staffing sectors, workers often face time on “the bench” between assignments. Evidence of discrimination exists if a company terminates American workers on the bench at a much higher rate than it terminates visa guest workers in the same situation.

Harassment

Workplace harassment based on national origin is strictly prohibited. This goes beyond simple teasing; it becomes illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or abusive work environment, or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as being fired or demoted).

American workers might face unwelcome remarks about their work ethic compared to foreign nationals, or be subjected to derogatory comments about their “American” communication style or cultural background. When this conduct permeates the workplace, it creates an atmosphere of intimidation that the law does not tolerate.

Retaliation

Perhaps the most insidious form of misconduct is retaliation. Title VII prohibits employers from punishing an individual for engaging in a “protected activity.” Protected activities include:

Objecting to national origin discrimination.
Filing a charge with the EEOC.
Participating in an investigation.

If an American worker speaks up about a policy they believe favors foreign workers and is subsequently fired, demoted, or ostracized, the employer may be liable for retaliation. This charge can sometimes be easier to prove than the underlying discrimination itself.

What Doesn’t Excuse Discrimination?

Employers often attempt to justify discriminatory practices using business rationale. However, the law is clear that specific “business reasons” do not excuse hiring foreign workers over American citizens.

Customer Preference: An employer cannot claim that their clients prefer working with individuals from a specific country or those with specific visas. Customer bias is not a legal defense for discrimination.

Cost of Labor: The desire to save money does not override civil rights. Employers cannot justify displacing American workers simply because foreign labor is cheaper, whether that is due to abuse of visa-holder wage rules or “under the table” payments.

Stereotypes about Work Ethic: Beliefs that workers from a specific national origin are “more productive,” “harder working,” or possess a “better work ethic” than Americans are based on stereotypes. Using these generalized beliefs to make employment decisions is unlawful.

Real-World Examples: The Chivas USA Case

These protections are not theoretical; they are enforced in courts of law. A prominent example involving allegations of anti-American and anti-non-Latino discrimination is the lawsuit filed against the Major League Soccer organization, Chivas USA.

Two former youth academy coaches, Daniel Calichman and Theothoros Chronopoulos, filed a lawsuit alleging they were fired because they were “neither Mexican nor Latino.” The coaches, described in the complaint as “Caucasian, non-Latino Americans,” were former members of the U.S. National Team.

According to the complaint, after Jorge Vergara Madrigal acquired full ownership of Chivas USA, the organization began implementing an ethnocentric policy similar to the “Mexican-only” policy of its counterpart team, Chivas de Guadalajara. The lawsuit alleged that Vergara stated at a staff meeting, “If you don’t speak Spanish, you can go work for the Galaxy, unless you speak Chinese, which is not even a language.”

The plaintiffs claimed they were asked to provide ethnic data on youth players, and when they complained about the discriminatory environment to HR, no investigation was conducted. Instead, they were fired shortly after. This case highlights how leadership changes can lead to discriminatory shifts in culture and policy, and how American workers can find themselves targeted based on their national origin and race.

Filing a Charge with the EEOC

If you believe you have been a victim of national origin discrimination, you cannot immediately sue in federal court. You must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through this complex process, ensuring your claim is filed correctly and on time. The EEOC investigates these charges and, in some instances, may file a lawsuit on your behalf. However, it is crucial to act quickly. There are strict time limits—generally 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place (extended to 300 days in some cases)—and missing these deadlines can result in a permanent loss of your legal rights. Contacting our firm can help you navigate these critical first steps.

Protecting Your Rights

Discrimination against American workers is a serious violation of federal law. Whether it manifests as a job ad that excludes you, a layoff that targets you while retaining visa holders, or a hostile work environment, you have the right to work in an environment free from bias.

Navigating the complexities of Title VII and EEOC procedures requires experience and tenacity. If you suspect you have been discriminated against based on your national origin, do not face it alone. Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation and explore your legal options.

November 10, 2025

Hostile Work Environment Laws: A Guide for Employees

Workplace harassment creates an illegal hostile work environment. Consult Helmer Friedman LLP for more info.

Hostile Work Environment Laws: What You Need to Know

A workplace should be a space for professional growth and collaboration, not a source of fear and discomfort. Yet, for many employees, the daily reality is far from this ideal. When unwelcome conduct based on protected characteristics like race, sex, or religion becomes so severe that it creates an intimidating or abusive atmosphere, it crosses a legal line, becoming a hostile work environment. Such an environment not only corrodes morale and productivity but also has significant legal implications for employers who fail to prevent it.

Understanding the legal framework that defines and governs a hostile work environment is the first step toward safeguarding employee rights and ensuring corporate accountability. This guide will walk you through the essential laws, what constitutes illegal harassment, and the steps both employees and employers can take to address and prevent it.

The Legal Framework Defining Workplace Hostility

Both federal and state laws establish the legal basis for what constitutes a hostile work environment. These statutes are designed to protect employees from discrimination and harassment based on specific, protected characteristics.

Federal Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

At the federal level, the primary law is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark legislation prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, and national origin. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees. Over the years, its protections have been expanded through court rulings and other laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), to include disability and age (40 and over).

State Law: California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

Many states have their own anti-discrimination laws that often provide broader protections than federal law. In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is a powerful tool for employees. FEHA prohibits harassment based on a wide range of protected categories and applies to all employers, regardless of size. Crucially, FEHA mandates that employers “take reasonable steps to prevent and correct wrongful (harassing, discriminatory, retaliatory) behavior in the workplace.”

The EEOC’s Definition of Harassment

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is the federal agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC defines harassment as unwelcome conduct that is based on a protected characteristic. This conduct becomes unlawful where:

Enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or
The conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.

This “severe or pervasive” standard is critical. It means that a single, minor incident or an offhand comment is typically not enough to be illegal. Instead, the behavior must be persistent or so egregious that it fundamentally alters the employee’s work environment.

What Constitutes a Hostile Work Environment?

Not all unpleasant workplace behavior is illegal. For conduct to be considered legally hostile, it must be both unwelcome and pervasive or severe. The behavior must be subjectively abusive to the person affected and objectively hostile to a reasonable person in the same situation.

Examples of prohibited behaviors that can contribute to a hostile work environment include:

Verbal Conduct: This includes telling racist or sexist jokes, using derogatory slurs or epithets, making degrading comments about an individual’s body, or issuing verbal threats. It also covers verbal abuse, mockery, and unwelcome sexual advances.
Physical Conduct: Unwelcome touching, physical assault, and impeding or blocking an employee’s movement are clear examples of prohibited physical conduct.
Visual Displays: Displaying sexually suggestive or racially insensitive objects, pictures, cartoons, or posters can create a hostile environment. This includes imagery with a sordid history, such as swastikas or nooses.

Courts consider several factors when determining if conduct is severe or pervasive, including the frequency and severity of the conduct, whether it was physically threatening or humiliating, and whether it unreasonably interfered with an employee’s work performance.

Common Types of Workplace Harassment

Harassment that creates a hostile work environment can manifest in several forms, often tied to a specific protected category.

Sexual Harassment: This includes unwanted sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It can take the form of quid pro quo harassment, where an employment decision is based on an employee’s submission to or rejection of sexual advances, or it can create an offensive environment through pervasive, unwelcome sexual comments or actions.
Racial Harassment: This involves discriminatory conduct based on a person’s race or ethnicity. It can range from racial slurs and offensive remarks to displaying symbols associated with racial hatred.
Religious Harassment: Treating an employee unfavorably because of their religious beliefs, or making offensive remarks about their religion, constitutes religious harassment. This also includes an employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious practices.
Other Protected Categories: Harassment based on age, disability, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity is also prohibited and can form the basis of a hostile work environment claim.

Employer Responsibilities to Prevent Harassment

Under laws like the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), employers have an affirmative duty to prevent harassment. This requires proactive measures, not just reactive responses. An effective anti-harassment program includes:

A Clear, Written Policy: Employers must have a comprehensive anti-harassment policy that is easy to understand and regularly distributed to all employees.
Mandatory Training: California law requires employers to provide regular harassment prevention training for all employees, with specialized training for supervisors.
A Fair Complaint Process: There must be a clear and accessible procedure for reporting harassment.
Prompt and Thorough Investigations: When a complaint is made, employers must conduct a prompt, impartial, and thorough investigation. This helps stop the behavior and sends a message that the company takes harassment seriously.
Appropriate Remedial Action: If an investigation confirms misconduct, the employer must take prompt remedial action that is designed to stop the behavior and prevent its recurrence.

Employee Rights and Legal Recourse

If you are experiencing harassment at work, creating a hostile work environment, you have rights and several options.

Report the Harassment: The first step is often to report the conduct internally to your supervisor, a designated HR representative, or anyone in your supervisory chain. Your employer cannot fix a problem it doesn’t know about.
Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of every incident of harassment. Note the date, time, location, what was said or done, and who was present. Save any emails, texts, or other physical evidence.
Legal Recourse: If your employer fails to take action, you can file a complaint with a government agency like the DFEH in California or the federal EEOC. You also have the right to file a lawsuit against your employer. Remedies for a successful claim can include reinstatement to your job, back pay, and damages for emotional distress.

It is illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for reporting harassment or participating in an investigation.

The Damaging Impact of a Hostile Workplace

The consequences of a hostile work environment are severe for both employees and employers. For employees, the emotional and psychological toll can be devastating, leading to anxiety, depression, and other stress-related health issues. For employers, the costs can be immense, including legal fees, settlement payouts, decreased productivity, and damage to the company’s reputation.

Take Action to Protect Your Rights

No one should have to endure a hostile work environment. Understanding your rights is the first step toward holding employers accountable and ensuring workplaces are safe and respectful for everyone. If you believe you are a victim of workplace harassment, it is crucial to seek professional legal guidance.

The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP are dedicated to fighting for the rights of employees who have been subjected to discrimination and harassment. We offer confidential consultations to help you understand your options and take the next step. Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today to speak with an experienced employment lawyer.

October 13, 2025October 14, 2025

Gaming Parlor Pays $92K in Pay Discrimination Settlement

Ensuring gaming industry employees are protected from gender discrimination & harassment, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Lacey’s Place Pays $92K in Pay Discrimination Settlement

The recent $92,964 settlement between Lacey’s Place sends a clear message: pay discrimination and retaliation have serious financial consequences. This gaming parlor chain’s case highlights ongoing workplace inequality issues that affect countless employees across American businesses.

Pay discrimination remains a persistent problem in workplaces nationwide. Despite decades of federal legislation, women and minorities continue to face wage disparities for performing substantially similar work. The Lacey’s Place case demonstrates how these violations manifest in real-world scenarios and the legal remedies available to affected workers.

When employers pay female district managers less than their male counterparts with similar qualifications, they violate fundamental principles of workplace equality. The subsequent retaliation against an employee who complained about these disparities compounds the legal violations and underscores the courage required to speak up against discrimination.

Details of the Lacey’s Place Settlement

The Lacey’s Place case involved systematic pay discrimination that affected female district managers across the company’s 30+ Illinois gaming parlor locations. Since at least March 2018, female managers earned less than male coworkers despite having comparable experience and educational backgrounds.

The discrimination extended beyond unequal wages. When one female manager raised concerns about the pay disparity, the company terminated her employment in clear retaliation. This action violated both her right to equal compensation and her protected right to report discrimination without facing adverse consequences.

The EEOC’s investigation revealed violations of both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. These federal laws establish clear prohibitions against sex-based discrimination in compensation and protect employees who report such violations from retaliation.

The four-year consent decree requires Lacey’s Place to implement comprehensive reforms beyond the monetary settlement. The company must develop written policies against sex-based pay discrimination and retaliation, conduct anti-discrimination training, and perform a pay equity study of current district manager compensation. Regular reporting requirements ensure ongoing compliance with federal employment laws.

Federal Legal Framework Protecting Workers

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 established the fundamental principle that employers must provide equal wages for equal work regardless of sex. This landmark legislation emerged from decades of advocacy by labor unions and women’s rights organizations, who recognized the economic injustice of gender-based wage disparities.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 broadened these protections by prohibiting employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, or national origin. Together, these federal laws create a comprehensive framework addressing workplace discrimination and retaliation.

The Equal Pay Act requires that jobs be substantially equal in skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions to warrant equal compensation. Employers cannot justify pay differences based on gender stereotypes or assumptions about women’s economic needs or career commitment.

California’s Equal Pay Act strengthens these federal protections by addressing both gender and racial pay discrimination. The state law prohibits paying employees of one sex, race, or ethnicity less than others for substantially similar work. California also prohibits employers from using salary history in compensation decisions, helping prevent the perpetuation of historical wage gaps.

High-Profile Pay Discrimination Cases

Recent settlements demonstrate the widespread nature of pay discrimination across industries and the substantial financial consequences for employers that violate it. Google agreed to pay $28 million after internal documents revealed systematic pay disparities affecting Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Alaska Native employees.

Activision Blizzard’s $54.8 million settlement addressed unequal pay and sex-based discrimination affecting female employees throughout the gaming company’s California operations. The agreement required independent oversight of compensation policies and ongoing diversity initiatives.

Disney committed $43.25 million to resolve gender pay discrimination claims while implementing pay equity analyses and bias training programs. The entertainment giant’s case highlighted how enterprise-wide policies can perpetuate historical patterns of discrimination.

These settlements share common elements: clear documentation of systematic pay disparities, substantial monetary relief for affected employees, and comprehensive policy reforms to prevent future violations. They demonstrate that discrimination carries real financial consequences while establishing precedents benefiting broader groups of workers.

Employer Obligations and Best Practices

Employers must actively ensure compensation practices comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws. This responsibility extends beyond avoiding intentional discrimination to identifying and correcting systemic disparities that may result from seemingly neutral policies.

Regular pay equity audits help identify compensation disparities based on gender, race, age, sexual orientation, national origin, or gender identity. These analyses should examine base salaries, bonuses, benefits, and advancement opportunities to ensure equal treatment across protected characteristics.

Job classification systems must focus on legitimate business factors such as skills, experience, education, and performance rather than subjective criteria that may mask discriminatory bias. Clear, written compensation policies help ensure consistent application of pay decisions across all employees.

Training managers and HR personnel on anti-discrimination laws helps prevent violations and raises awareness of subtle bias that may influence compensation decisions. Documentation of pay decisions provides transparency and demonstrates compliance with legal requirements.

California employers face additional obligations under Labor Code Section 432.5, which prohibits using salary history when determining compensation. Employers must provide pay scales upon request and include salary ranges in job postings for companies with 15 or more employees.

Recognizing Pay Discrimination

Employees should examine several factors when evaluating potential pay discrimination. Length of employment provides context for compensation decisions, as seniority systems may justify some pay differences. However, newer employees with similar qualifications earning more than longer-tenured workers may indicate discrimination.

Comparing compensation with colleagues performing substantially similar work reveals potential disparities. This analysis should consider base salary, bonuses, benefits, and advancement opportunities rather than focusing solely on hourly wages or annual salaries.

Primary responsibilities and required qualifications help determine whether positions warrant equal compensation under the law. Jobs requiring similar skills, effort, and responsibility should receive comparable pay regardless of different titles or minor variations in duties.

Performance evaluations and achievement metrics provide objective measures of employee contributions that should correlate with compensation levels. Consistently high-performing employees receiving lower pay than less productive colleagues may indicate discriminatory treatment.

Geographic location and industry standards offer additional context for evaluating pay fairness. However, these factors cannot justify discrimination based on protected characteristics such as gender, race, or age.

Documenting Evidence of Discrimination

Maintaining detailed records strengthens potential discrimination claims. Pay stubs, offer letters, and employment contracts provide concrete evidence of compensation terms and changes over time. Performance reviews demonstrate work quality and achievement levels that should influence pay decisions.

Email communications regarding compensation discussions, promotion decisions, or discriminatory comments create documented evidence of employer actions and attitudes. Social media posts or recorded conversations may also support discrimination claims when relevant to workplace treatment.

Job descriptions for your position and comparable roles help establish whether substantially similar work warrants equal compensation. Training records, educational requirements, and experience qualifications provide additional evidence of job similarity.

Witness statements from colleagues who observed discriminatory behavior or know about pay disparities strengthen cases with multiple perspectives. Coworkers who received different treatment despite similar qualifications provide valuable comparison evidence.

Internal complaint records demonstrate that employers had knowledge of discrimination issues and their responses to employee concerns. HR documentation, grievance procedures, and investigation reports may reveal patterns of discriminatory treatment or inadequate responses to complaints.

Taking Action Against Pay Discrimination

Workers experiencing pay discrimination have multiple options for seeking justice and compensation. Filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiates federal investigation processes that may result in monetary settlements and policy changes.

State agencies such as California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing provide additional avenues for addressing discrimination violations. These agencies often have broader powers than federal enforcement and may pursue cases that EEOC cannot handle due to resource limitations.

Private legal action through experienced employment attorneys offers personalized representation and potentially higher compensation awards. Class action lawsuits may be appropriate when discrimination affects multiple employees, creating economies of scale for legal challenges.

The statute of limitations for discrimination claims requires prompt action. Federal law generally allows 180 days from the last discriminatory act to file EEOC complaints, though some states extend this timeframe. California provides one year for state agency complaints and longer periods for certain legal actions.

Retaliation protection ensures that employees can report discrimination without facing adverse consequences. Employers cannot terminate, demote, or otherwise punish workers for filing complaints or participating in discrimination investigations.

Fighting for Workplace Equality

The Lacey’s Place settlement represents one victory in the ongoing fight against workplace pay discrimination. While $92,964 may seem modest compared to some high-profile cases, this resolution demonstrates that violations affecting even small groups of employees carry real consequences.

Systematic change requires continued enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and willingness by workers to report violations despite potential retaliation risks. Each successful case establishes precedents that benefit future discrimination victims and encourages employers to examine their own practices.

Pay transparency initiatives, regular equity audits, and comprehensive anti-discrimination training create workplace cultures where equality can flourish. However, legal enforcement remains essential when employers fail to address discrimination proactively.

If you believe you have experienced pay discrimination or retaliation, documentation and prompt action protect your rights and strengthen potential claims. Experienced employment attorneys can evaluate your situation and explain available legal options for seeking justice and fair compensation.

September 23, 2025

Discover Faces $7M Gender and Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Discover Executive Files Major Gender and Age Discrimination Lawsuit

A high-profile discrimination lawsuit has shaken Discover Financial Services as former executive Diane Offereins alleges the company made her a scapegoat for regulatory issues while revoking over $7 million in stock awards. The case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, centers on claims of gender discrimination and age discrimination that highlight broader corporate accountability issues.

Offereins’ lawsuit comes amid Discover’s public disclosure in July 2023 that it had incorrectly classified some individuals’ credit cards as “commercial” beginning around mid-2007—two years before she even joined the company’s payment network division. The timing raises critical questions about fair treatment and corporate responsibility when regulatory problems emerge.

The case has already survived Discover’s attempt to dismiss the charges, with U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruling that Offereins “plausibly alleged violations of U.S. civil rights law and equal pay provisions.” This decision allows the lawsuit to move forward, potentially setting important precedents for executive treatment and discrimination in corporate America.

A Distinguished Career Cut Short

Diane Offereins built an impressive 25-year career at Discover Financial Services, a digital banking and payment services company. Recruited in 1998 to serve as Chief Information Officer, she demonstrated exceptional leadership that earned her increasing responsibilities within the organization.

After serving as CIO until 2009, Offereins transitioned into the role of Executive Vice President and President of Payment Services, where she led Discover’s payments network until her retirement in June 2023. Her long tenure and senior position made her one of the company’s most experienced executives, with deep institutional knowledge spanning decades of corporate evolution.

The trajectory of her career—from CIO to heading the payments division—reflected Discover’s confidence in her abilities and leadership. This background makes the circumstances surrounding her departure and the subsequent revocation of her stock awards particularly striking.

The Heart of the Allegations

Offereins’ lawsuit presents serious claims of discriminatory treatment, alleging violations of multiple federal and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The core allegation centers on pay discrimination and unfair treatment based on her gender and age.

The lawsuit describes how Discover initiated a long-running internal investigation into potential misclassification of certain credit cards that charged merchants higher interchange fees. According to court documents, this misclassification issue was “well-known within the Company and had been actively discussed since at least 2017.”

What makes Offereins’ case particularly compelling is her assertion that she became an unfair target for problems that predated her involvement. The credit card misclassification began around mid-2007, yet she didn’t join the payment network side of the business until 2009. Despite this timeline, she alleges that Discover used the investigation findings to justify canceling her unvested stock awards under claims of “misconduct.”

The $7 Million Stock Revocation

The most dramatic aspect of the case involves Discover’s decision to cancel Offereins’ unvested stock awards worth more than $7 million. The timing of this action proved particularly damaging—occurring six months after her retirement and on the night before her shares were due to vest.

Court documents reveal a calculated sequence of events. Offereins retired in June 2023, was interviewed by outside counsel days later, and then received notification in January 2024 that her unvested awards were being canceled. The company claimed she had engaged in “willful or reckless violation of the company’s risk policies” based on findings from the internal investigation.

Perhaps most significantly, Offereins alleges she was the only woman and only retired executive committee member to lose equity as a result of the investigation. According to her lawsuit, male executives who were “actually responsible for the card classification issue emerged relatively unscathed” and “managed to reap their benefits.”

Legal Proceedings Gain Momentum

Offereins took decisive legal action, filing charges with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) in June 2024. The EEOC quickly issued her a Notice of Right to Sue, enabling her federal lawsuit.

Discover attempted to dismiss the case, arguing in court filings that it “championed her for empowering women” and that she “does not — and cannot — allege that a similarly situated male was treated differently.” However, Judge Gottschall rejected this defense strategy.

The judge’s ruling contained particularly damaging language for Discover, stating that “Offereins plausibly pleads that Discover viewed her as a convenient scapegoat because, as a woman who had reached retirement age, it believed it was considerably harder for her to ‘fight back’ than it would have been for her younger, male colleagues.”

Sean Hecker, Offereins’ attorney, welcomed the court’s decision, saying they were pleased to see “this important matter move forward.” The ruling ensures the case will proceed to discovery, where internal company communications and decision-making processes may be scrutinized.

Broader Implications for Corporate Accountability

This lawsuit highlights critical issues surrounding age discrimination and gender discrimination in corporate America, particularly at the executive level. The case demonstrates how companies might use internal investigations as cover for discriminatory actions, raising questions about due process and fair treatment.

The legal challenges in proving discrimination cases often center on demonstrating disparate treatment—showing that similarly situated individuals of different demographics were treated more favorably. Offereins’ allegations about being the sole woman and retiree to lose equity could provide compelling evidence if substantiated through discovery.

Corporate governance experts note that the timing of Discover’s actions—revoking awards just before vesting—appears calculated to maximize financial harm while minimizing the company’s exposure. Such tactics may backfire if they’re perceived as retaliatory or discriminatory by courts and juries.

The case also raises broader questions about accountability when regulatory issues span multiple executives and time periods. How companies allocate blame and consequences during investigations can reveal underlying biases and discrimination patterns.

Fighting Back Against Corporate Discrimination

The Offereins case represents more than one executive’s fight for fair treatment—it embodies the ongoing struggle against systemic discrimination in corporate America. When companies use their power to target vulnerable employees while protecting favored executives, they undermine principles of equal treatment and due process.

For individuals facing similar discrimination, this case highlights the importance of documenting unfair treatment and seeking the counsel of experienced lawyers. Employment discrimination cases require sophisticated legal strategies and a deep understanding of federal and state civil rights laws.

The outcome of this lawsuit could influence how courts evaluate discrimination claims involving executive compensation and retirement benefits. A favorable ruling for Offereins might encourage other victims of discrimination to challenge unfair corporate actions.

Whether you’re experiencing workplace discrimination or retaliation, understanding your legal rights remains crucial. Corporate accountability depends on individuals willing to stand up against unfair treatment, even when facing powerful institutional opponents.

Stay informed about important legal developments that could affect your rights. Subscribe now for regular updates on discrimination law and corporate accountability cases.

Understanding and addressing discriminatory work schedules

What Are Discriminatory Work Schedules?

The Consequences of Discriminatory Schedules

For Employees:

For Businesses:

Legal Protections Against Discriminatory Work Schedules

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

State Laws

How To Identify Discriminatory Work Schedules

Steps to Combat Discriminatory Scheduling Practices

For Employees:

For Employers:

Small Changes, Big Impact

Spread the word:

Like this:

TNT Cranes Case: A $525K Settlement in Racial Harassment

Allegations of a Hostile Work Environment

The EEOC Lawsuit and Legal Action

A Settlement for Accountability

Mandated Reforms and the Path Forward

Broader Implications for Workplace Justice

Spread the word:

Like this:

Denied for Your Faith? The Reality of Religious Discrimination

Defining Religious Discrimination

What Discrimination Looks Like in Practice

Employer Obligations: The Duty to Accommodate

The Shift in “Undue Hardship”

Recent Legal Battles and Settlements

Practical Steps for Employees

Best Practices for Employers

Protecting Religious Freedom at Work

Resources for Further Information

Spread the word:

Like this:

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

What is a Hostile Work Environment?

Behaviors That Cross the Line

The Human Cost of Workplace Hostility

Securing Compensation

Employer Responsibilities: The Duty to Act

Mandatory Policies and Training

The Investigation Requirement

Taking Action: A Guide for Employees

1. Document Everything

2. Report the Behavior

3. Do Not Fear Retaliation—Report It

4. File a Formal Charge

5. Seek Legal Representation

Case Study: EEOC v. DHL Supply Chain

Conclusion

Spread the word:

Like this:

SHRM Hit with $11.5M Verdict: A Warning for Discriminatory Employers

The Case Against SHRM

A Pattern of Retaliation

Inside the Trial: Why the Jury Sided with the Employee

Flawed Investigations

Disparate Treatment

Reckless Indifference

Implications for HR Practices

The Danger of Performative HR

Accountability for Retaliation

Protection for Whistleblowers

Understanding Your Rights: The Legal Framework

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Section 1981

Strategies for Employees Facing Discrimination

Document Everything

Conclusion

Spread the word:

Like this:

Spread the word:

Like this:

Protecting American Workers from Discrimination

What is National Origin Discrimination?

Types of Discrimination Against American Workers

Discriminatory Job Advertisements