Category: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted on

Race and Sex Harassment Settlement Highlights Workplace Lessons

Stop Racism, race harassment, discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Settlement for Race and Sex Harassment Provides Justice and Lessons for All Workplaces

Workplace discrimination and harassment are more than just violations of personal dignity; they undermine morale, affect productivity, and leave lasting scars on employees. This truth came to light in a high-profile lawsuit involving Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy, who recently settled for $697,500 due to egregious allegations of race- and sex-based harassment. The settlement offers monetary compensation to the affected employees and highlights the critical importance of ensuring safe and inclusive workplaces.

This article will unpack the details of the settlement, its legal implications under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the broader lessons businesses and employees can learn to prevent such violations in the future.

Understanding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a landmark law that prohibits workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It serves as a foundation for equality in American employment, ensuring that no one is subjected to discrimination or harassment at work. Specifically, it covers:

  • Discrimination in hiring, firing, and promotions
  • Harassment based on race or sex
  • Retaliation against employees for reporting discrimination

This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Through litigation, investigations, and outreach, the EEOC works to uphold these civil rights, as seen in its handling of the recent case against Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy.

Details of the Harassment Allegations

The lawsuit against Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy revealed a deeply troubling pattern of workplace misconduct. Employees reported:

  • Persistent racial harassment, including repeated use of the “n-word” and other racially derogatory language by management and colleagues.
  • Sexually degrading behavior, such as sharing pornographic images and making offensive remarks aimed at women.
  • Retaliation against those who raised complaints. For example, within days of voicing concerns about harassment, several employees were unlawfully terminated.

This series of alleged incidents reflects clear violations of Title VII, spotlighting how systemic issues, when left unaddressed, can fester and harm both employees and the organizational culture.

Legal Violations in the Case

Effective training, anti-discrimination policies, and pathways for complaining about discrimination without retaliation are essential for providing a workplace free of harassment and discrimination,” said EEOC Houston District Office Regional Attorney Rudy Sustaita.

Bigfoot Energy Services and Iron Mountain Energy were accused of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in multiple ways:

  1. Race-Based Harassment: The pervasive use of racial slurs and targeting of Black employees created a hostile work environment.
  2. Sex-Based Harassment: The degrading behavior toward female employees constituted a violation of federal law prohibiting sex-based harassment.
  3. Retaliation: Firing employees for reporting harassment is strictly prohibited under Title VII. Such actions discourage others from stepping forward, perpetuating the cycle of abuse.

These violations reflect a failure not only to meet legal requirements but also to uphold fundamental workplace ethics.

Settlement and Its Implications

The settlement of $697,500 was a significant step toward justice for the impacted employees. But monetary relief was only part of the resolution. The consent decree also included actionable measures to prevent future violations:

  • Policy Overhaul: The companies must implement comprehensive anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies.
  • Mandatory Training: All employees, including management, are required to undergo training on Title VII, workplace harassment, and retaliation.
  • Regular Reporting: The companies must provide regular updates to the EEOC on training progress and any complaints of discrimination.

Such measures underscore the importance of preventative action, demonstrating that accountability extends beyond financial compensation.

Why Reporting Discrimination Matters

One key takeaway from this case is the value of speaking up about workplace harassment. Reporting discriminatory behavior is critical for several reasons:

  • Holds Employers Accountable: It forces organizations to confront and rectify toxic cultures.
  • Prevents Further Harm: By addressing issues early, you can protect yourself and others from ongoing abuse.
  • Triggers Legal Protections: Under Title VII, individuals who report harassment are protected from employer retaliation.

Still, reporting can feel daunting, especially when fear of backlash looms large. This underscores the need for robust workplace protections and trusted avenues for employees to raise concerns safely.

Building Safer Workplaces

Employers can take proactive steps to foster inclusive environments and guard against discrimination:

  • Establish clear anti-discrimination policies and communicate them to employees.
  • Conduct frequent training on workplace diversity, sensitivity, and harassment laws.
  • Implement effective reporting mechanisms to handle complaints promptly and confidentially.
  • Build a culture of accountability where everyone, regardless of position, is held to the same standards.

These actions not only protect employees but enhance organizational reputation, making businesses more attractive to top talent and clients alike.

Take Action If You Experience Discrimination

If you’ve faced race- or sex-based harassment at work, know that the law is on your side. Contacting a discrimination lawyer is a powerful step to hold employers accountable and secure justice. Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP specialize in workplace discrimination cases, offering the expertise and advocacy you need to take on even the biggest employers.

Workplace equality isn’t just a legal requirement; it’s a moral imperative that empowers productivity, trust, and innovation. By addressing harassment and advocating for fairness, we create businesses that thrive on respect and inclusion.

Posted on

Sex Discrimination: Nationwide Implications of Texas Ruling

Gender identity discrimination is illegal - Helmer Friedman LLP.

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” This order states that the federal government will use “biological” male and female categories. It also directed the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to remove parts of the Harassment Guidance that do not align with this order.

Since the Executive Order, the EEOC has been unable to make any changes to the Harassment Guidance. The EEOC needs a majority vote from its five members to do this. However, the Commission has not had enough members since late January 2025 because three positions are vacant. Although Acting Chair Andrea Lucas disagrees with the guidance parts that conflict with the Executive Order, she cannot change them without a quorum.

On May 15, 2025, a federal court in Texas ruled that the Harassment Guidance’s definition of “sex” was unlawful because it went beyond the biological categories of male and female. The court found that the guidance misinterpreted the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County. The Bostock case only addressed whether firing someone for being homosexual or transgender violated Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination. The court confirmed that Bostock did not expand the definition of “sex” and did not cover issues like bathrooms or locker rooms.

The Texas court’s decision vacated parts of the Harassment Guidance related to sexual orientation and gender identity. This includes guidance on harassment in sex-segregated facilities and the use of preferred pronouns.

This decision affects not only the case parties but also applies nationwide. The Texas court decided that its ruling impacts agency action more broadly.

Despite this ruling, the EEOC cannot remove its vacated guidance parts because it still lacks a quorum. However, the EEOC has made some changes on its website to show which parts of the Harassment Guidance have been vacated, marking those sections in gray and adding alerts about the changes.

The Bostock decision is still in effect. Title VII continues to protect employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Although the EEOC may not pursue litigation on these issues based on its recent actions, it still has the authority to do so. Employees can still file private claims for such discrimination.

Posted on

Discriminatory Scheduling Policy Gender Equality Settlement

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

Exciting news from Dallas County! This week, the commissioners approved a significant settlement of $1.65 million benefiting nine brave current and former female detention officers. These women took a stand against a gender-based scheduling policy that a federal appeals court deemed discriminatory, highlighting a critical issue of fairness in the workplace.

Some of our clients worked for Dallas County for over 20 years and truly believed they were entitled to full weekends off. It’s disheartening to realize that personal circumstances beyond one’s control could upend what should be a guaranteed benefit.

Back in 2019, the Dallas County Jail made a troubling shift in how weekend shifts for detention officers were assigned. Instead of being allocated based on seniority, the decision was made according to gender, with only male officers allowed to enjoy full weekends off. This sparked rightful concern and ultimately led the officers to take legal action against the sheriff’s department.

The settlement, approved on Tuesday after mediation following the appeals court ruling, marks a turning point. After deducting attorney fees and related expenses, plaintiffs Debbie Stoxstell and Felesia Hamilton received $176,789 each, the largest amounts among the group—a well-deserved reward for their courage and persistence.

A pivotal ruling in 2023 has changed the landscape for discrimination claims in the United States Fifth Circuit, which spans Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. As David Henderson, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, pointed out, this new direction aligns the Fifth Circuit with a broader, more favorable national approach to addressing employment discrimination.

Henderson shared the impact of this case: “Some of our clients worked for Dallas County for over 20 years and truly believed they were entitled to full weekends off. It’s disheartening to realize that personal circumstances beyond one’s control could upend what should be a guaranteed benefit.”

Adding to the conversation, Senior Sergeant Christopher J. Dyer of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Association, which champions fair treatment for sheriff’s department employees, clarified how the policy came to be. He noted that since the majority of their employees are female, and due to a shortage of male detention officers, a separate seniority system was created. Unfortunately, this led to a scenario where senior female officers could lose their weekend time off. A sergeant even mentioned that they believed it was safer for male officers to have weekends off compared to weekdays—an assertion that the affected women challenged, feeling their voices were overlooked as they raised concerns with management.

Consequently, the officers pursued legal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on various protected traits, including gender. Although the district attorney’s office admitted in court filings that the policy was still in effect, they denied any claims of discrimination. The county argued that the scheduling changes were temporary and that assigning male guards was essential for certain roles involving male inmates, citing safety and privacy interests.

However, Dyer passionately argued that the rationale behind the policy simply didn’t hold water. “These ladies are working in housing, not in processing. The tasks they perform don’t significantly correlate with roles that require a male presence, such as those involved in intake or release.”

Race, Gender discrimination lawyer Helmer Friedman LLP.

Originally, a lower court dismissed the case in 2020 based on earlier legal precedents, with Judge David Godbey indicating the women had not experienced adverse employment actions. Initially, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals supported that view, but after a thorough en banc hearing, they revisited the case. In a groundbreaking decision, they ruled in 2023 that the policy was indeed a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The judges concluded that their previous definition of what constitutes an “adverse employment action” was too narrow, paving the way for broader interpretations that recognize discrimination based on altered terms and conditions of employment.

Dyer elaborated on the significant changes within the department, noting that leadership responsible for implementing the controversial time-off policy has since changed. He emphasized the importance of fair scheduling: “Whether or not someone has weekends off can greatly impact job satisfaction. Ultimately, no one’s work conditions should hinge on their gender.”

Very encouragingly, the recent settlement and official rulings will remain intact despite any changes in federal policy regarding workplace discrimination. This development not only compensates these courageous women for the challenges they faced but also sends a powerful message throughout industries everywhere. It encourages organizations to reassess potentially outdated policies and practices to foster a more equitable working environment.

This case serves as a vital reminder of the ongoing journey toward gender equality in the workplace. It highlights the necessity for continuous vigilance and advocacy for fairness, ensuring that future generations of employees thrive in an environment free from discrimination. With each progressive step, we get closer to a workplace where everyone is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. Let’s keep the momentum going!

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.

This post is based on reporting by Toluwani Osibamowo.

Posted on

$250,000 Settlement in Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

The former executive secretary to Superintendent Gerald Fitzhugh, a respected 30-year veteran of the Orange Board of Education, has bravely shared her troubling experience of enduring years of sexual, racial, and age-based harassment. Despite her long-standing dedication and significant expertise acquired while serving under 12 superintendents, she has found herself in a hostile work environment marked by discriminatory and demeaning behavior.

According to court filings, Fitzhugh allegedly made repeated inappropriate comments in her presence, often expressing his sexual preferences in vulgar and offensive ways. In one particularly distressing instance, he reportedly said he was “not sexually attracted to dark-skinned African Americans such as the plaintiff” and indicated a preference for specific acts “with light-skinned women.” Such remarks not only reflect a deep-seated prejudice but also exemplify the pain and isolation felt by those subjected to such treatment.

These actions violate crucial federal protections established to uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Similarly, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is designed to protect employees aged 40 and older, while the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ensures fair treatment for everyone, regardless of their sex.

These laws emerged from the civil rights movement, a powerful journey that aimed to dismantle systemic injustices and promote equality. They not only advance social justice but also contribute to a healthier economy by fostering a diverse workforce that drives innovation and enhances the quality of life for everyone.

The Orange Board of Education will pay $250,000 to settle this hostile work environment lawsuit.

Employment lawyers play a vital role in advocating for these fundamental rights, ensuring that the hard-won progress of anti-discrimination laws is upheld. Their dedication to supporting victims and holding perpetrators accountable is essential in creating workplaces where individuals of all races, genders, ages, and backgrounds can feel safe, valued, and empowered. Their work not only protects the dignity of workers but also nurtures a thriving future for all of us.

Posted on

Pregnancy Discrimination, Retaliation for Reporting Discrimination Settles for $73k

Pregnancy discrimination accommodations.

In a recent incident that has understandably sparked significant public concern, White Pine Senior Living, an assisted living facility in Minnesota, is facing serious allegations of pregnancy discrimination. This lawsuit brings to light the painful experience of a pregnant employee who, after receiving a well-deserved promotion, found herself in a distressing situation at work that ultimately forced her to resign. In an effort to address these serious issues, White Pine Senior Living has come to a settlement agreement of $73,000 and committed to implementing important changes to improve its workplace environment.

This troubling situation began when a dedicated female employee, celebrated for her hard work and promoted for her achievements, disclosed her pregnancy. Sadly, she was met not with support but with intimidation from her manager, who threatened her with demotion and subjected her to unwarranted scrutiny of her performance. When she bravely reported the discriminatory behavior, she faced retaliation through negative performance reviews that threatened her job security. The unjust pressure from management to hire a replacement only added to her distress, as they unfoundedly assumed that her pregnancy would affect her reliability.

Such treatment is not only deeply troubling but also a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from discrimination based on sex, including pregnancy. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act, an important amendment to Title VII, specifically aims to safeguard the rights of pregnant employees against such unjust treatment. Under these laws, pregnant employees must be treated fairly and equitably, and cannot face discrimination in any aspect of their employment, including hiring, promotions, job assignments, and benefits.

If you or someone you care about has experienced pregnancy discrimination, it’s crucial to take action promptly. Reporting these incidents is key to protecting your rights and preventing further harm. Victims of pregnancy discrimination can easily share their experiences through a dedicated reporting form. By speaking out, you not only advocate for your own rights but also contribute to creating a more equitable and supportive workplace for everyone.

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 UC Board of Regents

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

The California university 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 the University of California Board of Regents 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 UCs have breached the law and calls for an end to any race-conscious admissions criteria.

This is not an isolated incident for the California university system 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.