Category: hostile work environment

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

Understanding Employment Cases of 2024 and Their Impacts on Employees

High Court Ruling on employment cases.

1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis:

This case ruled that employees alleging a discriminatory job transfer do not need to demonstrate significant harm, only “some harm.” This decision simplifies the process for proving harm in discriminatory job transfer cases.

2. Murray v. UBS Securities:

The court emphasized that a whistleblower under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act only needs to show that their protected activity was a contributing factor to an adverse employment action. This effectively lowers the burden of proof for whistleblowers in retaliation cases.

3. Okonowsky v. Garland:

This case concluded that a coworker’s social media posts can be considered when assessing a Title VII claim for a hostile work environment. This allows social media evidence to be used in harassment cases.

4. Rajaram v. Meta Platforms:

The ruling prohibits discrimination against U.S. citizens based on their citizenship status, extending protections to U.S. citizens.

5. Daramola v. Oracle America:

The court clarified that the anti-retaliation provisions of certain laws do not apply outside of the United States, limiting protections under anti-retaliation laws for employees working abroad.

6. Castellanos v. State of California:

This ruling upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 22, which limits protections for workers classified as independent contractors.

7. Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office:

The case established that a single use of a racial slur can be actionable for creating a hostile work environment, thereby strengthening protections against racial harassment in the workplace.

8. Quach v. California Commerce Club:

This decision determined that a party opposing arbitration does not need to show prejudice to establish a waiver of their right to arbitration, which protects employees from unfair arbitration agreements.

9. Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors:

The court ruled that time spent on an employer’s premises for security inspections is compensable as “hours worked,” ensuring employees are fairly compensated for time spent on work-related activities.

10. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services:

The ruling stated that an employer is not liable for penalties under Labor Code section 226 if wage statements were provided in good faith. This sets a precedent for employer liability in cases relating to wage statements.

11. Vazquez v. SaniSure:

The court decided that an arbitration agreement signed during one period of employment may not apply to subsequent employment. This clarifies the applicability of arbitration agreements across different employment periods.

12. Mar v. Perkins:

Employees were found to be bound by an arbitration agreement if they continue working after a policy modification, establishing that continued employment constitutes consent to arbitration.

13. Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto:

This ruling protects employees from defamation claims related to HR complaints by defining pre-litigation statements made to HR as conditionally privileged protected activity.

14. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines:

The court mandated that plaintiff comparators need to be similar “in all relevant respects” for discrimination cases, strengthening the standard for using comparators in such cases.

15. Shah v. Skillz Inc.:

The court clarified that stocks are not considered wages under the Labor Code, elucidating the treatment of stocks in employment cases.

Are you being harassed or discriminated against in your workplace? At Helmer Friedman LLP, we have highly qualified employment law attorneys ready to fight on your behalf. Don’t suffer in silence; reach out to us for expert legal representation. At our firm, you’re not just a number—you’re a valued individual deserving justice and equity. Contact us today.

This post is based on information published recently in Advocate Magazine authored by Andrew Friedman and Erin Kelly. READ MORE…
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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Title VII Violations and a $250,000 Award: Analyzing the Monson Fruit Co. Sexual Harassment Case

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

Agricultural Workers Faced Harassment and Retaliation by Manager

In a recent development, Monson Fruit Co., a prominent produce company, has agreed to pay a settlement amount of $250,000 and provide injunctive relief to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit. This case has brought to light serious allegations of workplace misconduct, revealing unacceptable practices that contradict the legally protected rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In fiscal year 2023, the EEOC recovered over $60 million for violations of Title VII involving sex harassment.

At the heart of the lawsuit, a Latina agricultural worker reported experiencing repeated unwelcome advances and requests for sex from a manager in 2019. However, rather than addressing the issue, Monson management allegedly retaliated by firing her spouse, who was also an employee at the company.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly states that it is unlawful to harass an employee based on that person’s sex and to retaliate against individuals who report or oppose sexual harassment in the workplace. According to this law, employers are obliged to promptly investigate and end the misconduct once they receive a complaint about it. By failing to act on the reports and instead terminating the victim’s husband’s employment, Monson management stands accused of breaking this law.

Aside from the financial settlement, Monson is also required to implement additional policies and procedures to increase its compliance with Title VII. These measures include a new reporting hotline and a more comprehensive training program for supervisors and managers on the investigation of sexual harassment claims. Furthermore, the alleged harasser will be removed from any supervisory positions.

In light of these developments, EEOC Senior Trial Attorney James H. Baker emphasized the importance of building a robust EEO infrastructure for the protection of both employees and companies from workplace harassment. In fiscal year 2023, the EEOC recovered over $60 million for violations of Title VII involving sex harassment.

In conclusion, this case underscores the critical importance of an experienced sexual harassment lawyer for anyone who experiences workplace sexual harassment. A competent lawyer can help victims navigate the complexities of Title VII, ensuring appropriate action is taken and justice is served. Remember, everyone has the right to a safe, respectful, and non-threatening workplace environment.

Posted on

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

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

The Asphalt Paving Systems Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Discrimination and Harassment: Addressing the Scourge in the Construction Industry

Your workplace should be free of discrimination and harassment. Contact the attorneys of Helmer Friedman LLP for information.

Recent studies and investigations suggest that the construction industry stands out from its peers due to a significant prevalence of hate, bias, and discrimination. More so, the industry is marked by egregious instances of harassment. This has made the sector a focal point for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) under the current Biden administration, which has singled out industries where women and workers of color are underrepresented.

In the post-Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act era, this focus on hostile work environments in construction has intensified. A noteworthy step was an EEOC hearing dedicated to investigating the culture of racism and sexual harassment within construction. The agency’s yearlong study culminated in a June 2023 report highlighting hostility and discrimination on construction sites.

The construction industry’s unique characteristics make it a hotbed for such adverse behaviors. A homogenous workforce and cyclical and project-based work leave workers exposed to discrimination. These acts of hostility range from taunting tradeswomen and vandalizing black workers’ toolboxes to retaliatory transfers or unfair reduction of hours.

With an urgent need to root out bias, six major general contractors inaugurated Construction Inclusion Week. This initiative mirrored the sector’s successful ‘Safety Week,’ aimed at eliminating bias at building sites.

The EEOC guide proposes five key strategies to combat discrimination and promote a healthier working environment. These include committed and engaged leadership, consistent accountability, comprehensive harassment policies, trusted complaint procedures, and regular interactive training. These are not legal mandates, but adopting these practices will significantly safeguard employers against liability in the event of grievances.

Addressing bias and harassment is not only about creating a conducive work environment; it’s also a strategic move to combat the industry’s labor shortage. Creating an attractive working environment efficiently recruits and retains a diverse workforce, from women to people of color.

Tackling discrimination and harassment has dual advantages. It improves workplace safety and ensures continuous workforce supply aligned with the industry’s growth and needs. Adopting practices that foster a harassment-free workplace is a step in the right direction, not just a compliance checklist.

Posted on

Protecting Construction Industry Employees and Union Members from Hostile Work Environment

Trade union members discrimination lawyers in Los Angeles, Helmer Friedman LLP.

Every employee, irrespective of their industry, has the right to a dignified and respectful workplace environment. Distinct laws and regulations protect against discrimination and harassment that can foster a hostile work environment. This article will focus on the construction industry and union members, elucidating the laws that arm them against such unacceptable situations.

The Construction Industry and Trade Unions

Discrimination and harassment on a construction site can take various forms. Whether it’s racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, such occurrences can significantly impact a worker’s mental and physical health, productivity, and overall work satisfaction. Recognizing this, the government has established strict laws and rules to protect the rights of all construction workers, including those members of trade unions.

Fostering a Respectful Work Environment

In a recent civil rights case filed by the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights brought a lawsuit against the Local 11 Ironworkers Union. The complaint accuses Local 11 of fostering a hostile work environment, resulting in unlawful discrimination based on race, sexual orientation, and sex. The union’s leaders and members allegedly perpetuated this toxic environment, failing to take adequate measures to prevent, halt, or rectify the situation.

Additionally, Local 11 is accused of racial discrimination through its employment referral system, which systematically overlooked Black members for job opportunities and assigned them less desirable positions even when selected for jobs. These charges of discrimination and harassment highlight that no organization is exempt from the obligation to maintain a respectful and equitable work environment.

Legal Protections

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to unions and construction employees. Specifically, Title VII of the act prohibits discrimination by trade unions, schools, or employers involved in interstate commerce or doing business with the federal government. This provision ensures equal treatment and protection against discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex within union-related contexts.

Your Rights Are Protected

As a construction worker or a union member, you can rest assured that many laws safeguard your rights. You should not tolerate any form of discrimination or harassment at your workplace. Stand firm against such misconduct and know that the law stands with you.

In conclusion, a hostile work environment is detrimental to individual workers and the industry’s productivity and integrity. The government has implemented stringent laws to prevent such occurrences and protect the rights and dignity of all construction industry employees and trade union members.

Posted on

The High Cost of Failing to Address Sexual Harassment: A Case Study

Unaddressed sexual harassment complaints creating a hostile work environment. Contact the lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP for help.

A fundamental objective of every organization should be to provide a safe and conducive environment for employees. Unfortunately, at times, some companies lag in upholding this, one of them being AMZ Manufacturing Co. A glaring example of the high cost of failing to address sexual harassment, this case ultimately resulted in a costly settlement of $110,000.

AMZ, a Pennsylvania-based electroplating, painting, and assembly business, was accused of violating federal law by subjecting two of their female employees to a hostile work environment due to their sex. One was relentlessly subjected to demeaning cat-calls and crude comments about female anatomy. Another was the target of inappropriate touching, crude comments about her sexual orientation, and unwelcome sexual advances.

Despite receiving complaints from both women, AMZ failed to take effective action to stop the harassment. This lack of response is not only a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it also paints a picture of a company where sexual harassment is not taken seriously.

This case eventually led to a lawsuit, EEOC v. AMZ Manufacturing Co., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit was only pursued after attempts to reach a pre-litigation settlement through voluntary conciliation failed. What is the cost of this negligence? AMZ will pay a whopping $110,000 in a settlement on June 26, 2024.

The high cost of ignoring sexual harassment isn’t only financial. It fosters a hostile work environment, erodes employee morale, and tarnishes the company’s reputation. The AMZ case serves as a reminder of the imperative need to take sexual harassment complaints seriously and take swift, effective action to address them.

The foothold of every successful business lies in the well-being of its employees. Companies must take substantive steps towards ensuring a workspace free of sexual harassment, as failure to do so can have severe consequences, both legally and financially. This case underlines the significant cost of failing to address sexual harassment allegations, sending a clear message – ignoring sexual harassment is not just ethically wrong, it’s prohibitively expensive.