Category: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted on

Addressing Racial Harassment in Schools at All Levels

Racial harassment in school is illegal and must be stopped.

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

Understanding the Legal Framework

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

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

Schools’ Duty to Act

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

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

Douglas County School District, Colorado

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

Elmore-Morristown Unified Union School District, Vermont

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

Bonham Independent School District, Texas

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

USC Case on Workplace Harassment

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

Key Tools for Change

Centralized Reporting Systems

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

Comprehensive Policy Revisions

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

Employee and Student Training

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

Retaliation Protections

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

Consequences of Failing to Act

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

What Can Families Do?

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

Your Next Step

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

Posted on

Calamitous Conditions: Calliope Correia’s Harassment Lawsuit Against the CSU System

Sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation have physical lasting effects on victims.

Allegations of workplace harassment, discrimination, and negligence have sent shockwaves through California State University (CSU). Calliope Correia, a dedicated horticultural nursery manager at the university’s campus farm in Fresno, has bravely filed a lawsuit against the board of trustees, claiming gross misconduct that reveals a deeply troubling pattern of injustice within the CSU system.

In her lawsuit, Correia describes her painful experiences, asserting that she was targeted because of her gender and sexual orientation. Despite voicing her concerns, her complaints were either ignored or inadequately addressed, leading to a climate of fear and retaliation rather than resolution. This alleged misconduct runs afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Employment Housing Act (FEHA), both of which unequivocally condemn discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation, asserting that harassment that fosters a hostile work environment is illegal.

Correia’s legal documentation outlines a harrowing journey marked by both emotional and mental distress, stretching over several years. Several individuals from Fresno State, including John Bushoven, chair of the department of Plant Science, have been implicated in her claims. Despite submitting numerous complaints to the university’s human resources department and Title IX office, Correia alleges that no meaningful actions were taken to rectify the situation, leaving her with feelings of neglect and despair.

This troubling situation indicates a significant breach of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines that highlight the employer’s automatic liability for supervisory harassment leading to negative employment outcomes. The guidelines emphasize that employers are obligated to promptly investigate complaints and enact corrective measures to protect employees from retaliation.

Despite enduring a traumatic ordeal that has taken a toll on her health, Correia stands resolutely against the injustices she faced. Her civil complaint seeks $750,000 in damages and is one of several ongoing lawsuits directed at the CSU board concerning workplace harassment, suggesting a systemic issue that may extend throughout the entire university network.

Correia’s experience serves as a critical reminder of the necessity for organizations to cultivate an environment of equal opportunity and respect for all employees. Employers must establish effective mechanisms to prevent workplace discrimination and harassment and must respond decisively when complaints arise.

Moreover, it underscores the imperative for employees to be aware of their rights. Those who find themselves in similar circumstances would benefit from consulting with an employment attorney experienced in workplace harassment. These legal advocates can offer vital guidance on documenting incidents, filing complaints, and pursuing legal action when warranted. They assist victims in navigating the complex landscape of employment laws, empowering them to assert their rights and strive for justice. Above all, they endeavor to ensure that no employee endures the suffering and indignity that Calliope Correia has bravely brought to light.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Sarah Glenn: A Testimony of Resilience and Integrity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

High Price Extracted for Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Retaliation

Helping Employees Recover and Enforcing Employment Laws Helmer Friedman LLP.

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

The Case:

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

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

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

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

The Verdict:

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual Orientation Discrimination as Sex Discrimination under Title VII

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

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

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

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

Retaliation is Prohibited under Title VII

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

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

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

Confronting Asian Racial Harassment in the Workplace: Lessons from the United Airlines Case

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

In a deeply troubling incident of racism and discrimination, a former United Airlines employee endured both assault and racial harassment at the hands of a senior manager. This distressing situation revealed in a recently settled federal discrimination lawsuit, emphasizes the critical need for companies to genuinely commit to fostering diversity, equality, and respect for every individual in the workplace.

United Airlines, a prominent American airline based in Chicago, plays a significant role in the aviation industry with its extensive domestic and international routes. The airline operates a high volume of daily flights from its bustling Chicago-O’Hare hub, serving all six inhabited continents.

Yet, despite its influential status, this incident shines a light on the serious shortcomings United Airlines has faced in addressing the legitimate concerns of safety and workplace equality for its employees.

The troubling event unfolded in January 2021 at United Airlines’ catering facility at Denver International Airport. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when a face mask policy was in effect, an Asian employee from Mongolia was unfortunately targeted by the manager during an innocent moment of disposing of trash—leading him to briefly remove his mask. The manager’s response was not only verbally abusive, using a racial slur, but escalated to physical violence. The employee reported the incident immediately, but United Airlines’ failure to take swift and effective action only deepened the trauma and insecurity he felt.

This occurrence happened amidst a broader climate of rising hostility and violence against Asian people, ignited by unfounded beliefs that Asians were to blame for the pandemic. Racial harassment was not just a rare incident; it became a disturbing trend in public spaces, stores, and workplaces alike.

United Airlines now faces serious allegations of violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to protect employees from discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The lawsuit lays bare the company’s inadequate response to the complaint, even suggesting that the manager accused of this behavior received a pay raise while the investigation was ongoing. This left the employee feeling vulnerable and unprotected, ultimately resulting in his painful decision to resign.

While United Airlines has agreed to pay the former employee $99,000 and to implement additional measures to resolve the lawsuit, this situation serves as a critical reminder of the ongoing issue of racial harassment in workplaces everywhere. It underscores the urgent need for all employers, including United Airlines, to create a work environment that is not only safe and respectful but also celebrates diversity.

Anyone who has faced racial harassment in their workplace must seek help promptly. Employment lawyers can provide essential support, ensuring that the fight for justice is not only pursued but achieved.

Posted on

The Growing Gender Wage Gap: An Unseen Battle for Women Over 40

Equal pay for equal work - paying women less than men is sex discrimination.

According to a recent report from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), women over 40 working in the federal sector are facing an expanding wage gap that is leaving them financially strained. This is not just a statistic; it represents real women whose lives are drastically impacted by this persistent issue.

The EEOC report notes an alarming trend: women over 40 in the federal sector earn 87 cents for every dollar earned by men of the same age. Over a lifetime, this gap can add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost income, hindering women’s ability to invest, save for retirement, and even meet daily living expenses.

In fiscal year (FY) 2017, among Federal workers age 40 and over, men were paid $7,414 more annually than women (EEOC, 2022).

As the report quotes, “This wage gap is not merely a ‘women’s issue.’ It’s a societal issue that affects us all: women, their families, and the economy.” These words capture the essence of the problem, highlighting how it extends beyond individual earnings and impacts overall economic growth.

What are the solutions to this persistent problem? One approach is to enforce and strengthen laws designed to promote equality in the workplace. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits wage discrimination based on sex, insisting that women and men be given equal pay for equal work. Moreover, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects individuals 40 or older from employment discrimination based on age.

However, despite the existence of these laws, it’s evident that discrimination persists. This is where the value of an experienced employment law attorney comes into play. If you or someone you know is facing wage discrimination based on gender or age, it’s crucial to seek legal representation.

An experienced employment law attorney can help you navigate the complexities of the legal system, ensure your rights are upheld, and advocate for the compensation you deserve. The fight against wage discrimination is far from over, but with the right legal support, you are not alone in this battle.

The report’s statistics paint a clear and troubling picture of how the gender wage gap disproportionately affects women over 40 in the federal sector. Be part of the solution — stand up against gender and age wage discrimination and ensure that your workplace is one that values and rewards all its employees equally.

Posted on

Sex and Disability Discrimination – Menstruation and Related Conditions

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

In recent years, a concerning rise in sex and disability discrimination lawsuits has highlighted the ongoing challenges women face in the workplace. Two particularly notable cases involving Equinox Holdings, Inc. and the Bobby Dodd Institute underscore the serious nature of these issues and the need for change.

Equinox Holdings, Inc., a well-respected fitness company, faced legal action for allegedly discriminating against an applicant based on her disability and sex. The woman, who struggled with endometriosis—a condition causing severe menstrual pain—was denied a front desk associate position despite having extensive relevant experience. Instead of being celebrated for her qualifications, she was turned away due to the misconception that accommodating her would be too inconvenient. Disturbingly, her rejection was communicated via text, explicitly referencing her “monthly cycle” as a concern. This case (EEOC v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-03597) highlights a blatant violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The lawsuit seeks justice through back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to prevent such discrimination in the future.

Similarly, the case of Alisha Coleman, who was let go from the Bobby Dodd Institute after nearly a decade of service as a 911 call taker, reveals troubling practices regarding sex discrimination. Coleman faced dismissal due to sudden, heavy menstrual flow during her perimenopause phase. Despite the protections outlined in Title VII, which explicitly prohibits workplace discrimination based on sex—including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions—her case was unfortunately dismissed by the district court, reflecting significant oversight. The ACLU has since championed Coleman’s cause, emphatically arguing that perimenopause and its symptoms are included under the protections of Title VII.

As we reflect on these unfortunate examples, it is clear that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandates equitable treatment for all employees, regardless of sex—including with respect to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical matters. The increasing visibility of such cases serves as a powerful reminder of the urgent need for robust enforcement of these legal protections across all workplace environments.

For anyone impacted by discriminatory practices, seeking guidance from a knowledgeable employment law attorney is essential. These professionals are equipped with the expertise to navigate the complexities of discrimination cases, helping victims pursue the justice they rightly deserve in the face of unfair treatment. Together, by raising awareness and taking action, we can foster a workplace landscape that truly values inclusion and equity for all.

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.