Category: Title VII

Posted on

Race and Sex Harassment Settlement Highlights Workplace Lessons

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

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

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

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

Understanding Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

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

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

Details of the Harassment Allegations

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

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

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

Legal Violations in the Case

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

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

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

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

Settlement and Its Implications

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

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

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

Why Reporting Discrimination Matters

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

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

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

Building Safer Workplaces

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

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

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

Take Action If You Experience Discrimination

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

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

Posted on

Sex Discrimination: Nationwide Implications of Texas Ruling

Gender identity discrimination is illegal - Helmer Friedman LLP.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settled for $400,000 by HHS Environmental

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

HHS Environmental Company has agreed to a $400,000 settlement over a sexual harassment lawsuit, highlighting the ongoing issue of toxic workplace environments. The case involved a group of female housekeepers who experienced repeated instances of sexual harassment by a male colleague. Despite their numerous complaints, the company failed to take action for over a year, eventually leading to legal action. The alleged behavior not only violated workplace ethics but also breached Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a crucial law protecting employees from discrimination and harassment in the workplace.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is designed to safeguard employees from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It explicitly prohibits any form of sexual harassment that creates a hostile work environment. Employers are mandated to address any harassment complaints proactively and thoroughly to ensure a safe and respectful workplace for all employees.

The impact of working in a hostile environment can be devastating, not only to the victims but also to their families. No one should have to endure such conditions simply to earn a living. The retaliation faced by the victims at HHS Environmental, including wrongful termination and increased workloads, underscore the company’s failure to uphold its legal and ethical responsibilities.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the importance of taking firm action against employers who allow such conduct to continue unchecked. It is necessary for victims to feel empowered to speak out and seek justice without fear of retribution. Employers must be held accountable for failing to maintain safe and respectful workspaces.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of sexual harassment in the workplace, it’s crucial to contact an attorney with experience in sexual harassment cases. Legal experts can provide guidance and support, ensuring that victims’ voices are heard and their rights are protected. Taking action can not only change your environment but also help in creating a safer workplace for others.

Posted on

Corporate Responsibility for Sexual Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation

Discrimination based on gender stereotypes women with children is illegal. Call gender discrimination lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Corporate Responsibility for Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation

When employees walk into their workplaces, they should feel confident that they are entering a safe, respectful, and fair environment. However, in some instances, corporate failures to address harassment, discrimination, and retaliation have left victims unprotected and perpetuated cycles of unacceptable behavior. This article explores the legal obligations, ethical considerations, and real-world examples illustrating the accountability corporations bear in preventing and responding to misconduct.

Legal Framework

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII explicitly prohibits workplace discrimination based on factors like race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It also protects employees from harassment that creates a hostile work environment and retaliation when they report such behaviors.

Several cases, including those discussed below, demonstrate the consequences companies face when they do not comply with Title VII. This law not only outlines legal protections for employees but also reinforces the principle that businesses have an obligation to create inclusive and equitable environments.

Vicarious Liability

Vicarious liability holds companies legally responsible for the misconduct of their employees, particularly supervisors, when the company fails to prevent or address harassment and discrimination. For example, a corporation may be liable if it does not act on complaints or if its management fosters a culture where inappropriate behavior is condoned or ignored.

Case Studies

Taco Bell

Six Taco Bell restaurant entities in Michigan faced legal action after turning a blind eye to egregious misconduct by a senior area manager. Over a span of months, this manager subjected underage female employees to invasive questions regarding their sexual activity, unwanted touching, and even explicit requests for videos. Despite multiple employee complaints to supervisors, Taco Bell allowed the manager to remain in his position, enabling his abuse to continue.

Retaliation compounded the trauma. On the same day an assistant manager reported his misconduct, she was fired. It took months for the senior manager to face repercussions, illustrating corporate negligence in protecting employees. Taco Bell’s inaction blatantly violated Title VII, highlighting the importance of enforcing anti-harassment measures and holding leaders accountable.

Chipotle

Similarly, Chipotle’s failure to protect an employee from harassment underscores the gravity of corporate responsibility. At a Tampa location, a male crew member sexually harassed a female service manager with offensive comments, gestures, and inappropriate physical touching. Although the service manager alerted store management multiple times, her concerns were dismissed. When she escalated the matter and informed the general manager of her intent to file a complaint with corporate headquarters, she was terminated within three days.

This termination was a clear violation of Title VII, which prohibits retaliation against employees who report discrimination. Chipotle ultimately settled the case for $70,000. Such a payout does little to repair the emotional harm or career disruption caused by the company’s failure to act sooner.

Balfour Beatty Infrastructure

Balfour Beatty, a construction company, also faced legal consequences for ignoring sexual harassment at its Craven County, North Carolina location. A female truck driver endured lewd comments and texts asking her to “talk dirty” or send explicit images. When she reported the harassment, her employer transferred her to a less desirable work location rather than addressing the behavior.

The retaliation escalated, with coworkers berating her with vulgar statements like “construction is a man’s world.” Balfour Beatty settled the case for $80,000, but the damage highlighted systemic failures in promoting gender equality and addressing workplace harassment.

Ethical Considerations

Beyond legal obligations, corporations have an ethical duty to establish safe and equitable environments. Companies must recognize that prioritizing profit over employee well-being not only violates trust but also undermines the very foundation of their success.

Key ethical considerations include the following:

  • Ensuring a Safe Workplace: A workplace free of harassment is not a privilege; it is a fundamental right.
  • Upholding Fairness and Equality: All employees, regardless of gender, race, or position, deserve an environment built on mutual respect and impartiality.
  • Establishing Robust Reporting Mechanisms: Employees must have safe and accessible channels to report misconduct without fear of retaliation.
  • Protecting Whistleblowers: Retaliation has a chilling effect on reporting and allows abuse to continue unchecked. Corporations have a moral responsibility to protect employees who come forward.
  • Promoting Ethical Leadership: A commitment to cultivating leaders who embody accountability and integrity can set the tone across all organizational levels.

Corporate Responsibility in Action

The cases of Taco Bell, Chipotle, and Balfour Beatty illustrate the consequences of neglecting corporate responsibility concerning harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. While these companies may have settled their lawsuits, such outcomes should not be viewed as “closures” but as cautionary tales. Organizations must do more than meet legal requirements; they need to weave ethical practices into the fabric of their corporate cultures.

This includes investing in employee training programs, enforcing zero-tolerance policies, and conducting regular audits of workplace behavior. For corporations wary of missteps, prioritizing transparency and collaboration with HR departments, legal experts, and employee representatives can mitigate risks while fostering a culture of trust and accountability.

Concluding Thoughts

Harassment, discrimination, and retaliation remain pervasive issues in workplaces across industries. However, corporations have the power to lead change. By taking proactive measures to prevent misconduct, supporting employees who come forward, and holding wrongdoers accountable, organizations can set a precedent for what is acceptable in professional environments.

The cost of failing to act goes beyond monetary settlements or public relations crises; it erodes employee morale, damages reputations, and limits the potential of individuals who deserve better. Businesses have a choice—to either perpetuate these cycles of harm or take meaningful steps to ensure that every employee feels not only safe but empowered to thrive. The question is, which path will they take?

Employees who have experienced sexual harassment are strongly encouraged to consult with an employment lawyer to understand their rights and pursue justice. Without holding corporations accountable for their actions or lack thereof, these harmful patterns will persist unchecked, leaving employees—regardless of their age or position—vulnerable to unacceptable and reprehensible behavior. Seeking legal guidance is a crucial step in fostering accountability and creating safer, more equitable workplaces for everyone.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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