Category: Civil Rights Act of 1964

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Recognizing and Addressing Discrimination in the Workplace

Combating workplace discrimination - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Discrimination at work is not just a legal issue; it’s a human one that affects morale, productivity, and the overall health of an organization. From racial slurs to unequal pay, discrimination can manifest in various harmful ways. Understanding how to recognize and address it is crucial for creating a safe and inclusive working environment. This article will guide you through the signs of workplace discrimination, recent real-life examples, and actionable steps for addressing these critical issues.

Signs of Discrimination in the Workplace

Discrimination can be subtle or overt. Signs may include exclusion from meetings or projects, lack of promotion despite qualifications, unfair performance reviews, or derogatory comments about race, gender, age, or disability. Recognizing these signs is the first step toward creating a fair workplace.

Recent Examples of Workplace Discrimination

Race Discrimination

In a troubling case recently reported, a Insurance Auto Auctions, Inc. yard attendant in Fremont, California, was subjected to racial slurs, including the “n-word,” up to 15 times a day. This verbal harassment happened openly in front of the general manager, who failed to act, leaving the Black employee feeling he had no choice but to resign. This example starkly highlights how unchecked discrimination can permeate an organization. (Case No. 4:24-cv-06848)

“Let me be clear: there is no workplace, regardless of locale, where the use of racial slurs is acceptable,” said EEOC San Francisco District Director Nancy Sienko. “Once an employer lets that standard slip, not only are you giving permission for an unprofessional, unproductive and hateful work environment, you are violating the law.”

Disability Discrimination

A company driver at Mail Hauler Trucking, LLC. in South Dakota was dismissed due to his physical impairment despite successfully performing his job duties. His unusual gait—a result of his condition—led to his unjust termination, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the legal protections afforded to individuals with disabilities. (Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-01020-ECS)

“The ADA prohibits employers from terminating employees because of their disability or discriminating against employees because of misperceptions that they cannot perform the job because of a disability,” said Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney of the EEOC’s Chicago office.

Sexual Harassment

At a Long Island car dealership, Garden City Jeep Chrysler Dodge, LLC and VIP Auto Group of Long Island, Inc., female employees endured inappropriate touching and sexual comments from an inventory manager. Despite complaints to management and HR, the harassment continued unchecked, forcing some employees to quit. This case underscores the critical need for effective interventions and accountability at every level of management. (Case No. 2:24-cv-06878)

“Whether a restaurant, car dealership or other business, no employer should ignore sexual harassment, let alone condone or encourage it,” said Kimberly Cruz, regional attorney for the EEOC’s New York District Office.

Pregnancy Discrimination

At Castle Hills Master Association Inc., and parent companies Bright Realty LLC, Bright Industries LLC, and Bright Executive Services LLC, a pregnant employee diagnosed with placenta previa, a high-risk condition, was terminated while hospitalized despite notifying her employer of her need for medical leave. The Castle Hills Master Association and property management companies involved refused to accommodate her, highlighting a distressing gap in understanding pregnancy-related employment rights. (Civil Action No. 4:24-cv-00871)

Pay Discrimination

AccentCare in Pennsylvania was sued for paying female Licensed Practical Nurses less than their male counterparts for equal work despite the women’s superior qualifications. After a female LPN complained, she was fired, showcasing retaliatory practices that exacerbate gender-based pay disparities. (Case No. 3:24-cv-01646-RDM)

“Employers cannot pay female employees less than their male colleagues because of sex,” said Debra Lawrence, the EEOC’s Regional Attorney in Philadelphia. “Retaliating against an employee who raises these concerns and seeks to correct the disparity further exacerbates the legal violation.”

Legal Rights and Responsibilities in Addressing Discrimination

Employees have the right to a workplace free of discrimination. The law provides several avenues to address discrimination, including filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and hiring. Employers are legally required to investigate allegations and take corrective action when necessary.

Steps to Take if You Witness or Experience Discrimination

  1. Document the Incident:
  • Record dates, times, locations, and details of the discriminatory behavior.
  1. Report the Incident:
  • Use your company’s reporting mechanism or approach your HR department directly.
  1. Seek Support:
  • Contact a trusted colleague, mentor, or employee resource group for guidance and support.
  1. Consider Legal Action:

The Role of HR and Management in Preventing and Addressing Discrimination

HR and management play a pivotal role in fostering an inclusive environment. They must act swiftly on complaints, ensure policies are enforced, and model respectful behavior. Regular training sessions and open dialogues can also help reinforce the company’s commitment to a productive and inclusive workplace.

Employers seeking to ensure compliance with discrimination laws can benefit significantly from consulting experienced employment discrimination lawyers. These legal professionals offer valuable guidance on navigating complex regulations, thereby assisting in the proactive prevention of discriminatory practices in the workplace. By working closely with a lawyer, employers can gain insights into potential vulnerabilities within their current policies and procedures and receive tailored advice to foster a legally compliant and respectful work environment. This proactive approach not only aids in legal compliance but also strengthens the organization’s commitment to equality and fairness.

Creating an Inclusive Workplace Culture

An inclusive culture celebrates diversity and fosters a sense of belonging. Encourage conversations about diversity, recognize cultural differences, and celebrate various backgrounds. Understandably, employers might hesitate to engage in difficult conversations about diversity, inclusion, and compliance, fearing it could open Pandora’s box of unforeseen challenges. However, addressing these topics head-on is crucial for fostering a workplace where all employees feel valued and heard. Avoiding these conversations can perpetuate systemic issues and hinder the organization’s growth and morale. By embracing these discussions, leaders can uncover valuable insights into the employees’ perspectives, identify areas for improvement, and initiate meaningful change. It’s essential to approach these dialogues with an open mind, active listening skills, and a commitment to genuine, positive transformation. While challenging, these conversations ultimately nurture a more cohesive, productive, and respectful workplace culture. Leadership should exemplify these values, ensuring they trickle down throughout the organization.

The Ongoing Effort to Eliminate Discrimination

Eliminating discrimination requires persistent effort and commitment from everyone within an organization. By recognizing the signs, understanding your rights, and taking actionable steps, you can contribute to a healthier, more inclusive workplace. Start today by reviewing your organization’s policies and fostering open discussions about diversity and inclusion. Together, we can create a work environment where everyone is respected and valued.

Posted on

The Expensive Consequences of Race and Sex Discrimination in the Workplace

Race discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Discriminatory hiring practices have serious consequences and are unacceptable. It’s not just a social issue but also illegal under the Civil Rights Act. Take, for example, the Four Seasons Licensed Home Health Care Agency in Brooklyn, which was sued for race and national origin discrimination. The lawsuit alleged that the agency favored patients’ racial preferences, leading to the dismissal of Black and Hispanic aides. When no other assignments were available, these aides lost their jobs, and the company had to pay $400,000 in damages.

In another case, SmartTalent LLC, a Washington-based staffing agency, settled a sex discrimination lawsuit by paying $875,000. The agency was found guilty of fulfilling clients’ requests for male-only workers, which violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

These cases highlight that businesses cannot ignore discriminatory behaviors as minor issues. It’s crucial for agencies, companies, and employers to communicate clearly to their clients that requesting a worker of a specific gender or national origin is unethical and violates legal guidelines.

The repercussions of discrimination go beyond financial penalties. They include an injunction prohibiting companies from making assignments based on a client’s race—or national origin-based preferences, updates to internal policies, mandatory training for management employees about Title VII, and the implementation of a complaint reporting system.

Employees also play a vital role in combating discrimination. If you encounter any discriminatory policies at your workplace, seek advice from an experienced sex and race discrimination attorney. Remember, prejudice has no place in our society, and seeking professional guidance can help ensure that justice is served.

Posted on

Challenging the Status Quo: Standing Up to Gender Identity Discrimination at NAIA

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a world where we continually push for a more inclusive society, it’s heartening to see brave students and school officials taking a stand against discriminatory policies. One such instance is currently unfolding at the Cal Maritime Academy, where school officials have severed ties with the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) to protest a policy that effectively bans transgender athletes from competing in women’s sports.

The NAIA’s policy contradicts California state law, which prohibits discrimination based on gender identity, among other characteristics, in any post-secondary institution receiving state funding. Moreover, it conflicts with the California State University system’s interim non-discrimination policy, which defines discrimination as conduct resulting in the denial or limitation of services, benefits, or opportunities based on a person’s actual or perceived protected status.

Echoing the sentiments of many students, interim president Michael Dumont announced the decision to withdraw from the NAIA, a clear and powerful statement to fight against the exclusionary policy. In Dumont’s words, “All students and employees have the right to participate fully in CSU programs, activities, admission, and employment free from discrimination…”

While Cal Maritime is the only institution to publicly leave NAIA over this policy, we shouldn’t overlook that other schools, such as Bethany College in Kansas, have openly opposed it and refused to follow it. Similarly, UC Merced announced its transition to NCAA’s Division II earlier this year, although it didn’t cite the transgender policy as the reason for its departure.

The NCAA, unlike NAIA, remains an inspiration for many aspiring athletes. It reaffirms its commitment to promoting Title IX and fair competition for all student-athletes in all NCAA championships. Inclusivity in sports has been a part of the NCAA’s policy since 2010, demonstrating its proactive approach to tackling gender identity discrimination in athletics.

At Cal Maritime Academy, it isn’t just the officials fighting for a more inclusive environment. In 2021, a group of passionate students protested against a culture of homophobia, transphobia, and racism on campus. Their voices were heard, and President Dumont responded by implementing measures to foster inclusivity, such as gender-inclusive housing and updated policies to protect students’ rights.

Unfortunately, there’s still a considerable amount of work to be done. A 2017 survey by the Human Rights Campaign revealed that fewer than 15% of all transgender boys and transgender girls play sports in the US. Meanwhile, nearly 25 states maintain laws barring transgender women and girls from competing in women’s or girls’ sports.

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed by these statistics, but we must remember that laws are in place to protect our LGBTQIA+ communities from such discrimination. If any member of the LGBTQIA+ community experiences discrimination, they should remember that they are not alone and should reach out to an experienced Gender Identity Discrimination Attorney for help.

We celebrate the bravery of students, school officials, and all those stepping forward to challenge discriminatory policies. As we continue this fight together, let’s not lose sight of our ultimate goal: a world where everyone, regardless of their gender identity, is given equal opportunities.

Posted on

9 Years of Hell – Ethnicity Discrimination at UAB

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

The University of Alabama at Birmingham has been ordered to pay nearly $4 million to Dr. Fariba Moeinpour, an Iranian-born former cancer research scientist, who alleged that she endured nearly a decade of harassment from a co-worker due to her nationality. Dr. Moeinpour, now 62 years old, filed a lawsuit against the university in October 2021, claiming the harassment was a daily occurrence and that the institution consistently ignored her complaints.

Dr. Moeinpour is a naturalized U.S. citizen who began her tenure at the UAB lab in February 2011. Unfortunately, her employment was terminated in February 2020 following a confrontation with her supervisor. The co-worker accused of harassment, identified in court documents as Mary Jo Cagle, allegedly made derogatory comments about Dr. Moeinpour’s name, referring to it as a “weird a** name,” and even told her to “go back to Iran.” In a particularly alarming incident, Cagle is accused of driving her vehicle toward Dr. Moeinpour and her daughter in the UAB parking lot while brandishing a firearm and hurling racial slurs at them.

In a further troubling development, after Dr. Moeinpour reported the harassment, her supervisor, Clinton Grubbs, who is not named in the lawsuit, allegedly dismissed her concerns by stating he was powerless to act against Cagle due to fears for his safety. He reportedly claimed that taking action could lead to severe repercussions, including losing his job or even facing harm. Grubbs allegedly suggested that Cagle was associated with the mafia and recounted a disturbing incident where four men showed up at his home to intimidate him after he threatened to fire Cagle.

The lawsuit details a disturbing account where Dr. Moeinpour sought help from Grubbs regarding the lack of action taken against Cagle. Instead of providing support, Grubbs reportedly called the police, indicating he would damage her reputation. He claimed that the discussions regarding her complaints were merely “his word against hers.” When Dr. Moeinpour insisted that she could prove her case, Grubbs allegedly physically assaulted her, grabbing her by the chin, knocking her down, and injuring her face in the process. He then reportedly fell on top of her and restrained her, leading her to slap him in self-defense.

When a UAB police officer arrived at the scene, Dr. Moeinpour admitted to hitting Grubbs in an attempt to stop his assault. Instead of addressing her claims, the officer escorted her out of the building, and she reportedly fainted when informed she was being arrested. Upon regaining consciousness, Dr. Moeinpour found herself restrained to a gurney in the emergency room, with both her ankles and wrists handcuffed. She was subsequently taken to jail and held overnight, which added to the distress of her situation.

In the police report filed by UAB, Dr. Moeinpour was characterized as an “out of control” aggressor. However, Grubbs surprisingly informed the police that he did not wish to press charges and mentioned that he and Dr. Moeinpour had been in a relationship over the past year, which she firmly denied, asserting they had never been romantically involved. Ultimately, Dr. Moeinpour was terminated from her position on February 13, 2020, for alleged violations of the university’s policy against fighting and absenteeism, despite her claims of being assaulted by Grubbs and without any investigation into her allegations or consideration of evidence.

Throughout the four-year trial, witness testimonies and audio recordings that supported Dr. Moeinpour’s claims were presented to the jury. One key witness, a mall security guard, recounted an incident where Cagle followed Dr. Moeinpour and her daughter around the mall, subjecting them to racial slurs. Dr. Moeinpour’s legal team also provided documentation showing her persistent attempts to report the harassment to human resources over the years.

The federal jury ultimately determined that Cagle acted with “malice and reckless indifference” toward Dr. Moeinpour’s federally protected rights based on her nationality. The jury ruled that the university’s decision to arrest Dr. Moeinpour constituted an “adverse employment action.” On Monday, the jury mandated that UAB pay Dr. Moeinpour $3.8 million, while Cagle was ordered to pay her $500,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $325,000 in punitive damages.

Reflecting on her ordeal, Dr. Moeinpour expressed the emotional toll this experience had taken on her life, stating, “Day and night, I was looking for a job, any job, but nobody would hire me because my name was tarnished. Now, my good name has been restored.” In response to the verdict, UAB spokeswoman Alicia Rohan emphasized that the university “does not tolerate harassment, retaliation, or discrimination of any kind.” However, she also indicated that the university disagrees with the jury’s verdict and is “considering next steps” in the legal process.

Posted on

Asphalt Paving Systems Case: Costs of Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

Racial discrimination in the workplace lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

The Asphalt Paving Systems Case

A Stark Reminder of the Costs of Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

In a society that aspires to achieve equality and justice, the allegations against Asphalt Paving Systems (APS) by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2023 serve as a stark reminder of the harsh realities of racial discrimination in certain workplaces. This case involved 12 Black workers who endured a hostile environment at APS, a company based in Zephyrhills, Florida. Their experiences included being denied basic facilities such as access to indoor bathrooms and enduring continuous racial slurs from co-workers and supervisors.

Such incidents underscore the critical importance of laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which aims to protect employees from racial discrimination and harassment in the workplace. APS’s violation of this law created a hostile environment for its Black employees, undermining their rights to equal employment opportunities and adversely affecting their emotional and mental well-being.

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Title VII explicitly states, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” This vital provision emphasizes that employment should be free from discrimination, ensuring a working environment where everyone can thrive, regardless of their racial or ethnic background. It also sets the expectation for employers to foster a workplace devoid of harassment based on these protected characteristics, reinforcing the necessity of equitable treatment in all aspects of employment.

Beyond the moral and ethical dimensions, businesses that engage in racial discrimination face significant financial and reputational repercussions. In July 2024, APS was ordered to pay a hefty $1.25 million in damages to compensate the victims of its discriminatory practices.

Moreover, cases like these highlight the necessity of robust anti-discrimination policies within organizations. Companies must not only comply with laws like Title VII but also actively cultivate an inclusive culture, implementing practices that protect against racial discrimination and harassment.

While monetary penalties for racial discrimination are substantial—and rightly so—the hidden costs to businesses can be even greater. Companies that persist in such behaviors risk damaging their reputation, potentially deterring high-quality talent from applying, customers from purchasing their products or services, and investors from supporting their business.

As illustrated by the APS case, the costs of racial discrimination extend beyond financial penalties. It undermines employee morale and productivity, and in some instances, it can threaten the commercial viability of the company itself. This serves as a powerful reminder that businesses should strive to create an inclusive work environment free from racial discrimination and harassment—not only because it is the law but because it is sound business practice.

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.