Category: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted on

Walmart Pays Over $400k to settle Sexual harassment, Retaliation Lawsuit

The law ensures a workplace free from sexual harassment -Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a distressing yet all too familiar case, Walmart has once again found itself under the spotlight for failing to adequately protect its employees from sexual harassment and retaliation. This time, the retail giant has agreed to pay $415,112 to settle a lawsuit involving severe sexual harassment and retaliation at its Lewisburg, West Virginia store. The case highlights a recurring issue within Walmart’s vast network of over 2.1 million employees, where allegations of misconduct by managers have not only been ignored but, in some instances, led to wrongful termination of those who dared to speak out.

The lawsuit brought to light appalling behavior by a former store manager who subjected female employees to unwelcome and offensive sexual behavior. This included crude sexual innuendos, requests for sexual acts in exchange for workplace favors, and an egregious demand that a female employee expose her breasts. Despite receiving multiple complaints, Walmart reportedly failed to act decisively, leading to a female employee being fired after she opposed the harassment and filed a formal complaint.

“Employers have a duty under federal law to take prompt, reasonable action to stop sexual harassment and prevent it from happening again,” said EEOC Philadelphia District Office Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “Diligent investigations – which include considering relevant past complaints against an alleged harasser, thoroughly interviewing coworkers and others who may know about the work environment, and not demanding supporting witnesses or an admission of wrongdoing as a general prerequisite for taking action – are essential to compliance with that legal duty.”

Such conduct is a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expressly safeguards employees from harassment and discrimination based on sex. Furthermore, it protects them from any form of retaliation for standing up against such inappropriate actions. This isn’t the first instance of Walmart employees resorting to legal action to enforce these rights, and unless large settlements significantly impact Walmart’s $648 billion revenue, it may not be the last.

The settlement agreement requires Walmart to pay monetary relief and adhere to several non-monetary measures aimed at preventing future harassment. This includes barring the rehiring of the implicated manager, mandating specialized training for conducting thorough harassment investigations, and ensuring that investigations are led by personnel with no conflicts of interest.

This case underscores the critical importance of not dismissing inappropriate managerial behavior in the workplace. Every time a perpetrator manages to evade consequences for their illegal actions, it only serves to embolden them, potentially leading to repeated offenses. If you find yourself in a similar situation, do not hesitate to contact a dedicated sexual harassment attorney to protect your rights and seek justice. No one should face such maltreatment in their place of work, and speaking up is a vital step towards making a change.

Posted on

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settled for $400,000 by HHS Environmental

The law ensures a workplace free from sexual harassment -Helmer Friedman LLP.

HHS Environmental Company has agreed to a $400,000 settlement over a sexual harassment lawsuit, highlighting the ongoing issue of toxic workplace environments. The case involved a group of female housekeepers who experienced repeated instances of sexual harassment by a male colleague. Despite their numerous complaints, the company failed to take action for over a year, eventually leading to legal action. The alleged behavior not only violated workplace ethics but also breached Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a crucial law protecting employees from discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is designed to safeguard employees from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It explicitly prohibits any form of sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment. Employers are mandated to address any harassment complaints proactively and thoroughly to ensure a safe and respectful workplace for all employees.

The impact of working in a hostile environment can be devastating, not only to the victims but also to their families. No one should have to endure such conditions simply to earn a living. The retaliation faced by the victims at HHS Environmental, including wrongful termination and increased workloads, underscore the company’s failure to uphold its legal and ethical responsibilities.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of taking firm action against employers who allow such conduct to continue unchecked. It is necessary for victims to feel empowered to speak out and seek justice without fear of retribution. Employers must be held accountable for failing to maintain safe and respectful workspaces.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, it’s crucial to contact an attorney with experience in sexual harassment cases. Legal experts can provide guidance and support, ensuring that victims’ voices are heard and their rights are protected. Taking action can not only change your environment but also help in creating a safer workplace for others.

Posted on

Corporate Responsibility for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation

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

Corporate Responsibility for Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation

When employees walk into their workplaces, they should feel confident that they are entering a safe, respectful, and fair environment. However, in some instances, corporate failures to address harassment, discrimination, and retaliation have left victims unprotected and perpetuated cycles of unacceptable behavior. This article explores the legal obligations, ethical considerations, and real-world examples illustrating the accountability corporations bear in preventing and responding to misconduct.

Legal Framework

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII explicitly prohibits workplace discrimination based on factors like race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also protects employees from harassment that creates a hostile work environment and retaliation when they report such behaviors.

Several cases, including those discussed below, demonstrate the consequences companies face when they do not comply with Title VII. This law not only outlines legal protections for employees but also reinforces the principle that businesses have an obligation to create inclusive and equitable environments.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability holds companies legally responsible for the misconduct of their employees, particularly supervisors, when the company fails to prevent or address harassment and discrimination. For example, a corporation may be liable if it does not act on complaints or if its management fosters a culture where inappropriate behavior is condoned or ignored.

Case Studies

Taco Bell

Six Taco Bell restaurant entities in Michigan faced legal action after turning a blind eye to egregious misconduct by a senior area manager. Over a span of months, this manager subjected underage female employees to invasive questions regarding their sexual activity, unwanted touching, and even explicit requests for videos. Despite multiple employee complaints to supervisors, Taco Bell allowed the manager to remain in his position, enabling his abuse to continue.

Retaliation compounded the trauma. On the same day an assistant manager reported his misconduct, she was fired. It took months for the senior manager to face repercussions, illustrating corporate negligence in protecting employees. Taco Bell’s inaction blatantly violated Title VII, highlighting the importance of enforcing anti-harassment measures and holding leaders accountable.

Chipotle

Similarly, Chipotle’s failure to protect an employee from harassment underscores the gravity of corporate responsibility. At a Tampa location, a male crew member sexually harassed a female service manager with offensive comments, gestures, and inappropriate physical touching. Although the service manager alerted store management multiple times, her concerns were dismissed. When she escalated the matter and informed the general manager of her intent to file a complaint with corporate headquarters, she was terminated within three days.

This termination was a clear violation of Title VII, which prohibits retaliation against employees who report discrimination. Chipotle ultimately settled the case for $70,000. Such a payout does little to repair the emotional harm or career disruption caused by the company’s failure to act sooner.

Balfour Beatty Infrastructure

Balfour Beatty, a construction company, also faced legal consequences for ignoring sexual harassment at its Craven County, North Carolina location. A female truck driver endured lewd comments and texts asking her to “talk dirty” or send explicit images. When she reported the harassment, her employer transferred her to a less desirable work location rather than addressing the behavior.

The retaliation escalated, with coworkers berating her with vulgar statements like “construction is a man’s world.” Balfour Beatty settled the case for $80,000, but the damage highlighted systemic failures in promoting gender equality and addressing workplace harassment.

Ethical Considerations

Beyond legal obligations, corporations have an ethical duty to establish safe and equitable environments. Companies must recognize that prioritizing profit over employee well-being not only violates trust but also undermines the very foundation of their success.

Key ethical considerations include the following:

  • Ensuring a Safe Workplace: A workplace free of harassment is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right.
  • Upholding Fairness and Equality: All employees, regardless of gender, race, or position, deserve an environment built on mutual respect and impartiality.
  • Establishing Robust Reporting Mechanisms: Employees must have safe and accessible channels to report misconduct without fear of retaliation.
  • Protecting Whistleblowers: Retaliation has a chilling effect on reporting and allows abuse to continue unchecked. Corporations have a moral responsibility to protect employees who come forward.
  • Promoting Ethical Leadership: A commitment to cultivating leaders who embody accountability and integrity can set the tone across all organizational levels.

Corporate Responsibility in Action

The cases of Taco Bell, Chipotle, and Balfour Beatty illustrate the consequences of neglecting corporate responsibility concerning harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. While these companies may have settled their lawsuits, such outcomes should not be viewed as “closures” but as cautionary tales. Organizations must do more than meet legal requirements; they need to weave ethical practices into the fabric of their corporate cultures.

This includes investing in employee training programs, enforcing zero-tolerance policies, and conducting regular audits of workplace behavior. For corporations wary of missteps, prioritizing transparency and collaboration with HR departments, legal experts, and employee representatives can mitigate risks while fostering a culture of trust and accountability.

Concluding Thoughts

Harassment, discrimination, and retaliation remain pervasive issues in workplaces across industries. However, corporations have the power to lead change. By taking proactive measures to prevent misconduct, supporting employees who come forward, and holding wrongdoers accountable, organizations can set a precedent for what is acceptable in professional environments.

The cost of failing to act goes beyond monetary settlements or public relations crises; it erodes employee morale, damages reputations, and limits the potential of individuals who deserve better. Businesses have a choice—to either perpetuate these cycles of harm or take meaningful steps to ensure that every employee feels not only safe but empowered to thrive. The question is, which path will they take?

Employees who have experienced sexual harassment are strongly encouraged to consult with an employment lawyer to understand their rights and pursue justice. Without holding corporations accountable for their actions or lack thereof, these harmful patterns will persist unchecked, leaving employees—regardless of their age or position—vulnerable to unacceptable and reprehensible behavior. Seeking legal guidance is a crucial step in fostering accountability and creating safer, more equitable workplaces for everyone.

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

Asian Students File Discrimination Lawsuit Against CSU

Racial harassment creates hostile work environment. It is illegal. Helmer Friedman LLP employment attorneys in Beverly Hills.

The California State University (CSU) system is once again facing a wave of scrutiny as a new discrimination case has been filed against it, claiming that Asian students are being unfairly discriminated against. This comes amid a broader conversation about admissions practices and diversity initiatives across educational institutions in California and beyond.

The latest lawsuit, filed by students associated with the group Students Against Racial Discrimination (SARD), alleges that CSU has been utilizing race-based preferences in its admissions process. This, they argue, is a direct violation of Proposition 209, a constitutional amendment that prohibits such practices in state-run entities, including public universities. The lawsuit seeks a legal declaration that CSUs have breached the law and calls for an end to any race-conscious admissions criteria.

This is not an isolated incident for CSU in terms of facing accusations of discrimination. Earlier cases have highlighted a pattern of legal disputes involving the university system. Notably, CSU faced a lawsuit against its President, Tomás Morales, and Dean Jake Zhu of California State University, San Bernardino, for alleged violations of the Equal Pay Act, gender discrimination, sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other illegal behavior. This lawsuit pointed to systemic issues within the university’s administration and called for accountability and reform.

Such cases echo a broader trend across higher education institutions, where admissions practices and internal policies are under a microscope. The struggle to balance diversity initiatives with merit-based admissions continues to be a contentious issue. The rise in claims from various student groups and faculty members suggests a growing awareness and unwillingness to tolerate discriminatory practices, however they manifest.

The ongoing legal battles underscore the importance of ensuring that all university admissions and employment practices are conducted fairly, transparently, and within the bounds of the law. As educational institutions strive to create inclusive environments, they must also adhere to legal standards that protect against discrimination of any form.

Understanding one’s rights and options is crucial for university students and employees facing discrimination. Those who believe they have been subject to discriminatory practices at educational institutions should seek guidance from experienced discrimination attorneys. These legal professionals are equipped to provide counsel, help navigate complex legal landscapes, and advocate for justice in courts of law.

Posted on

Addressing Racial Harassment in Schools at All Levels

Racial harassment in school is illegal and must be stopped.

Racial harassment in educational settings is an insidious and troubling issue that permeates the experiences of students, educators, and staff at all grade levels. Its impact reaches far beyond individual incidents, eroding the safe, inclusive environments that are vital for effective learning and growth. This pervasive problem not only undermines personal dignity but also contravenes federal laws designed to uphold civil rights. In this article, we delve into the prevalence of racial harassment, examine the legal framework established to combat it, illustrate real-world instances of both intervention and failure, and stress the importance of taking decisive action.

Understanding the Legal Framework

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VI is a cornerstone of civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal funding, including schools. This vital law imposes a duty on educational institutions to not only protect individuals from racial harassment but also to take tangible action when they are made aware of its occurrence.

Failure to act or respond appropriately can invite federal investigations by bodies such as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Recent legal cases underscore that noncompliance has significant repercussions, often leading to enforcement actions that compel institutions to overhaul their policies and practices.

Schools’ Duty to Act

Educational institutions bear the responsibility to proactively prevent racial harassment, crafting clear protocols for addressing incidents when they arise. According to DOJ standards, any inaction or inadequate responses to reports of racial harassment not only violate Title VI but also infringe upon the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, thereby depriving students and employees of their fundamental rights.

Racial harassment lawyers can help when schools fail to act. Real-World Case Studies

Douglas County School District, Colorado

The DOJ recently launched an investigation into the Douglas County School District following reports of racial bullying, including Black and biracial students being subjected to slurs, threats, and group harassment. This case starkly illustrates the emotional and physical harm caused to students when schools fail to act. Families suing the district highlighted how a lack of immediate intervention worsens the situation and perpetuates harm.

Elmore-Morristown Unified Union School District, Vermont

The Vermont case saw widespread racial harassment that included racial slurs, Confederate flag displays, and Nazi symbols, primarily at the middle-school level. The DOJ’s investigation led to a settlement where the district committed to revising its anti-harassment policies, adopting centralized reporting systems, and conducting formal training for staff and student groups. This example underscores how systemic responses, rather than ad-hoc reactions, are vital in addressing widespread harassment effectively.

Bonham Independent School District, Texas

Bonham ISD faced allegations of racial hostility that left students of color feeling “powerless.” Incidents ranged from slurs and bullying to unfair disciplinary actions disproportionately targeting Black and Latino students. A noose once found in a school gym and violence against students of color went unaddressed by staff. When schools fail to protect their students, the long-term emotional and educational impacts are devastating.

USC Case on Workplace Harassment

Even at the collegiate level, racial harassment persists, as seen in the University of Southern California (USC) case involving Joyce Bell Limbrick. Bell Limbrick, a high-ranking administrator, suffered racial remarks and retaliatory actions for reporting them. Her experience demonstrates the importance of not only addressing but preventing retaliation against those reporting racial harassment, a protection mandated by law.

Key Tools for Change

Centralized Reporting Systems

The DOJ has emphasized the critical need for centralized reporting systems for incidents of race-based harassment, a practice that has already seen implementation in settlements across Vermont and other school districts. These systems enhance transparency and streamline the process of tracking and addressing complaints, ensuring that no voice goes unheard.

Comprehensive Policy Revisions

Policies designed to tackle racial harassment must be not only clear but also readily accessible. They should articulate a precise definition of harassment, provide illustrative examples, and outline procedures for filing complaints and resolving disputes, thereby empowering individuals to seek help without hesitation.

Employee and Student Training

Training initiatives aimed at teachers, administrators, and staff are essential for raising awareness and equipping personnel with the necessary skills to effectively confront harassment. Furthermore, educational programs for students play a pivotal role in nurturing a culture of inclusion and establishing a resolute zero-tolerance stance towards discriminatory behavior.

Retaliation Protections

Legal safeguards against retaliation are paramount, ensuring that students and employees can report instances of racial harassment without fearing negative consequences. High-profile cases, such as that of Joyce Bell Limbrick, highlight the dangers of retaliation and underscore the urgent need to protect those brave individuals who come forward.

Consequences of Failing to Act

The ramifications of systemic inaction are profound, leading to psychological trauma for victims, compromised educational and employment opportunities, and potential federal penalties for schools. Beyond the looming threat of legal consequences, the failure to intervene deeply erodes trust and tarnishes the institution’s reputation as a sanctuary for learning and personal development.

What Can Families Do?

Families facing racial harassment have several avenues for recourse, including the option to file civil rights complaints with the Department of Justice. Such actions can spark federal investigations and potentially lead to legal agreements that mandate the implementation of school reforms. Consulting with experienced attorneys who specialize in racial harassment cases can amplify these efforts, ensuring that educational institutions are held accountable for their responsibilities.

Your Next Step

Racial harassment in schools, regardless of grade level, must be addressed with urgency and accountability. It’s not just a legal issue but a matter of protecting our children’s futures and creating equitable environments for all. If you or someone you know has experienced racial harassment, contact a lawyer experienced in racial harassment cases today. Together, we can ensure that every school becomes a place where students and educators feel respected, valued, and safe.

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

Republic First Bancorp Inc. Settles Sexual Harassment Case Amidst Bank’s Downfall

The law ensures a workplace free from sexual harassment -Helmer Friedman LLP.

Last week, Republic First Bancorp Inc. concluded a tumultuous chapter by reaching a settlement in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former employee. The case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania following this agreement.

The lawsuit was brought by Jasmine Zuber, a former universal banker at Republic First, who alleged that she was wrongfully terminated due to a fabricated claim of a cash-drawer imbalance. According to Zuber, the true reason for her termination was retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by her supervisor.

Zuber and her supervisor, Hall, had initially engaged in a consensual sexual encounter at work. However, the situation deteriorated when Hall repeatedly sought further sexual interaction, leading to confrontational incidents. After receiving a text message from Zuber urging Hall to transfer or face repercussions from HR, branch manager Leitz and HR Director Zangrilli intervened. Although they assigned different shifts to Zuber and Hall after their discussions, Zuber’s position was soon jeopardized when her teller drawer was allegedly found to contain an overage of $1,000.

As events unfolded, the Bank relieved both Zuber and Hall of their duties, citing the cash-drawer discrepancy for Zuber and a violation of the Bank’s fraternization policy for Hall.

Sadly, the sexual harassment lawsuit was not the only challenge Republic First faced. In February 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities seized the Bank amid rumors of a potential buyer. This occurred after the Bank was delisted from Nasdaq for failing to provide its fiscal year 2022 report, further damaging its credibility.

In its efforts to explain the absence of the report, the Bank blamed the shortcomings of its former executive team, which had failed to maintain adequate internal controls. Alarmingly, the Bank’s auditors had previously warned of “material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.”

Fulton Bank subsequently took over the operations of Republic First’s 32 branches across Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, promising to revitalize them under the Fulton Bank brand. The seizure of Republic First marked the fourth such case since 2023, sending a strong message about the dangers of inadequate internal controls and unethical workplace practices.

If you or someone you know has faced harassment at the workplace, know that there are paths to take. Contact an experienced employment attorney and hold corporations accountable for creating safe and fair work environments. Speaking up about harassment isn’t just about personal justice—it’s about ensuring that nobody else has to endure the same abuse.

Posted on

Sarah Glenn: A Testimony of Resilience and Integrity

Forced arbitration clauses challenge consumers, employees. Helmer Friedman LLP aggressively protect your rights.

In September 2020, Sarah Glenn began her tenure as the Small Systems Certified Water Plant Operator for the city of Florence, Colorado. A professional, knowledgeable, and highly qualified woman in her field, Glenn brought unmatched integrity to her position. However, her time at the city’s water treatment plant was marred by repeated instances of sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The culprits? Two city employees, Lori Cobler and Brandon Harris.

Glenn attests that Brandon Harris, the city’s Water Superintendent and Operator since 2015, showed a history of improper behavior during his tenure. His record included infractions such as using government-owned equipment for personal use and working under the influence of alcohol. Despite these serious allegations, Harris was allowed to retain his position. A flagrant example of male privilege, his shortcomings, and malfeasance were swept under the rug, even as Glenn’s allegations of sexual harassment based on her sex were dismissed or outright ignored.

Moreover, Glenn was defamed by Lori Cobler, the city’s Finance Director and interim Human Resources Director. She spread false information about Glenn, damaging her reputation and work ethic and ultimately leading to her termination.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) explicitly protect employees from sexual harassment and retaliation. Yet, despite these clear legal guidelines, Glenn was subject to an abusive work environment.

This scenario shines a spotlight on a pervasive issue in our society: men, especially those in higher positions, are often allowed to underperform with impunity, while others – particularly minorities and women – are held to an impossibly high standard. Those who are professional, knowledgeable, and highly qualified for their jobs can often highlight the inadequacies of these men, making them targets of retaliation and malicious behavior.

The journey to justice for Sarah Glenn has been long and arduous, but the ultimate victory serves as a potent reminder of the importance of standing up to discrimination and retaliation. The first step toward justice is knowing your rights and seeking legal counsel. With the support of an employment law attorney, Glenn fought back against her oppressors and received a total settlement of $195,000. This sum accounted for her lost wages, non-wage damages, attorney fees, and case expenses.

Discrimination and retaliation have no place in a respectful and professional environment. It’s important to hold those who behave otherwise accountable. Drawing strength from Sarah Glenn’s story, let’s pledge to confront such situations head-on and ensure our workplaces are safe and respectful spaces for everyone.

Seeking advice from an experienced employment law attorney is crucial whenever you, a family member, or a friend suspect sexual discrimination in the workplace. These legal professionals possess the expertise needed to assess your situation, provide guidance on your rights, and chart the best course of action. Sexual discrimination often goes unaddressed due to fear or uncertainty, but consulting with a qualified attorney can empower individuals to take informed steps toward justice. An attorney acts as a critical advocate, ensuring that your voice is heard and that those responsible are held accountable for their actions.

Posted on

High Price Extracted for Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Retaliation

Helping Employees Recover and Enforcing Employment Laws Helmer Friedman LLP.

A jury awarded a St. Louis County police officer nearly $20 million in a sexual orientation discrimination case. The plaintiff, Sergeant Keith Wildhaber, alleged that the police department repeatedly passed him over for promotions due to his sexual orientation and retaliated against him for filing a discrimination complaint.

The Case:

Wildhaber claimed that over a six-year period, he was denied 23 promotions. With more than 15 years of experience, a clean record, and strong performance reviews, he consistently ranked among the top candidates for promotions.

Additionally, Wildhaber asserted that a member of the Board of Police Commissioners told him he would need to “tone down [his] gayness” if he wanted to be promoted to lieutenant. This board member denied that the conversation ever occurred.

Wildhaber filed a discrimination complaint in April 2016. Shortly after filing the complaint, the department transferred him from a day shift at a precinct close to his home to an overnight shift at a precinct 27 miles away. Consequently, he filed a second complaint that included a charge of retaliation.

In the lawsuit, Wildhaber claimed that the department denied him promotions because his behavior and presentation did not conform to stereotypical ideas of how a male should behave. He further argued that the transfer to the night shift in a distant precinct was retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint. The St. Louis County Police Chief contended that Wildhaber’s sexual orientation was not a factor in the department’s decisions regarding his promotions. During the trial, Wildhaber’s attorneys called witnesses who described a pattern of homophobia within the police department.

The Verdict:

On the sexual orientation discrimination claim, the jury found in favor of Wildhaber and awarded him:

  • $1,980,000 in actual damages
  • $10,000,000 in punitive damages

On the retaliation claim, the jury also found in favor of Wildhaber and awarded him:

  • $990,000 in actual damages
  • $7,000,000 in punitive damages

After the verdict, the jury foreperson stated that the jury wanted their decision to “send a message” that “[i]f you discriminate, you are going to pay a big price.” The $17 million in punitive damages is significant and may be subject to an appeal.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination as Sex Discrimination under Title VII

Although this is a state case, it represents the ongoing discussion about whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related state laws prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Title VII states that it is an “unlawful employment practice for an employer … to discriminate against any individual with respect to [their] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The Supreme Court established that Title VII includes a prohibition on discrimination based on nonconformity to stereotypes of one’s assigned sex in its 1989 decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. The Court stated, “we are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group.” (490 U.S. 228, 1989).

As the Sixth Circuit explained in Smith v. City of Salem, “an employer who discriminates against women because, for instance, they do not wear dresses or makeup, is engaging in sex discrimination because the discrimination would not occur but for the victim’s sex” (378 F.3d 566, 574, 2004). This reasoning can apply to individuals in the LGBTQ community since discrimination based on nonconformity to stereotypical, heterosexual norms is inherently linked to a person’s sex.

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII’s protections extend to the LGBTQ community.

Retaliation is Prohibited under Title VII

Under Title VII, it is illegal for an employer to take adverse actions against an employee because that employee engaged in a protected activity. Protected activities include filing a complaint or opposing unlawful employment practices as outlined in Title VII.

If you believe you have been discriminated against or retaliated against due to your sexual orientation, consider the following questions:

  • Were you treated unfavorably despite good performance at work?
  • Were individuals of different sexual orientations or gender identities favored for promotions compared to you?
  • Does your gender identity or sexual orientation deviate from societal stereotypes of your assigned sex?
  • Did you report mistreatment by your employer or file a lawsuit against them, after which you experienced further discrimination or unfavorable treatment?