Category: employment law

Posted on

Nurse Sues Elevance Health for Disability Discrimination

Medical care, hospital - Family Leave Lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Fired for Pain: Veteran Nurse Sues Elevance Health

Priscilla Kamoi dedicated 17 years of her life to caring for patients within a massive healthcare conglomerate. As a licensed Registered Nurse at Anthem Blue Cross and Elevance Health, she demonstrated exemplary performance. She earned regular salary increases, annual bonuses, and consistently strong evaluations. She was a loyal, high-performing employee doing vital work.

Then, she became the patient.

Diagnosed with a debilitating and excruciating nerve condition, Kamoi suddenly found herself needing the very compassion and care she had spent nearly two decades providing to others. Instead of supporting a veteran employee, her employer responded with rigid quotas, disciplinary action, and ultimately, termination.

This stark juxtaposition between a health insurance company’s public mission and its internal treatment of a disabled worker sits at the heart of a major lawsuit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Represented by Helmer Friedman LLP and The Carr Law Group, Kamoi is holding Elevance Health accountable for disability discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

Understanding the Agony of Trigeminal Neuralgia

In late 2018, Kamoi developed severe trigeminal neuralgia. Often described by medical professionals as one of the most painful conditions known to humanity, it causes excruciating, electric-shock-like pain that radiates through the head and face.

For Kamoi, the attacks were sudden and unbearable. The condition made basic human functions—speaking, chewing, swallowing, and sleeping—incredibly difficult. She experienced numbness on the left side of her face and a progressive loss of hearing. Furthermore, the strong medications prescribed to manage the nerve pain carried heavy side effects, including severe fatigue, dizziness, and a slowness in thought processing.

The pain episodes completely derailed her daily routine. In a January 2023 email to her supervisors, Kamoi attached photographs of her face during a severe shock attack. She explained that the pain was so intense she could not manage to eat dinner until after 11:00 p.m., when the episode finally subsided.

A Shift in Corporate Culture

Despite her agonizing diagnosis, Kamoi returned from medical leave in 2019 ready to work. As a salaried Discharge Planner, she had the flexibility to take the time she needed to manage her symptoms while still performing her duties to an exceptional standard.

The corporate environment shifted drastically in mid-2022. Management announced that nurses would be transitioned to concurrent utilization review duties. This new role was far more complex, requiring nurses to review a patient’s vital signs, lab results, imaging, and overall treatment to determine the medical necessity of continued hospital stays.

More importantly, supervisor Monica Gagnon imposed strict new productivity standards. Nurses were now required to process 1.5 complex cases per hour and finish all work strictly within an 8-hour shift.

Knowing her medical condition and medication slowed her processing time, Kamoi proactively requested a reasonable accommodation. She asked to remain in her role as a Discharge Planner—a position she had mastered for years. Elevance Health management denied her request, forcing her into the highly regimented utilization review role.

A Timeline of Hostility and Denied Accommodations

What followed was a nearly three-year cycle of corporate hostility. Elevance Health continually penalized Kamoi for failing to meet aggressive hourly quotas, despite knowing her disability made those speeds impossible.

When Kamoi protested to her supervisor, Celia Zarate, that her medical condition prevented her from moving fast enough to meet the new targets, Zarate offered a callous response: “Then get another job.”

The pressure continued to mount. Kamoi received formal warnings for taking too much time to complete her work and for working unauthorized overtime to finish her cases. On May 16, 2024, Kamoi submitted a formal request for reasonable accommodations signed by her physician. The doctor explicitly stated that Kamoi could maintain her high-quality work but required breaks to recover from pain attacks and additional time to complete assignments.

Within two weeks, Elevance Health denied the medical request.

Analyzing the Legal Claims

The California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides strict protections for workers facing medical challenges. Employers are legally obligated to engage in a timely, good-faith interactive process to find effective accommodations for employees with known disabilities.

Kamoi’s complaint outlines clear violations of these fundamental rights. By denying flexible scheduling, refusing to adjust arbitrary productivity quotas, and punishing her for the physical limitations caused by her illness, the company failed in its legal duties.

Gregory Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP emphasizes the core legal standard at play. “The law is clear: an employer cannot penalize a disabled employee for being disabled, nor can it refuse to provide simple accommodations—like a little extra time—and then use the employee’s resulting ‘performance deficiency’ as a pretext for dismissal. That is precisely what the law against disability discrimination seeks to prevent.”

Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges severe retaliation. Under the California Labor Code and FEHA, employers cannot punish workers for requesting accommodations or reporting discriminatory behavior.

The Escalating Pattern of Retaliation

Kamoi filed complaints with the California Civil Rights Department in August and December 2024, detailing the company’s failure to accommodate her disability. Elevance Health’s response was swift and punitive.

In January 2025, management increased the productivity quotas again, demanding 2.5 cases per hour. Kamoi was subjected to verbal reprimands and targeted scrutiny. While her peers were evaluated on a standard monthly basis, Kamoi’s supervisor, Sharon Johnson, placed her under stringent weekly monitoring.

The harassment culminated on May 22, 2025. After badgering Kamoi over minor, split-second discrepancies in her timekeeping, Johnson summoned her to an abrupt telephone meeting. After 17 years of dedicated service to the company, Kamoi was fired immediately and told she was ineligible for rehire.

Broader Implications for Healthcare Workers

This case highlights a disturbing trend within corporate medicine. Healthcare workers are expected to operate with deep empathy and boundless endurance, yet they frequently face rigid, profit-driven metrics imposed by their employers.

James Carr of The Carr Law Group notes the underlying hypocrisy of the situation. “There is a cruel irony in a major health insurance company—one that profits from the healthcare system—showing such little regard for the health and dignity of a nurse who has dedicated 17 years to caring for its members.”

Employees facing major medical hurdles deserve a supportive environment, not a relentless campaign of disciplinary action designed to push them out the door. The law mandates that human dignity must take precedence over arbitrary hourly quotas.

Demanding Justice and Corporate Accountability

Priscilla Kamoi’s lawsuit against Elevance Health, Inc. (Case No. 26STCV08319) is a powerful step toward holding major corporations accountable for disability discrimination. No worker should be forced to choose between managing a debilitating illness and keeping their livelihood.

If you or a loved one has suffered from workplace discrimination, denied medical accommodations, or wrongful termination, you do not have to fight these battles alone. The legal team at Helmer Friedman LLP has over 20 years of experience advocating for justice and securing high-profile victories against massive corporations.

We offer free, confidential consultations to help you understand your legal rights and explore your options. Reach out today to partner with proven advocates who will fight tirelessly to protect your career and your dignity.

Posted on

Wrongful Termination Dressed Up as Standard HR Practice

Shocked by Wrongful Termination, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Your Rights as a Disabled Employee: What the Law Requires

Every year, thousands of workers with disabilities are quietly pushed out of their jobs—not through outright hostility, but through policies that appear neutral on the surface while stripping away federally protected rights against wrongful termination and disability discrimination. Understanding what the law demands of your employer is the first step to protecting yourself.

Under both federal and California law, employees with disabilities have robust legal protections. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, and other terms of employment. In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides even broader protections, covering employers with five or more employees and applying strict standards to the accommodation process. Together, these laws form a powerful framework—one that employers routinely underestimate, often at significant financial cost.

Who Qualifies as a “Qualified Individual” Under the ADA?

Not every medical condition triggers ADA protections, but the law’s reach is broader than many employees realize. Under the ADA, a person is considered disabled if they have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, have a record of such impairment, or are regarded by their employer as having such an impairment.

A “qualified individual” is someone who can perform the essential functions of a job—with or without reasonable accommodation. This distinction matters enormously. An employer cannot lawfully refuse to hire or retain someone simply because they have a disability, so long as the employee can fulfill the core duties of the role, either independently or with appropriate support.

Major life activities covered by the ADA include walking, lifting, sleeping, working, thinking, and communicating, among others. Courts have made clear that even temporary impairments can qualify—and that being cleared to return to work does not automatically mean an employee is no longer disabled.

What Are “Reasonable Accommodations”?

A reasonable accommodation is any modification or adjustment that allows a qualified individual with a disability to perform their job. Both the ADA and FEHA impose a legal duty on employers to explore and provide these accommodations—unless doing so would constitute an “undue hardship.”

Reasonable accommodations can include:

  • Medical leave for treatment or recovery
  • Job restructuring or modified schedules
  • Reassignment to a vacant position
  • Relocation of the work area
  • Modification of equipment or devices

The “undue hardship” exception is narrower than many employers claim. It requires proof of significant difficulty or expense, taking into account the employer’s size, financial resources, and operational structure. It is not a blanket excuse to avoid the interactive process.

Critically, when an employee requests an accommodation, the law requires employers to engage in a good-faith interactive process—a dialogue aimed at identifying effective solutions. Refusing to participate in that process is itself a violation.

Case Study: EEOC v. Geisinger Health — When “Most Qualified” Becomes Wrongful Termination

The case of EEOC v. Geisinger Health serves as a poignant reminder of the potential pitfalls associated with seemingly neutral workplace policies. At the heart of this story is Rosemary Casterline, a dedicated registered nurse at Geisinger Wyoming Valley Medical Center who devoted 30 years to her profession. After undergoing shoulder replacement surgery in October 2018 due to a rotator cuff injury, she faced unexpected challenges during her recovery. Fortunately, she received medical clearance to return to work in January 2019.

What happened next was a textbook example of ADA violations dressed up as standard HR practice. Rather than returning Casterline to her position, Geisinger posted the position as vacant and informed her that she would need to reapply and compete for her role. When she attempted to apply, the posting had already been removed. The hospital then gave her a hard deadline—obtain a new position by March 28, 2019, or be fired. She applied for numerous roles and was rejected from each. Geisinger terminated her employment on March 28 for failing to secure another position.

“Disability discrimination has no place in the workplace,” said Debra Lawrence, regional attorney for EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office. “Federal law prohibits employers from retaliating against or interfering with employees’ rights secured under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including when they seek a reasonable accommodation.”

Despite Casterline’s diligent efforts to apply for various roles, she faced rejection at every turn. Ultimately, Geisinger terminated her employment on March 28, citing her inability to find a new position.

In response, the EEOC stepped in, arguing that Geisinger’s “most qualified applicant” policy—mandating that employees returning from non-FMLA medical leave compete for reassignments—violated her rights under the ADA. The EEOC noted in its Letter of Determination that there was no substantial evidence indicating that it would have been an undue hardship for Geisinger to accommodate Casterline by holding her position open for her.

The court upheld the EEOC’s claims, finding sufficient grounds to believe that Geisinger interfered with employees’ efforts to exercise their ADA rights. This case emphasizes the critical importance of adopting compassionate policies that support individuals who are navigating health challenges. It serves as a reminder that practices requiring disabled employees on leave to compete for their own positions can lead to significant hardships and may attract scrutiny from the EEOC.

Case Study: Western Distributing’s $919,000 Settlement

The space where the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the ADA meet is a complex legal landscape, one where employees are frequently and unjustly failed. These laws are not just regulations; they are lifelines. The FMLA offers up to twelve weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave, promising that an employee can return to their original or an equivalent role. The ADA builds on this, requiring employers to provide reasonable accommodations.

For Clinton Kallenbach, a long-serving driver at Western Distributing Company, these weren’t abstract legal concepts—they were promises of stability during a health crisis. After taking FMLA leave, he was cleared by his doctor to return to work, ready to get back behind the wheel. But Western Distributing refused to accept it. Instead of welcoming him back, they created a maze of demands for second opinions and further evaluations. It was a heart-wrenching series of delays that felt less like due diligence and more like a deliberate effort to push him out.

The courts saw through the charade, recognizing the company’s actions as a violation of both the ADA and the FMLA. Western Distributing was ordered to pay $919,000 to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit—a sum that reflects the profound harm inflicted on Kallenbach and the company’s blatant disregard for his rights.

His story is a painful reminder of what happens when the return-to-work process is weaponized. For an employee recovering from a medical condition, the path back to work should be one of support, not suspicion. Employers who use this vulnerable moment as an excuse for termination are not only breaking the law but also breaking faith with the people who depend on them, exposing themselves to severe legal and financial consequences.

In this case, the EEOC was represented in-house by trial attorneys Karl Tetzlaff, Michael LaGarde, Lauren Duke, Jeff Lee, and Assistant Regional Attorneys Rita Byrnes Kittle and Laurie Jaeckel.

What Employers Cannot Do: Prohibited Actions Under the ADA and FEHA

Beyond the duty to accommodate, both the ADA and FEHA impose specific prohibitions that employers frequently overlook or deliberately ignore.

Illegal Medical Inquiries: During the interview process, employers may not ask applicants about the existence, nature, or severity of a disability. Questions must be limited to whether the applicant can perform specific job functions. Under FEHA, employers are also prohibited from inquiring about prior Workers’ Compensation claims. Post-offer medical examinations are permissible only when required of all employees in similar roles and treated as confidential records.

The “Future Harm” Excuse: An employer cannot refuse to hire or retain a disabled employee on the basis that the person might pose a future risk to themselves or others. California law is explicit: the possibility of future harm is not a legally acceptable reason for discrimination. Each individual must be evaluated based on their current, actual condition—not hypothetical risk.

Retaliation: It is unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation, filing a discrimination charge, or participating in any investigation or proceeding under the ADA. Requesting an accommodation is a protected activity. So is seeking additional medical leave. Employers who respond to these requests with adverse employment actions—demotion, termination, reassignment to inferior positions—face serious legal exposure.

Blanket Exclusion Policies: Any employment policy that automatically excludes entire groups based on a medical condition is generally unlawful. Individuals must be assessed on their specific condition and its actual effect on job performance—not on generalizations about their diagnosis.

Navigating a Complex Legal Framework

Disability rights law is not simple. It requires understanding the interaction between federal and state statutes, the procedural requirements of filing charges with the EEOC or the California Civil Rights Department, and the factual nuances that determine whether an employer’s conduct crosses the legal line.

The cases of Rosemary Casterline and Clinton Kallenbach demonstrate that even experienced employers with legal teams and established HR policies can—and do—violate the law. Their stories also demonstrate something else: that workers who know their rights and pursue them, with the right legal support, can achieve justice.

Protect Your Rights Before It’s Too Late

If you have been denied a reasonable accommodation, forced to compete for your own job after medical leave, subjected to illegal medical inquiries, or terminated after returning from a disability-related absence, the law may be on your side.

The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP have spent more than two decades representing employees in complex discrimination and wrongful termination cases. With a proven track record of significant settlements and court victories, the firm provides personalized, confidential advocacy for clients navigating the most challenging workplace situations.

Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a free, confidential consultation. Your rights matter—and so does the outcome of your case.

Posted on

Charlotte E. Ray

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

In 1872, Charlotte Ray became the first black female attorney in the United States. She was active in the NAACP and the suffragist movement.

Fun fact: she applied to and was admitted to Howard University Law School under the name “C. E. Ray,” in a possible attempt to hide her gender. #BlackHistoryMonth

Posted on

Thurgood Marshall

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Thurgood Marshall made immeasurable strides for the civil rights movement during his lifetime.

Working under his mentor, the well-known civil rights icon Charles Hamilton Houston at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Marshall successfully argued Brown v. Board of Education, which famously declared the “separate but equal” doctrine unconstitutional.

In 1965, Marshall became the first black person appointed to the post of U.S. Solicitor General. Two years later, he became the first black person appointed to the United States Supreme Court, where he served until 1991.

Posted on

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Black History Month - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was the first Black woman to sit on the nation’s highest court in its 223-year history.

Helmer Friedman LLP discusses President Bidens nomination of Judge Brown Jacksons to SCOTUS.Judge Jackson, who clerked for Justice Breyer, worked as a public defender, a corporate attorney, a U.S. District Court judge, and a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

 

“If I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States,” Judge Jackson commented in her prepared remarks about her nomination, “I can only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and the Constitution and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great nation was founded, will inspire future generations of Americans.”

Since joining the Supreme Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has made valuable contributions, including writing a notable dissenting opinion in the Court’s ruling on presidential immunity involving then-former President Donald Trump. In her dissent, Jackson argued that the majority’s decision “breaks new and dangerous ground” by granting a former president immunity from prosecution for certain official acts. She expressed concern that this ruling could exempt presidents from legal liability for serious criminal acts as long as they claim their actions were “official acts.”

Jackson’s dissent emphasized the importance of holding presidents accountable for their actions and warned that the ruling could have disastrous consequences for democracy.

 

Posted on

SHRM Hit with $11.5M Verdict: A Discrimination, Retaliation Case Study

Celebrating a victory for justice.

SHRM Hit with $11.5M Verdict: A Warning for Discriminatory Employers

It is the world’s largest Human Resources organization—the entity that sets the standards for workplace conduct across the globe. Yet, in a stunning courtroom defeat, the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) was found liable for the very behaviors it advises against.

On December 6, 2024, a Colorado jury handed down an $11.5 million verdict against SHRM in a racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit brought by a former employee. For the HR community, this verdict is more than just a headline; it is a seismic event that exposes the dangerous gap between corporate policy and actual workplace culture.

The case of Mohamed v. Society for Human Resource Management serves as a stark reminder: no organization, regardless of its reputation or expertise, is above the law.

The Case Against SHRM

Rehab Mohamed, a brown-skinned Egyptian Arab woman, joined SHRM in 2016 as an instructional designer. For four years, she was a model employee, earning positive performance reviews and two promotions. By early 2020, she had risen to the role of Senior Instructional Designer.

However, the trajectory of her career shifted dramatically under a new supervisor, Carolyn Barley. Mohamed alleged that Barley systematically favored white employees while subjecting Mohamed to excessive scrutiny, micromanagement, and exclusion from meetings.

According to the lawsuit, when Mohamed attempted to address this disparate treatment, she was met not with support, but with retaliation.

A Pattern of Retaliation

The timeline of events presented during the trial painted a damning picture of SHRM’s internal response mechanisms:

  • June 2020: Mohamed formally complained to leadership about racial discrimination.
  • July 2020: Mohamed escalated her concerns to SHRM CEO Johnny C. Taylor Jr. and the Chief Human Resources Officer.
  • August 2020: Instead of a fair resolution, Mohamed was subjected to a flawed internal investigation that dismissed her claims.
  • September 1, 2020: Mohamed was fired, allegedly for missing a project deadline—a deadline imposed only after she complained, and for which white colleagues were reportedly given extensions without penalty.

Inside the Trial: Why the Jury Sided with the Employee

The five-day trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado revealed evidence that directly contradicted SHRM’s defense. The jury’s decision to award $1.5 million in compensatory damages and a staggering $10 million in punitive damages signals a rejection of SHRM’s narrative.

Flawed Investigations

One of the most critical failures highlighted during the trial was SHRM’s internal investigation. The judge noted that a jury could reasonably conclude the investigation was a “sham.” The investigator assigned to the case had minimal experience and admitted to receiving only one training session on HR investigations—details he could not recall on the stand. Furthermore, evidence suggested that termination paperwork was being drafted the same day Mohamed was still raising concerns about retaliation.

Disparate Treatment

Testimony revealed a clear double standard. White colleagues testified that missing deadlines was commonplace and rarely resulted in discipline. Yet Mohamed was terminated for missing a deadline shortly after engaging in protected activity. This disparity undermined SHRM’s claim that the termination was performance-based, especially given Mohamed’s history of “Role Model” performance reviews.

Reckless Indifference

The massive $10 million punitive damages award indicates the jury believed SHRM acted with “reckless indifference” to Mohamed’s federally protected rights. The court found that HR essentially provided cover for the discriminatory manager rather than protecting the employee.

Implications for HR Practices

This verdict sends a powerful message to employers everywhere: promoting best practices is not enough; you must live by them.

The Danger of Performative HR

SHRM’s defeat highlights the risks of “performative” diversity and inclusion. Mohamed met with the highest levels of leadership, including the CEO, yet the organizational machinery still moved to silence her rather than solve the problem. Organizations that claim to champion equity must ensure their internal actions align with their public messaging.

Accountability for Retaliation

Retaliation remains one of the most common—and costly—mistakes employers make. As this case demonstrates, the timing between a complaint and an adverse action (like firing) creates a “temporal proximity” that serves as powerful evidence of retaliatory intent.

Protection for Whistleblowers

This case reinforces the critical legal protections for employees who speak up. Under federal law, employees who report discrimination in good faith are protected from retaliation, even if the underlying discrimination claim is not ultimately proven.

Understanding Your Rights: The Legal Framework

The verdict in Mohamed v. SHRM was grounded in two key federal statutes that protect employees from workplace injustice.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

This federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Crucially, it also prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose discriminatory practices or participate in investigations.

Section 1981

Unlike Title VII, Section 1981 specifically prohibits racial discrimination in contracts, including employment contracts. A key distinction is that Section 1981 has no statutory cap on damages, allowing for potentially unlimited compensatory and punitive awards when egregious conduct is proven.

Strategies for Employees Facing Discrimination

If you suspect you are being targeted because of your race, it can feel isolating. However, there are steps you can take to protect yourself and build a potential case.

Document Everything

Paper trails are essential. Keep a detailed record of discriminatory comments, exclusion from meetings, or sudden negative shifts in performance reviews that contradict your actual output. In the SHRM case, the timeline of events—from the leadership change to the excessive scrutiny, micromanagement, arbitrary deadlines, and the flawed investigation—helped establish a pattern of behavior.

Conclusion

The $11.5 million verdict against SHRM is a vindication for Rehab Mohamed and a warning shot to corporations that prioritize reputation over rights. It demonstrates that juries are willing to hold even the most powerful “experts” accountable when they fail to protect their own people.

For employees, this case offers hope. It proves that with the right evidence and legal strategy, it is possible to stand up to systemic bias and win.

Disclaimer: While the parties in this case were not represented by Helmer Friedman LLP, the case offers crucial insights for employees facing similar situations.

 

 

Reps: SWAIN LAW, LLC, LOWREY PARADY LEBSACK, LLC (Case No. 1:22-cv-01625)

Posted on

Discrimination Against American Workers: Your Legal Rights

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

Protecting American Workers from Discrimination

When we consider workplace discrimination, our thoughts often gravitate toward the challenges faced by minority groups in terms of race, gender, or religion. However, it’s important to recognize that the legal frameworks in place to ensure fair treatment in the workplace, especially Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, encompass much broader protections. One significant but frequently overlooked aspect of this law is the protection against national origin discrimination.

For many professionals, the painful realization that they have been overlooked, sidelined, or let go in favor of foreign workers can be devastating. This experience strikes at the very heart of their financial security and professional self-worth. It’s crucial to understand that the protections against national origin discrimination also extend to U.S. citizens. Acknowledging this can empower individuals to stand up against unjust bias and advocate for their rights with confidence.

What is National Origin Discrimination?

National origin discrimination is a pressing issue that affects many individuals in the workplace, often causing significant distress. It occurs when an employer treats an applicant or employee unfavorably solely because of the applicant’s or employee’s country of origin. While discussions around this topic often highlight the importance of protecting immigrants, it’s essential to recognize that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) makes it clear that these protections extend to all national origin groups, including those from the United States.

Under federal law, no one should face unfair treatment or preferential treatment in the workplace because of their background. This means it’s illegal for employers to favor foreign workers over American workers, including when decisions are made based on visa status. If an employer allows their preferences for workers from specific countries, or those holding certain visas like H-1B, to influence hiring, firing, or pay scales, they may unfortunately be violating Title VII. It’s crucial for everyone to be treated fairly and with respect, regardless of their origins.

Types of Discrimination Against American Workers

Discrimination can be subtle, hiding behind corporate jargon, or it can be brazenly open. For American workers, bias often manifests in specific patterns that disadvantage them compared to their foreign counterparts.

Discriminatory Job Advertisements

One of the most visible forms of discrimination appears before a worker is even hired. Title VII strictly bars discriminatory job advertisements. An employer cannot publish job postings that indicate a preference for or requirement of applicants from a particular country or with a particular visa status.

For example, advertisements that state “H-1B preferred” or “H-1B only” are red flags. These postings suggest that the employer has already decided to exclude U.S. workers from consideration, regardless of their qualifications. By actively discouraging American applicants, companies create an uneven playing field that violates federal law.

Unequal Treatment

Unequal or Disparate treatment refers to intentional discrimination where an employer treats individuals differently based on a protected characteristic. This often happens among American workers during recruitment or termination processes.

  • Hiring Barriers: Employers may erect artificial barriers to make it more difficult for American applicants to apply. For instance, during the PERM labor certification process—a step companies take to hire foreign workers permanently—some employers may subject U.S. workers to more burdensome application requirements than H-1B visa holders, effectively discouraging them from pursuing the role.
  • Termination and “The Bench”: Disparate treatment also occurs in firing decisions. In the IT and staffing sectors, workers often face time on “the bench” between assignments. Evidence of discrimination exists if a company terminates American workers on the bench at a much higher rate than it terminates visa guest workers in the same situation.

Harassment

Workplace harassment based on national origin is strictly prohibited. This goes beyond simple teasing; it becomes illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or abusive work environment, or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as being fired or demoted).

American workers might face unwelcome remarks about their work ethic compared to foreign nationals, or be subjected to derogatory comments about their “American” communication style or cultural background. When this conduct permeates the workplace, it creates an atmosphere of intimidation that the law does not tolerate.

Retaliation

Perhaps the most insidious form of misconduct is retaliation. Title VII prohibits employers from punishing an individual for engaging in a “protected activity.” Protected activities include:

  • Objecting to national origin discrimination.
  • Filing a charge with the EEOC.
  • Participating in an investigation.

If an American worker speaks up about a policy they believe favors foreign workers and is subsequently fired, demoted, or ostracized, the employer may be liable for retaliation. This charge can sometimes be easier to prove than the underlying discrimination itself.

What Doesn’t Excuse Discrimination?

Employers often attempt to justify discriminatory practices using business rationale. However, the law is clear that specific “business reasons” do not excuse hiring foreign workers over American citizens.

Customer Preference: An employer cannot claim that their clients prefer working with individuals from a specific country or those with specific visas. Customer bias is not a legal defense for discrimination.

Cost of Labor: The desire to save money does not override civil rights. Employers cannot justify displacing American workers simply because foreign labor is cheaper, whether that is due to abuse of visa-holder wage rules or “under the table” payments.

Stereotypes about Work Ethic: Beliefs that workers from a specific national origin are “more productive,” “harder working,” or possess a “better work ethic” than Americans are based on stereotypes. Using these generalized beliefs to make employment decisions is unlawful.

Real-World Examples: The Chivas USA Case

These protections are not theoretical; they are enforced in courts of law. A prominent example involving allegations of anti-American and anti-non-Latino discrimination is the lawsuit filed against the Major League Soccer organization, Chivas USA.

Two former youth academy coaches, Daniel Calichman and Theothoros Chronopoulos, filed a lawsuit alleging they were fired because they were “neither Mexican nor Latino.” The coaches, described in the complaint as “Caucasian, non-Latino Americans,” were former members of the U.S. National Team.

According to the complaint, after Jorge Vergara Madrigal acquired full ownership of Chivas USA, the organization began implementing an ethnocentric policy similar to the “Mexican-only” policy of its counterpart team, Chivas de Guadalajara. The lawsuit alleged that Vergara stated at a staff meeting, “If you don’t speak Spanish, you can go work for the Galaxy, unless you speak Chinese, which is not even a language.”

The plaintiffs claimed they were asked to provide ethnic data on youth players, and when they complained about the discriminatory environment to HR, no investigation was conducted. Instead, they were fired shortly after. This case highlights how leadership changes can lead to discriminatory shifts in culture and policy, and how American workers can find themselves targeted based on their national origin and race.

Filing a Charge with the EEOC

If you believe you have been a victim of national origin discrimination, you cannot immediately sue in federal court. You must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through this complex process, ensuring your claim is filed correctly and on time. The EEOC investigates these charges and, in some instances, may file a lawsuit on your behalf. However, it is crucial to act quickly. There are strict time limits—generally 180 calendar days from the day the discrimination took place (extended to 300 days in some cases)—and missing these deadlines can result in a permanent loss of your legal rights. Contacting our firm can help you navigate these critical first steps.

Protecting Your Rights

Discrimination against American workers is a serious violation of federal law. Whether it manifests as a job ad that excludes you, a layoff that targets you while retaining visa holders, or a hostile work environment, you have the right to work in an environment free from bias.

Navigating the complexities of Title VII and EEOC procedures requires experience and tenacity. If you suspect you have been discriminated against based on your national origin, do not face it alone. Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation and explore your legal options.

 

Posted on

Thanksgiving Thoughts

Happy Thanksgiving from Helmer Friedman LLP message on wood with pies, pumpkins, heather.

As we approach this Thanksgiving, we take a moment to reflect on the principles that guide our work and the community we are proud to serve. This time of year offers a valuable opportunity to pause, gather with loved ones, and acknowledge the foundations of our collective strength and progress.

The pursuit of justice is a demanding endeavor, one that requires unwavering commitment and a clear-eyed view of the facts. Yet it is the human element—the stories of resilience, the fight for fairness, and the trust our clients and partners place in us—that truly fuels our purpose. We have witnessed firsthand the courage it takes to stand for what is right, and for that, we are profoundly grateful.

This Thanksgiving, we extend our deepest appreciation to you. Your partnership and belief in our mission are the cornerstones of our practice. We are honored to be your advocates and allies.

From all of us at Helmer Friedman LLP, we wish you and your families a peaceful and restorative Thanksgiving filled with warmth and gratitude.

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

Discover Faces $7M Gender and Age Discrimination Lawsuit

Discover office Southern California.

Discover Executive Files Major Gender and Age Discrimination Lawsuit

A high-profile discrimination lawsuit has shaken Discover Financial Services as former executive Diane Offereins alleges the company made her a scapegoat for regulatory issues while revoking over $7 million in stock awards. The case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, centers on claims of gender discrimination and age discrimination that highlight broader corporate accountability issues.

Offereins’ lawsuit comes amid Discover’s public disclosure in July 2023 that it had incorrectly classified some individuals’ credit cards as “commercial” beginning around mid-2007—two years before she even joined the company’s payment network division. The timing raises critical questions about fair treatment and corporate responsibility when regulatory problems emerge.

The case has already survived Discover’s attempt to dismiss the charges, with U.S. District Judge Joan Gottschall ruling that Offereins “plausibly alleged violations of U.S. civil rights law and equal pay provisions.” This decision allows the lawsuit to move forward, potentially setting important precedents for executive treatment and discrimination in corporate America.

A Distinguished Career Cut Short

Diane Offereins built an impressive 25-year career at Discover Financial Services, a digital banking and payment services company. Recruited in 1998 to serve as Chief Information Officer, she demonstrated exceptional leadership that earned her increasing responsibilities within the organization.

After serving as CIO until 2009, Offereins transitioned into the role of Executive Vice President and President of Payment Services, where she led Discover’s payments network until her retirement in June 2023. Her long tenure and senior position made her one of the company’s most experienced executives, with deep institutional knowledge spanning decades of corporate evolution.

The trajectory of her career—from CIO to heading the payments division—reflected Discover’s confidence in her abilities and leadership. This background makes the circumstances surrounding her departure and the subsequent revocation of her stock awards particularly striking.

The Heart of the Allegations

Offereins’ lawsuit presents serious claims of discriminatory treatment, alleging violations of multiple federal and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The core allegation centers on pay discrimination and unfair treatment based on her gender and age.

The lawsuit describes how Discover initiated a long-running internal investigation into potential misclassification of certain credit cards that charged merchants higher interchange fees. According to court documents, this misclassification issue was “well-known within the Company and had been actively discussed since at least 2017.”

What makes Offereins’ case particularly compelling is her assertion that she became an unfair target for problems that predated her involvement. The credit card misclassification began around mid-2007, yet she didn’t join the payment network side of the business until 2009. Despite this timeline, she alleges that Discover used the investigation findings to justify canceling her unvested stock awards under claims of “misconduct.”

The $7 Million Stock Revocation

The most dramatic aspect of the case involves Discover’s decision to cancel Offereins’ unvested stock awards worth more than $7 million. The timing of this action proved particularly damaging—occurring six months after her retirement and on the night before her shares were due to vest.

Court documents reveal a calculated sequence of events. Offereins retired in June 2023, was interviewed by outside counsel days later, and then received notification in January 2024 that her unvested awards were being canceled. The company claimed she had engaged in “willful or reckless violation of the company’s risk policies” based on findings from the internal investigation.

Perhaps most significantly, Offereins alleges she was the only woman and only retired executive committee member to lose equity as a result of the investigation. According to her lawsuit, male executives who were “actually responsible for the card classification issue emerged relatively unscathed” and “managed to reap their benefits.”

Legal Proceedings Gain Momentum

Offereins took decisive legal action, filing charges with both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) in June 2024. The EEOC quickly issued her a Notice of Right to Sue, enabling her federal lawsuit.

Discover attempted to dismiss the case, arguing in court filings that it “championed her for empowering women” and that she “does not — and cannot — allege that a similarly situated male was treated differently.” However, Judge Gottschall rejected this defense strategy.

The judge’s ruling contained particularly damaging language for Discover, stating that “Offereins plausibly pleads that Discover viewed her as a convenient scapegoat because, as a woman who had reached retirement age, it believed it was considerably harder for her to ‘fight back’ than it would have been for her younger, male colleagues.”

Sean Hecker, Offereins’ attorney, welcomed the court’s decision, saying they were pleased to see “this important matter move forward.” The ruling ensures the case will proceed to discovery, where internal company communications and decision-making processes may be scrutinized.

Broader Implications for Corporate Accountability

This lawsuit highlights critical issues surrounding age discrimination and gender discrimination in corporate America, particularly at the executive level. The case demonstrates how companies might use internal investigations as cover for discriminatory actions, raising questions about due process and fair treatment.

The legal challenges in proving discrimination cases often center on demonstrating disparate treatment—showing that similarly situated individuals of different demographics were treated more favorably. Offereins’ allegations about being the sole woman and retiree to lose equity could provide compelling evidence if substantiated through discovery.

Corporate governance experts note that the timing of Discover’s actions—revoking awards just before vesting—appears calculated to maximize financial harm while minimizing the company’s exposure. Such tactics may backfire if they’re perceived as retaliatory or discriminatory by courts and juries.

The case also raises broader questions about accountability when regulatory issues span multiple executives and time periods. How companies allocate blame and consequences during investigations can reveal underlying biases and discrimination patterns.

Fighting Back Against Corporate Discrimination

The Offereins case represents more than one executive’s fight for fair treatment—it embodies the ongoing struggle against systemic discrimination in corporate America. When companies use their power to target vulnerable employees while protecting favored executives, they undermine principles of equal treatment and due process.

For individuals facing similar discrimination, this case highlights the importance of documenting unfair treatment and seeking the counsel of experienced lawyers. Employment discrimination cases require sophisticated legal strategies and a deep understanding of federal and state civil rights laws.

The outcome of this lawsuit could influence how courts evaluate discrimination claims involving executive compensation and retirement benefits. A favorable ruling for Offereins might encourage other victims of discrimination to challenge unfair corporate actions.

Whether you’re experiencing workplace discrimination or retaliation, understanding your legal rights remains crucial. Corporate accountability depends on individuals willing to stand up against unfair treatment, even when facing powerful institutional opponents.

Stay informed about important legal developments that could affect your rights. Subscribe now for regular updates on discrimination law and corporate accountability cases.