Category: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted on

Protecting Construction Industry Employees and Union Members from Hostile Work Environment

Trade union members discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Every employee, irrespective of their industry, has the right to a dignified and respectful workplace environment. Distinct laws and regulations protect against discrimination and harassment that can foster a hostile work environment. This article will focus on the construction industry and union members, elucidating the laws that arm them against such unacceptable situations.

The Construction Industry and Trade Unions

Discrimination and harassment on a construction site can take various forms. Whether it’s racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, such occurrences can significantly impact a worker’s mental and physical health, productivity, and overall work satisfaction. Recognizing this, the government has established strict laws and rules to protect the rights of all construction workers, including those members of trade unions.

Fostering a Respectful Work Environment

In a recent civil rights case filed by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights brought a lawsuit against the Local 11 Ironworkers Union. The complaint accuses Local 11 of fostering a hostile work environment, resulting in unlawful discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and sex. The union’s leaders and members allegedly perpetuated this toxic environment, failing to take adequate measures to prevent, halt, or rectify the situation.

Additionally, Local 11 is accused of racial discrimination through its employment referral system, which systematically overlooked Black members for job opportunities and assigned them less desirable positions even when selected for jobs. These charges of discrimination and harassment highlight that no organization is exempt from the obligation to maintain a respectful and equitable work environment.

Legal Protections

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to unions and construction employees. Specifically, Title VII of the act prohibits discrimination by trade unions, schools, or employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government. This provision ensures equal treatment and protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex within union-related contexts.

Your Rights Are Protected

As a construction worker or a union member, you can rest assured that many laws safeguard your rights. You should not tolerate any form of discrimination or harassment at your workplace. Stand firm against such misconduct and know that the law stands with you.

In conclusion, a hostile work environment is detrimental to individual workers and the industry’s productivity and integrity. The government has implemented stringent laws to prevent such occurrences and protect the rights and dignity of all construction industry employees and trade union members.

Posted on

Triumph: Standing Against Gender Identity Harassment

Gender identity harassment is a civil rights violation - contact the gender identity harassment lawyers Los Angeles - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Today, we bring you an encouraging tale from the corporate world, a story of courage, resilience, and justice. This is the saga of a manager at Columbia River Healthcare Inc. who swam against the tide of adversity. This person, preferring gender-neutral pronouns, was subjected to harrowing discrimination and harassment, not only from the staff but also from the management of the organization.

For over six months, even after the manager had courageously disclosed their gender identity and choice of pronouns, the inappropriate and disrespectful behavior continued. It was a blatant disregard for the manager’s personal preferences and a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits any form of discrimination and harassment based on sex, including gender identity.

“Accidental slip-ups may happen, but repeatedly and intentionally misgendering someone is a clear form of sex-based harassment,” said Elizabeth M. Cannon, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “Employers have a duty to intervene when employees—including transgender, non-binary, and other gender non-conforming individuals—are treated maliciously in the workplace because of their gender identity. Training can be a powerful tool for informing employees of their rights and proactively preventing harassment.”

This manager, unfortunately, fell victim to a hostile work environment. They were continuously and intentionally addressed with pronouns that conflicted with their gender identity. Attempts to address this issue internally were futile, resulting in no appropriate action from Columbia River Healthcare.

However, this cold shoulder from management did not deter the supervisor from standing up for their rights. They had the courage to fight back against this clear violation of their rights.

It is worth noting that in the landmark case of Bostock v. Clayton County in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Title VII’s protections extend to discrimination and harassment on the basis of gender identity or expression. This means employers cannot discriminate against their employees or potential applicants – by refusing to hire, firing, harassing, or any other means – based on their gender identity.

So, what happened to our brave manager at Columbia River Healthcare? After a prolonged struggle for justice, the manager triumphed. The healthcare company was required to compensate them, revise its non-discrimination policies, provide employee training, and ensure additional training for managers and staff involved in investigating employee complaints of discrimination and harassment.

If you or someone you know is enduring similar discrimination and harassment, be aware that legal avenues exist. Hiring a gender discrimination lawyer can be your best bet to navigate this challenging terrain. With their expertise in discrimination law, they can help you understand your rights and formulate the best legal strategy.

Remember, no one should ever endure humiliation or discrimination because of their identity. Stand up for your rights and keep this manager’s story a guiding light of hope, reminding you that justice can prevail.

Posted on

$200,000 to Clean Up a Hostile Work Environment of Sexual Harassment

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

The settlement reached with The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley underscores a pivotal moment in addressing workplace sexual harassment and retaliation

In a compelling tale of courage and justice, employees at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley, a cleaning service provider in eastern Wisconsin, stood up against the indignities and violations they faced at work.

“Sexual harassment violates the law, and this case shows despite all the public attention the issue has received, female workers remain vulnerable to harassment in the workplace because of their sex,” said Diane Smason, acting district director of the EEOC’s Chicago District.

The Cleaning Authority’s website boasts, “Professional Cleaning that leaves you stress-free.” However, this claim starkly contrasts with the experiences shared by employees, who describe a workplace riddled with stress and unfair practices. It’s ironic considering both the company’s promises and the reality depicted by its workforce. On one side, the company guarantees clients a spotless home and a worry-free experience, supported by meticulously crafted cleaning plans and eco-friendly products. On the other side, employee narratives highlight issues such as inappropriate touching, sex-based derogatory comments, and retaliation from management. Balancing these perspectives illuminates the complex nature of workplace dynamics within The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley. Their bravery in confronting adversity and unfair treatment culminated in a significant victory for themselves and other employees facing similar hostile conditions. On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley, accusing the company of fostering a hostile work environment and retaliating against female employees who resisted sexual harassment.

“An employer cannot fire employees because they oppose sexual harassment or threaten them to deter them from complaining,” said Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District. “Prosecuting such violations of Title VII is critical to ensuring the law fulfills its purpose.”

Imagine working a physically demanding job while enduring an employer’s inappropriate behavior and harassment. The job’s physical requirements are exhausting, demanding daily energy and endurance. The emotional burden of unwanted advances and improper conduct from an employer adds a distressing dimension to an already challenging situation. Employees often feel trapped, burdened by fear of retribution and a pervasive sense of helplessness. Against this backdrop, the significance of the employees’ actions at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley becomes evident; their resistance to harassment is a personal triumph and a beacon of hope for others in similar circumstances.

The lawsuit revealed instances of inappropriate touching, derogatory comments based on sex, and other harassing behaviors. Some employees felt compelled to quit their jobs, and one was even threatened into early retirement.

In a victory, The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley agreed to pay $200,000 and provide additional relief to settle the lawsuit, as announced by the EEOC on May 15, 2024. However, the impact of their actions extended further. Under a three-year consent decree, The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley will review, revise, and implement robust anti-discrimination policies prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation.

As part of this agreement, all employees will receive in-person training on sexual harassment, with managers and supervisors receiving additional training. Furthermore, an external monitor will be appointed for the first year to receive and review complaints related to harassment and retaliation.

The courage displayed by the employees has led to a substantial settlement and driven systemic changes at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley. Their brave actions serve as a powerful reminder of the ongoing fight against illegal sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environments that regrettably persist today.

Posted on

Liberty Energy Faces $265,000 Penalty in Race/Color, National Origin Discrimination Case

Race, color, ethnic harassment and discrimination in the oil industry lawyers - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Federal Agency Announces Resolution to Charges of Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace

Liberty Energy, Inc., operating as Liberty Oilfield Services, LLC, has been ordered to pay $265,000 due to allegations of racial and ethnic discrimination. The lawsuit was led by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of three company mechanics, setting a powerful example of the financial consequences of not adequately addressing harassment complaints.

Regional Attorney Robert Canino said, “Unfortunately, we have often seen cases in which one account of discriminatory treatment against a person based on a particular race or ethnicity leads to evidence that other racial or ethnic minorities have also been caught up in a broader unhealthy environment of demeaning and unlawful conduct. This employer’s commitment to address the bigger-picture issues can be expected to have a broader positive impact beyond the individual who filed the charge.”

The case details suggest a hostile work environment at Liberty Energy’s Odessa, Texas location, involving a Black field mechanic and two Hispanic co-workers who were consistently targeted with racial and ethnic slurs. The employees alleged that their multiple reports of discrimination to supervisors and human resources were ignored, leading to a damaging atmosphere that ultimately forced the Black mechanic to resign.

This case underscores the legal and financial implications businesses face when they fail to meet their obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which strictly prohibits workplace discrimination based on race or national origin. In order to avoid substantial legal fees and monetary damages, it is crucial that complaints regarding discriminatory treatment are promptly and effectively addressed.
In addition to the financial penalty, Liberty Energy must now implement comprehensive measures and policies to prevent future discrimination, including:

  • Training programs on federal laws regarding employment discrimination.
  • A policy that empowers human resources and management personnel to promptly respond to discrimination reports.
  • A dedicated hotline for discrimination and harassment reporting.

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark expressed optimism about the settlement, expressing hope that the stipulated measures will foster a discrimination-free work environment within the company. Regional Attorney Robert Canino echoed the sentiment, highlighting that the employer’s commitment can contribute to a broader positive impact on workplace culture and practices.

Posted on

Race Discrimination – Unequal Work Assignments Based On Race

Determining work assignments based on race is race discrimination and it is illegal. Contact the Race Discrimination Lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

Delivery company DHL is to pay $8.7 million in compensation and will be monitored by a court-appointed overseer to settle a class race discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The federal agency filed a suit claiming that DHL had segregated its Black and white employees, discriminated against Black employees based on race in the terms and conditions of their employment, and given them unequal and heavier work assignments. Black employees were also assigned to routes in neighbourhoods with higher crime rates, which put them at risk of witnessing or becoming victims of crime.

However, segregating employees and giving them unequal work assignments based on their race is just as unlawful. Such practices should not occur in any workplace. We are confident that the measures put in place by the consent decree will ensure that DHL’s employees are treated equally going forward.

The EEOC charged that DHL’s actions violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial segregation and discrimination in employment. Under the consent decree, DHL will compensate 83 Black employees who were subjected to the alleged discriminatory conduct and chose to participate in the lawsuit, with $8.7 million in total. The decree also requires DHL to train its workforce on federal laws prohibiting race discrimination and provide periodic reports to the court-appointed overseer and the EEOC on work assignments and complaints of race discrimination. DHL will be monitored for four years by former EEOC Commissioner Leslie Silverman to ensure compliance with the decree.

According to Gregory Gochanour, Regional Attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District Office, DHL’s segregating employees and giving them unequal work assignments based on their race is just as unlawful as paying them less or denying promotions. The measures put in place by the consent decree will ensure that DHL’s employees are treated equally going forward. Karla Gilbride, General Counsel of the EEOC, stated that if an employer orders Black workers to continue working in areas perceived as dangerous while accommodating the requests of white workers, it sends a message that the lives and safety concerns of Black workers are valued less than those of their white colleagues, which is plainly unlawful.

EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows emphasised that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed racially segregated workplaces sixty years ago, and the EEOC remains committed to enforcing it vigorously so that race-based job segregation becomes a thing of the past. It’s time for employers to realise that discriminating based on race has no place in any workplace.

Posted on

Stand Against Racial Harassment – It’s Illegal and Unacceptable

Discrimination, harassment based on race of family members is illegal. Contact the race harassment, discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP for a Free consultation.

In the United States, an individual’s civil rights are protected under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. One of the many provisions of this act is the legal prohibition of harassment and discrimination based on the race of your family members. No one, under any circumstances, has the right to deny you opportunities, benefits or fair treatment due to the racial background of your family members.

Racial harassment can manifest in a plethora of ways. Some common examples include derogatory comments about someone’s racial or ethnic origin, racial slurs or insults, racial jokes or stereotypes, or displaying racially offensive symbols. These actions are not just hurtful; they’re illegal and punishable by law.

One notable instance of racial harassment in the corporate world involves Cavco Industries, Palm Harbor Homes, and Palm Harbor Villages. The U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a racial discrimination lawsuit with the company for $135,000. The lawsuit alleged that an employee was subjected to a racially hostile work environment, which included racially offensive remarks and comments about the race of members of his family. The settlement reiterates that businesses are legally obligated to maintain an environment free of racial discrimination and reinforces that legal action will be pursued in cases of violations.

A racially hostile work environment is determined through the lens of both objective and subjective criteria. Objectively, the conduct must be severe or pervasive enough that a reasonable person would find the workplace intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Subjectively, the victim must perceive the environment to be hostile or abusive as well. It’s crucial to underline that isolated incidents, unless extremely severe, do not typically constitute a hostile work environment under the law. Instead, it’s the pattern of behavior over time that comes under scrutiny. Factors considered in these determinations include the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating (or a mere offensive utterance), and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance. The threshold for what constitutes this environment is necessarily high because the law seeks to balance freedom of speech and conduct in the workplace with protections against discrimination.

Remember, respect and equality are at the foundation of our society and any form of racial discrimination or harassment undermines these principles. Stay informed, stay respectful, and remember that racism, in any form, is not just morally wrong; it’s illegal.
Know your rights. Report any instances of racial harassment or discrimination in your workplace to the appropriate authorities. We must all stand together to ensure a fair and equitable society for all, irrespective of race or color.

Posted on

Unmasking the Shadows: A Comprehensive Analysis of Pay Discrimination

2017-2018 Pay Dashboard shows wage discrimination remains issue.

Pay disparity between men and women is an ongoing issue that remains pertinent today. According to data available on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Pay Data Dashboard, the median pay for men remained higher than women for the years 2017 and 2018, a fact reflected in various industries and job categories.

The battle for equal pay for equal work has a long history. The first milestone in this journey was the Equal Pay Act of 1963, a landmark law that prohibited sex-based wage discrimination between men and women who perform jobs that need similar skills, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.

Subsequent laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII, further reinforced this protection, making it illegal to discriminate based on sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009 further cemented the efforts for equal pay by allowing individuals who face pay discrimination to seek rectification in courts.

While these laws were all steps in the right direction, the pay data suggests that disparity still exists. However, it’s important to note that this doesn’t mean the laws have failed. Instead, it reflects the complexity of the issue which is deeply rooted in culture and society. It also shows the importance of continuous struggle and the necessity for monitoring and strict implementation of these laws.

For women facing wage discrimination, the Equal Pay Act provides a legal basis for claiming their rights. Women can file a complaint with the EEOC, or can also, under the provisions of the Lilly Ledbetter Act, sue their employers in court for pay discrimination. Therefore, laws guaranteeing equal pay for equal work have played, and continue to play, a pivotal role in the fight against pay disparity.

Ultimately, change takes time and effort. While the laws have facilitated some progress, they alone cannot completely eliminate the pay gap. It’s up to each of us to understand the issues, know our rights, and act towards achieving full equality.

Posted on

Racial Harassment, Retaliation Lawsuit Settled for $105,000.

Helmer Friedman LLP protecting employee right to worplace free of racial harassment. Affordable Home Furnishings sued for racial discrimination.

Standing Up Against Workplace Racial Harassment: The Fight for Justice and Equality

Rise above the tide and stand against racial harassment in the workplace! Every individual has the right to a professional environment free from any form of racial discrimination. The lawsuit against Affordable Home Furnishings, where justice was served to an employee who faced racial harassment, serves as a profound testament to this belief.

The incident unfolded in their Florida Boulevard store where a white account manager racially harassed repeatedly using the word “n****r” while working with an African American manager-in-training. This deplorable act, followed by the inappropriate retaliatory firing of the manager-in-training for reporting the incident, was a gross violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Fearlessly, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spearheaded the fight for justice. The result – a consent decree that ensured Affordable Home Furnishings paid $105,000 in back pay and damages to the former employee. Further measures included the company implementing training requirements, revising policies, setting up a complaint hotline, providing regular reports to the EEOC, as well as posting a notice affirming their commitment to Title VII.

The EEOC’s stand against racial harassment sends a powerful message to America at large – racial harassment and discrimination have no place in our workplaces. Federal and state laws are steadfast protectors of every employee’s right to a harassment-free work environment. To learn more about the laws prohibiting race discrimination and retaliation, visit www.HelmerFriedman.com.

Remember, together we can build a future fueled by respect, understanding, and racial harmony. Each one of us carries the flame that can light up the darkness of racial discrimination. Let’s stop racial harassment in the workplace, today and every day.

Posted on

Pasadena Officer’s Case Highlights Importance of Whistleblower and Anti-Discrimination Protections

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

In an age where increased scrutiny is being directed toward police conduct, we must remind ourselves of the protections officers who blow the whistle on inappropriate behavior within their departments can count on. A recent case involving Officer Taisyn Crutchfield from the Pasadena Police Department exemplifies this.

Officer Taisyn Crutchfield, a Black officer, has lodged a claim against the City of Pasadena, alleging retaliation, discrimination, and harassment. This claim came after Crutchfield attempted to de-escalate a tense situation involving another officer and the son of a man killed by Sheriff deputies. Such a case invariably highlights the robust protections for individuals in such situations.

“She’s doing the right thing, she doesn’t believe in a code of silence. She doesn’t believe in circling the wagons,” attorney Bradley Gage said. “She believes in integrity, honesty and safety.”

Attorneys Bradley C. Gage and Ben Crump cite laws protecting law enforcement officers like Officer Crutchfield from retaliation and discriminatory treatment. These include the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, the Bane Act, and the Ralph Act.

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in employment because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, and other characteristics. Officer Crutchfield’s experience, if proven accurate, represents a clear violation of this Act.

The Peace Officer Bill of Rights Act (POBAR) ensures that officers are afforded their constitutional right to fair treatment. Officer Crutchfield’s allegation raises questions about whether her rights under POBAR were violated when she was placed on administrative leave following her intervention in the incident above.

Crutchfield was placed on paid administrative leave for six months after being sent back to the department, claiming that she was never given any reason for her punishment.

The Bane Act, also known as The Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, protects from threats, intimidation, coercion, or attempts to interfere with someone’s state or federal statutory or constitutional rights. The Ralph Act also protects individuals from violence or threats of violence based on their race or ethnicity.

It’s crucial to remember that these laws work in combination to provide comprehensive protection to law enforcement officers. They allow officers to carry out their duties without fear of reprisal while also demanding an environment free from harassment and discrimination.

While the City of Pasadena has characterized the claim as inaccurate and pledged to contest the allegations, the incident serves as a potent reminder of the importance of these protective laws. Regardless of the outcome, it underscores how essential it is for law enforcement agencies to uphold these protections and ensure a fair, safe, and tolerant working environment for their officers.

Only through an unwavering commitment to these protections can we continue to build trust and integrity within our police forces and their relationships with the communities they serve.

Posted on

Legal Protections Against Gender Identity Discrimination

LGBTQIA+ people have the right to a workplace free from gender discrimination.

Let’s Talk Rights: Legal Protections Against Gender Identity Discrimination

Did you know that laws exist to prevent discrimination based on gender identity at your workplace? Yes, you read that right. And today, we’re going to talk about one such case that is a landmark development in the struggle for gender identity rights.

Recently, a case against T.C. Wheelers, a popular bar and pizzeria in Tonawanda, New York, made headlines. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed this lawsuit. The reason? Alleged sex-based harassment against an employee, Quinn Gambino, a transgender man. Employees and customers harassed him by making crude and derogatory references about his transgender status, including telling him that he “wasn’t a real man,” and asking invasive questions about his transition.

The EEOC alleged that the owners and staff repeatedly and intentionally misgendered Gambino by using female pronouns and failed to corral the behavior of employees and customers who engaged in similar conduct. Despite reporting the harassment to his manager on several occasions, the unsettling behavior continued until Gambino was forced to resign.

“The EEOC considers protecting members of the LGBTQIA+ community to be an important enforcement priority. We will continue to assure that transgender employees receive the full benefit of federal anti-discrimination laws in all industries.”

Such conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits sex discrimination, including discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression. After attempting to resolve the issue in a pre-litigation settlement, the EEOC filed suit.
The result? T.C. Wheelers agreed to pay Gambino $25,000 in back pay and compensatory damages. But, the resolutions went beyond that. T.C. Wheelers also had to enforce equal employment opportunity policies to prevent unlawful sex discrimination and harassment, especially towards transgender persons. Further, to ensure fairness, it hired an independent human resources monitor to supervise and investigate employee grievances.

This case represents a major victory for those who have been victims of gender identity discrimination in the workplace. But it’s more than that. It sends a strong message to employers nationwide that disrespecting an individual’s gender identity won’t be tolerated.

The EEOC’s New York District Director, Yaw Gyebi, Jr., emphasized the EEOC’s commitment to ensuring that transgender employees receive the full benefit of federal anti-discrimination laws in all industries, saying, “The EEOC considers protecting members of the LGBTQIA+ community to be an important enforcement priority. We will continue to assure that transgender employees receive the full benefit of federal anti-discrimination laws in all industries.”This case serves as a reminder that no one should have to experience discrimination based on their gender identity.