Category: Title VII

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.