Category: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted on

What Happens to Harassment Claims After a Business Is Acquired?

Celebrating a victory for justice.

What Happens to Discrimination and Harassment Claims When a Business Is Bought by a Larger Company?

Workplace harassment and discrimination are pervasive issues that affect millions of employees worldwide each year. From inappropriate comments and unfair treatment to deeply entrenched systems of bias, these experiences can leave employees feeling powerless and isolated. When a small business—your workplace—gets acquired by a larger company, questions often arise about what happens to ongoing or unresolved discrimination and harassment claims.

Do these claims disappear? Will the new company hold the previous owners accountable? Can victims expect their concerns to be addressed under a new management team? This blog explores the impact of corporate acquisitions on employee rights, providing clarity and actionable advice for navigating this complex scenario.

Workplace Acquisitions and Their Impact on Employees

Corporate acquisitions, where a larger company buys and takes over a smaller business, are commonplace in today’s business landscape. They often bring drastic changes for employees—from transitions in company culture to restructuring of roles and policies. While these mergers are marketed as growth opportunities for the business, employees may find themselves grappling with uncertainty and upheaval.

For employees who have filed discrimination or harassment claims prior to the acquisition, this uncertainty can turn into fear. Questions abound—is the new management obligated to honor pending claims? Will there be retaliation? Or will such complaints be swept under the rug, citing “corporate restructuring”?

An acquisition often leads to significant changes in Human Resources (HR) systems, policies, and responsible personnel. At times, it feels like the slate has been wiped clean for the incoming organization. However, this doesn’t mean previous claims are invalid—it’s a matter of understanding your legal protections and the process of maintaining accountability.

Legal Rights and Protections for Employees

Employees are protected by federal and state employment laws against harassment and discrimination under regulations such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). These laws make it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, and other protected categories.

When a business is acquired, these protections do not disappear:

  1. Successor Liability:

Many jurisdictions enforce “successor liability,” meaning the larger company acquiring the smaller business inherits the legal responsibility for claims filed at the original organization. Employees should understand that their rights don’t evaporate just because ownership has changed hands.

  1. Pending Claims:

If a claim has already been filed with an external agency—such as the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)—the new owner is legally compelled to address it.

  1. New Policies:

While the new owners may implement new anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies, this doesn’t absolve them of addressing past grievances under the prior management.

One critical point for employees to note is that the details of an acquisition agreement might stipulate whether discrimination claims are handled by the acquiring company or remain the responsibility of the previous owners. Understanding these provisions in the agreement is vital.

What Employees Can Do to Protect Their Rights

Filing or continuing a harassment or discrimination claim during a corporate acquisition can be intimidating. However, there are steps employees can take to ensure their rights are protected and their voices are heard amidst the upheaval:

  1. Document Everything:

Maintain records of incidents, including dates, times, witnesses, and specifics of any harassment or discrimination you’ve experienced. Documentation becomes even more crucial during an acquisition to preserve the context and details of your claim.

  1. Retain Claim Records:

If you’ve already filed a claim, make sure you have copies of all documentation, including communication with HR, legal filings, and correspondence with external agencies like the EEOC.

  1. Seek Legal Advice:

Consulting an employment attorney can help clarify how claims are addressed during acquisitions in your state. A lawyer can provide insights specific to your case and advocate for your rights if retaliation or dismissal occurs.

  1. Monitor New Policies:

Pay close attention to new codes of conduct and employee policies introduced by the acquiring company. If unclear, ask for explicit clarification on how prior complaints will be handled under these new guidelines.

  1. Continue Reporting:

If the inappropriate behavior persists, don’t hesitate to voice concerns to the new HR team. Just because the ownership or reporting structure changes doesn’t mean the behavior should be tolerated.

Remember, laws are designed to offer robust protection, but you may need to be proactive about ensuring they are enforced.

Real-Life Case Studies

Case Study 1: Accountability in the Workplace

In 2017, a teenage employee at Elite Wireless endured repeated sexual harassment from a sales manager, including unwelcome advances and requests for sex. The situation worsened when the sales manager sexually assaulted her during a holiday party. Despite the employee filing reports and a criminal complaint, Elite Wireless failed to take action, allowing the manager to continue working alongside her. In 2019, Wireless World acquired Elite Wireless and, according to the EEOC’s charges, became liable for the company’s failure to address these serious allegations. This case highlights the critical need for swift and decisive responses to workplace harassment to protect employees and promote accountability.

Case Study 2: Discrimination and Corporate Bias

Mr. Sizar joined Hatch Mott MacDonald (a predecessor to The Mott MacDonald) in 2013 and advanced through the corporate ranks, consistently earning praise for his strong performance through glowing reviews and evaluations. Despite his success, he observed a troubling pattern of bias within the organization, where younger white males were favored over more qualified non-white, female, and older employees.

For example, his supervisor, Daniel Tempelis, terminated two senior staff members in their early sixties—one of Chinese descent and the other of Asian Indian heritage—and replaced them with younger, less experienced white males. Mr. Sizar also reported that numerous other non-white and older employees were similarly dismissed and replaced by less qualified, younger white males.

This case underscores the pervasive issue of systemic discrimination in the workplace. It serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of fostering equity, addressing bias, and holding organizations accountable for the fair treatment of all employees.

What This Means for You

Discrimination and harassment should never be overlooked, whether under your current employer or a new corporate owner. If your workplace is undergoing changes due to an acquisition, remember that federal and state laws exist to protect you. Don’t hesitate to consult professionals, document your experiences thoroughly, and speak up if necessary.

Acquisitions might bring a storm of change, but your rights form the anchor. Stay informed, proactive, and engaged in ensuring your voice is heard.

Are you currently dealing with workplace harassment or discrimination during a corporate acquisition? Seek legal advice to protect your rights and review your options. The right support could make all the difference.

Posted on

Kurt Bluemel Accused of Pregnancy Discrimination: A Closer Look at the PWFA

Pregnancy discrimination lawyers - protecting pregnant employees from discrimination.

Kurt Bluemel Accused of Pregnancy Discrimination: A Closer Look at the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

A recently filed lawsuit against Kurt Bluemel, a Baltimore County-based commercial nursery, underscores the critical importance of enforcing pregnancy discrimination laws. The complaint alleges that the company failed to accommodate a pregnant employee seeking to return to work after maternity leave. Upon her attempt to resume her position, she was informed that no work was available despite the company hiring new, non-pregnant employees both before and after her return attempt. Such actions, if proven, directly violate the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This case raises serious concerns about the commitment of businesses to upholding workers’ rights, particularly those of pregnant employees.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: A Timely Intervention

Enacted to protect the rights of soon-to-be-mothers in the workplace, the PWFA requires employers, agencies, unions, and employees to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees experiencing limitations related to pregnancy or childbirth. This is unless such accommodations would lead to undue hardship to the business.

The enforcement of the PWFA mirrors the provisions of Title VII and related acts, permitting damages but with limitations if the employer can prove a good faith effort to provide reasonable accommodations. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been charged with the task of creating regulations and has made improvements to charge processing.

Decoding the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

The PWFA is comprehensive in its approach to safeguarding pregnant employees. It defines “known limitation” as any physical or mental condition related to pregnancy or childbirth communicated to the employer. Even conditions that may seem minor, episodic, or related to general health, if related to pregnancy or childbirth, must be acknowledged by the employer.

The Act provides a framework to support reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees, from temporary suspension of certain functions, job restructuring, to assignment in a light or modified duty program. Employers are required to find the best fit that does not result in undue hardship.

The Importance of Career Continuity for Women

The devastating reality is that women often face significant hurdles in maintaining their careers while pregnant or raising families. This not only stunts career growth but also disrupts financial stability and well-being. It is absolutely critical that businesses take steps to accommodate pregnant employees’ needs, ensuring they can effectively balance their professional responsibilities and personal health.

A Final Word – Know Your Rights

If you have personally experienced pregnancy-related discrimination or retaliation, it’s paramount that you seek assistance. Contact an experienced employment law attorney who can help assess your situation and guide you through the legal recourse available. The law is there to protect you – you don’t have to face discrimination in silence.

Posted on

The Battle Toward Equal Pay: Unveiling the Maryland Department of Health’s Sex Discrimination Case

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

The echoes of “equal pay for equal work” resonate more than ever with the recent settlement of a sex discrimination lawsuit involving the Thomas B. Finan Center of the Maryland Department of Health. This mental health center, based in Cumberland, Maryland, will pay a sizable sum of $270,000 to address pay injustices that have persisted for years.

The lawsuit alleged that a less experienced male recreation therapist received a higher wage compared to his four female colleagues who had greater job experience. Unfortunately, their requests for pay equalization fell on deaf ears. The unjust situation squarely contravenes the Equal Pay Act of 1963, a historic legislation that outlawed gender-based pay discrimination.

Passed more than five decades ago, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 set the foundation for a more equitable work environment. Powerhouse politicians like Esther Peterson, the then-assistant secretary of Labor and director of the Women’s Bureau, and President John F. Kennedy, were instrumental in its enactment. Their relentless advocacy and sheer determination ensured the landmark law was etched into the statutory books.

This act revolutionized the workplace dynamic, offering women new opportunities and greater earning potential than ever before. However, the Finan Center case is a grim reminder that the battle for gender parity continues.

If you are a woman who suspects you may be a victim of wage discrimination, it is crucial to recognize your rights. The workplace should be fair and free from any form of discrimination, including gender-based pay discrimination. If you observe discrepancies in your pay compared to your male counterparts who perform equal work, don’t hesitate to raise it with your HR personnel. HR professionals themselves should take the lead in speaking out against such discriminatory practices.

Finally, remember, you are not alone in this fight. Seek the counsel of an experienced employment law attorney to protect your rights and ensure you receive equal pay for equal work. While the journey toward achieving gender pay equality may be tough, each step forward propels us all towards a more equitable future. Every woman deserves equal pay for equal work. The fight for equity and justice continues, and together, we can make a difference.

Posted on

Jury Awards $2.17 Million in Sex Harassment Lawsuit Against SkyWest Airlines

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

A troubling story is unfolding in the aviation industry. Sarah Budd, a former SkyWest Airlines employee, bravely shared her experience of sexual harassment by colleagues at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. She courageously spoke up about the crude and demeaning behavior she faced in a mostly male department. Sadly, her calls for help from her bosses were ignored.

On her first day, a co-worker asked if she “liked whips and chains and leathers,” suggesting she’d fit in well if she did. Over the months, she endured countless off-color jokes and comments. “They didn’t seem to care if I was uncomfortable,” she told the jury. “In fact, it only spurred them on more. … It’s like they enjoyed my discomfort.”

Her male colleagues hid behind crude jokes and inappropriate comments, creating a toxic environment that left her feeling unsafe and isolated. Despite her attempts to report the harassment, her supervisor took no immediate action, highlighting an uncaring culture.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 clearly prohibits such harassment, and SkyWest Airlines failed to manage Budd’s case properly, violating this law. It’s a grim reminder of the struggles women face at work, where their concerns often go unheard.

“Ms. Budd had over a decade of experience at SkyWest and before the sexual harassment occurred and had intended to retire there,” said Alexa Lang, a trial attorney in the EEOC’s Dallas District Office. “All Ms. Budd wanted was to be heard and to stop this from happening to other women. The jury heard her. We hope the verdict sends a message to SkyWest and other employers that they must take responsibility for making sure their workplaces are free from sexually hostile conduct. Everyone deserves to feel safe at work.”

Taking her case to court, the jury awarded Sarah $2.17 million for the trauma she endured. However, an outdated provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 reduced this to just $300,000, the maximum for companies with over 500 employees. This unfair cap undermines the real harm victims suffer.

Efforts are underway to fix these disparities with the Equal Remedies Act of 2024. If passed, this law will eliminate damage caps in employment discrimination cases, offering more fair remedies for victims.

Despite the emotional turmoil, Sarah’s resilience led to a unanimous verdict from the Dallas jury, finding SkyWest Airlines guilty of harassment and inaction.

For those facing similar situations, remember you’re not alone. An experienced employment lawyer, especially one familiar with sexual harassment cases, can be a huge help. A committed lawyer can even take your case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Standing up against discrimination and injustice isn’t easy, but with the right legal support, victims can reclaim their dignity and peace.

Posted on

Religious Discrimination – Failure to Accommodate

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

Lawsuit Charging Debt Collector Denied Employee Unpaid Time Off to Observe Religious Holidays, Forcing Him to Quit

The history of the United States is littered with countless examples of discrimination and injustices. To help address this pressing issue, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted. This federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. The legislation was necessary to address widespread and profound discriminatory practices rampant in the employment sector. The Act has served society by promoting a wholesome and diverse workplace, boosting economic productivity by placing competent individuals in positions irrespective of their identities.

In light of this regulation, the recent case involving Center One and Capital Management Services offers a pertinent example of religious discrimination. Center One, a provider of debt collection services, and its related company, Capital Management Services, fell under scrutiny for alleged religious discrimination. The lawsuit, filed in 2016, claimed that an employee practicing Messianic Judaism was denied a change in work schedule to observe religious holidays. The company refused due to the employee’s inability to provide certification from a religious leader or organization.

The company’s actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which clearly states employers must present reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious practices, barring undue hardship on the employers’ business. The employee was represented by attorneys from the Stanford Law School Religious Liberty Clinic, and despite the district court initially granting summary judgment for Center One and Capital Management Services, the appellate court vacated this ruling.

This case eventually resulted in the companies agreeing to a settlement before trial and paying the employee $60,000. Additionally, they were prohibited from denying reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs and specifically barred from requiring certification from a religious leader or group as a precondition for providing religious accommodation.

Cases like this are a stark reminder that religious discrimination still pervades our society, even in today’s progressive times. It’s important to note that if you, or anyone else, are experiencing religious discrimination, including refusal of employment due to religion or denial of religious accommodation, it’s advisable to seek the services of a lawyer specializing in employment law. Lawyers with this expertise can guide you through legal complexities, ensuring you get the protection and justice you deserve under the law and ultimately contributing to a more equitable and respectful society.

Posted on

Achieving Equality: A New Era in Fire Department Culture

Women firefighters also fight for equality. Workplace discrimination and harassment lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

The Journey of Women Firefighters: A Tribute Amidst the Mountain Fire

As the Mountain fire continues to put our brave firefighters to the test, we take a moment to shine a light on our women firefighters and their journey over the years. Despite the raging fires, we stand in awe of the slow yet steady progress in the world of firefighting as it opened its doors to women.

Historical Milestones: From Molly Williams to Judy Brewer

From Molly Williams, held in slavery, bravely serving as a firefighter in the early-1800s, to Judy Brewer, the first full-time career female firefighter hired in the United States, women have slowly but surely carved a place in this profession. Today, the fire service in the United States boasts around 15,000 women serving as career firefighters and an additional 78,000 volunteers.

Current Landscape: Women in Firefighting Today

The Challenges Ahead: Addressing Gender Disparities in the Fire Service

However, there is much terrain yet to conquer. Women still only account for 4% of career firefighters and 11% of volunteers. We recognize the existing challenges and the necessity for further inclusion in the fire service workforce. But the story is not just about numbers.

The Impact of Discrimination: A Case Study of Rebecca Reynolds

Discrimination and harassment at least partially explain why women firefighters have only increased by 0.3% over the past 25 years. One example of such harassment is why The Kansas City Council’s finance committee is poised to approve a record $1.3 million settlement for firefighter Rebecca Reynolds, who alleges years of harassment from male colleagues due to her gender, sexual orientation, and age. Incidents included questioning her authority and an alleged act of a colleague urinating on her belongings. Reynolds plans to drop two pending discrimination lawsuits in exchange for the settlement, which represents the largest ever in a fire department discrimination case. The settlement follows the city’s history of addressing harassment claims, with recent settlements totaling $2.8 million in the past two years alone.

Progress and Change: Making Fire Departments More Inclusive

Celebrating Leadership: Women Breaking the Glass Ceiling in Firefighting

Over the years, laws and norms have changed to make fire departments more inclusive and family-friendly. Station designs have been reconsidered, grooming standards revisited, and there is an ongoing effort to make uniforms and Personal Protective Equipment more accessible for women. Women have broken the glass ceiling in leadership roles, leading large departments as chiefs, and serving in prestigious positions like the U.S. fire administrator and the superintendent of the National Fire Academy.

The Importance of Diversity in the Fire Service

We salute our women firefighters for their courage, resilience, and their contribution towards building a better, more inclusive fire service that celebrates diversity. Each step forward not only benefits women in the service but all firefighters, and the community they valiantly serve.

Looking Forward: Honoring Women Firefighters and Pushing for Equity

As women continue to strive for equality and inclusion within the firefighting profession, it is crucial to be aware of the resources and support systems available to them. Experiencing discrimination or harassment in the workplace can be daunting, but it is important to take action and seek the guidance of an experienced employment attorney. Legal professionals specializing in employment law can provide invaluable assistance, helping to navigate complex legal systems and ensuring that rights are protected. Taking this vital step not only serves the individuals affected but strengthens collective efforts toward a more inclusive, respectful, and equitable environment for all firefighters.

Let us remember, as the fires rage on, the progress we’ve made and the challenges yet to overcome. We stand with our women in firefighting, honoring their past, cherishing their present, and pushing for a more inclusive, equitable future.

Posted on

Overcoming Barriers: Racial Discrimination and Arbitration Agreements

Workplace violations, discrimination, whistleblower retaliation lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a recent incident that has sparked important conversations around racial discrimination in the workplace, Sureste Property Group, along with its divisions Sureste Property Services and Sureste Development, agreed to pay $75,000 in a race discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that the real estate operating company unjustly terminated a black project development manager due to his race.

“This case underscores the sad reality that racism in the workplace still exists,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

The former manager, who had been the first and only black individual in his role at the company, was said to have been fired under the pretense of being “lazy” and not fitting in with the company’s “culture.” Despite performing well and handling more workload than his white colleagues, he was let go less than a year into his role. The company later tried to justify the termination, claiming that his role was no longer required, only to promote a less qualified white employee to his position within a month.

Such an act contravenes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that explicitly forbids all forms of discrimination on the basis of race. Moreover, it is essential to note that employees who have signed arbitration agreements are not devoid of rights. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) continues to be fully accessible for employees to assert their EEO rights and have their cases investigated, regardless of any pre-existing arbitration agreements.

This assertion is based on two significant Supreme Court rulings. The first, Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., articulated that an arbitration agreement does not preclude an individual from filing a charge with the EEOC. The second, EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., maintained that the EEOC can pursue relief for a victim of discrimination, regardless of any enforceable arbitration agreement between the victim and their employer.

“When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny.” Gregory D. Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, commented after a recent Court of Appeals victory involving mandatory arbitration.

With the conclusion of the Sureste Property Group lawsuit, a consent decree spanning three years has been approved by the federal court. The decree obliges the defendants, their subsidiaries, and successor companies to provide monetary relief, distribute anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies, and post notices about the settlement. The company must also administer specialized training to all supervisors, managers, and employees, alongside regular reports on race discrimination complaints during the decree’s term to the EEOC.

This lawsuit reinforces the need for employees experiencing racial discrimination to pursue all legal avenues, regardless of any arbitration agreements. Discrimination in any form is unacceptable and employees have the right and freedom to fight against any such injustices.

Posted on

Racial Harassment & Discrimination at LM Wind Power: A Closer Look

Racial harassment and retaliation in the wind power industry, contact Helmer Friedman LLP.

LM Wind Power, Inc. Agrees to Pay $125,000 in Racial Harassment and Retaliation Lawsuit

A troubling incident at the Grand Forks office of LM Wind Power, Inc. has led the company to agree to a $125,000 settlement in a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit. The case centers on a Black employee who endured a persistently hostile work environment, shedding light on the entrenched racial prejudice that still permeates certain sectors of corporate America.

While LM Wind Power’s website professes a commitment to balancing profitable growth with integrity and environmental stewardship, the claims of alignment with human rights starkly contrast with the experiences of racial harassment, a toxic workplace atmosphere, and retaliation faced by Black employees at the Grand Forks location.

“Title VII protects employees from race discrimination and guarantees them the right to work in an environment free from racial insults and threats,” stated Greg Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office. “Employers have an obligation to address and rectify offensive conduct, and the court decree today will help ensure a safe and respectful work environment for LM Wind Power’s employees.”

It is crucial to recognize that a racially hostile work environment is not only illegal but also profoundly damaging to both the affected individuals and the overall workplace culture. More importantly, such an environment tarnishes the reputation of the company. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer… to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

The Black employee at LM Wind Power, who faced relentless racial slurs, threats of violence, and retaliatory actions after reporting the harassment, became a victim of this legal breach. Despite his appeals for help, the company’s leadership failed to address the situation effectively, resulting in severe repercussions.

The effects of racial harassment, a toxic work environment, and retaliation are deeply felt, both physically and psychologically. Victims can experience heightened stress, depression, anxiety, and diminished self-esteem. They may feel helpless, distracted, or fearful, which adversely impacts their performance and overall well-being.

The director of the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, Amrith Aakre, said, “It is critical that employees feel free to report or oppose illegal discrimination without fear of retaliation. Terminating an employee for reporting discrimination is illegal, and the EEOC will continue to vigorously enforce this law.”

The repercussions of such incidents extend beyond the individual; they create a culture of fear and discomfort among other employees, leading to decreased productivity, morale, and job satisfaction. On a larger scale, it can irreparably harm the company’s reputation, resulting in the loss of business opportunities, customers, and the trust of shareholders and the public.

Although LM Wind Power has taken steps to mitigate future occurrences by providing monetary damages and back pay to the affected employee and implementing training to prevent future discrimination, the damage is already done. This incident serves as a cautionary tale for employers about the vital importance of fostering an inclusive and respectful workplace and the potentially damaging consequences of failing to promptly and adequately address racial discrimination and harassment.

Posted on

Waste Industries USA Pays $3.1 Million to Settle Sex Harassment, Discrimination Lawsuit

Sex stereo types were destroyed. Rosie the Riveter an icon used to encourage women to enter job force and take over jobs left vacant by men at war.

In a recent development, Waste Industries U.S.A., LLC, TransWaste Services, LLC, Waste Industries Atlanta LLC, and GFL Environmental, Inc. (collectively referred to as Waste Industries) have agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle a federal lawsuit alleging sex discrimination. The lawsuit highlighted the denial of hiring qualified female applicants for truck driver positions based solely on their gender.

Such discriminatory practices violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which explicitly states in “SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]” that it is unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or to discriminate against someone regarding compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment due to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

“Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring, including those that contribute to the underrepresentation of women in certain industries, is a strategic enforcement priority for the EEOC,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows.

The details reveal that since 2016, Waste Industries systematically denied qualified female applicants truck driver positions at multiple locations across Georgia. Even more troubling were the reports of sexual harassment during the interview process, which included derogatory remarks about women’s appearances and sexist inquiries questioning their ability to perform what was deemed “a man’s job.”

This overt sexual harassment and discrimination foster a hostile and damaging environment for women who are fully capable of excelling in roles traditionally held by men. Not only does this deny them fair employment opportunities, but it also cultivates an atmosphere of fear and unease.

History consistently demonstrates that women are just as capable as their male counterparts across various fields. During World War II, for example, women broke free from traditional roles to take on jobs predominantly held by men. Rosie the Riveter became an iconic figure in the United States, symbolizing the women who worked in factories and shipyards during the war, producing munitions and essential supplies. Many women stepped into new roles, filling the positions left vacant by men who joined the military.

To address these injustices, Waste Industries has not only agreed to the financial settlement but has also committed to developing proactive hiring, recruitment, and outreach plans aimed at increasing the pool of qualified female driver applicants. Furthermore, they will train employees on Title VII’s prohibition against gender discrimination in hiring, implement anti-discrimination policies, post employee notices, and allow the EEOC to monitor complaints of sex discrimination.

In conclusion, this case serves as a powerful reminder for all employers to foster equal opportunity and actively prevent any form of harassment or discrimination based on sex in accordance with the regulations established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you, a friend, or a family member have experienced sexual harassment or discrimination while applying for a job, contact an employment law attorney today.

Posted on

Unjust Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Glunt Industries and Merit Capital Partners

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

The searchlight of justice has once again illuminated the dark corners of discrimination, this time at Glunt Industries and Merit Capital Partners. According to charges filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01687-CAB), these companies infringed upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by perpetuating gender discrimination in hiring practices and retaliating against individuals who dared to defy this destructive status quo.

When Merit Capital Partners purchased Glunt Industries in 2012, they gained control of a major player in the USA’s fabricating and machining industry. However, behind the scenes, an antiquated and biased approach to hiring simmered. Allegedly, these companies excluded women from production roles, a clear contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination because of sex.

This exclusionary bias extended to employees within the company. When the HR director, a woman herself, stood against these practices and continued hiring women, she was summarily dismissed. Taking their disregard for policy and justice a notch higher, the accused companies also purportedly discarded records of applicants, thereby flouting federal record-keeping laws.

The history of women’s employment rights in the United States is marred by such discriminatory practices. From being unable to find work and struggling to support their families, women have paved a long, hard path toward equal employment opportunities. The Civil Rights Act was a watershed moment in this journey, providing legal safeguards against bias in the workplace, particularly in hiring.

The law requires employers to maintain records of applicants to ensure transparency and accountability. This mandate is encapsulated in Section 1602.14 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The companies’ alleged disregard of this law underscores the importance of vigilance in enforcing such protections.

If you or someone you know suspects they have been a victim of employment discrimination based on sex or gender, remember – you are not alone, nor are you without recourse. It’s essential to seek advice from a qualified employment law attorney. Look no further than Helmer Friedman LLP, who has literally written the ‘book‘ on employment law. They are well-equipped to navigate the complexities of such cases and can guide you towards securing the justice you deserve.

Remember, laws are not just created to protect us; they ensure an equitable society where everyone can contribute and thrive without bias. Therefore, standing up against discrimination is not just about justice for one, but about progress for all.