Category: Infliction of Emotional Distress

Posted on

Transgender Athletes, Discrimination Law & Your Rights

Hostile Work Environment | Workplace bullying attorneys Helmer Friedman LLP.

Transgender Athletes and the Law: Rights, Rulings, and Real Consequences

The legal landscape for transgender individuals in the United States has never been more contested—or more consequential. From the locker room to the courtroom, from the workplace to the rowing dock, transgender people face discrimination that carries real, lasting harm. At the same time, the legal protections designed to shield them are being actively challenged, reinterpreted, and in some cases, dismantled.

This post unpacks that tension. It examines the federal and state laws that govern transgender rights in sports and the workplace, explores how recent Supreme Court decisions are reshaping the legal landscape, and draws on a disturbing real-world case involving a teenage transgender girl in Sacramento to illustrate what’s actually at stake when legal protections fail.

Whether you are a transgender individual who has faced discrimination, an employer trying to understand your legal obligations, or someone seeking to understand your rights after being targeted in a sports program, this guide explains what the law says—and where it still falls short.

The Legal Framework: How Federal Law Protects Transgender Individuals

What does Title VII cover for transgender employees?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sex. For decades, courts debated whether “sex” encompassed gender identity. That debate ended—at least at the federal level—with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. The court held that discrimination against transgender employees constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.

That ruling has broad implications. Employers cannot legally fire, demote, harass, or refuse to hire someone because they are transgender. Deliberately and persistently misgendering a transgender employee, excluding them from meetings, or creating a hostile work environment based on gender identity can all constitute actionable discrimination under federal law.

How does Title IX apply to transgender students and athletes?

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding. Several federal courts have interpreted Title IX to protect transgender students from discrimination and harassment based on gender identity. Schools, under this framework, cannot exclude, harass, or mistreat transgender students and must respect their right to participate in activities consistent with their gender identity.

That interpretation, however, is now under significant legal pressure—particularly when it comes to sports.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 Ruling: A Turning Point for Transgender Athletes

In June 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court’s six-justice conservative majority issued a 6-3 decision upholding state laws that bar transgender girls and women from playing on school sports teams consistent with their gender identity, as reported by Chalkbeat.

The decision arose from two consolidated cases: Little v. Hecox, involving Lindsay Hecox, a transgender student who competed on a women’s club track and field team in Idaho after she didn’t qualify for the Division I team, and West Virginia v. B.P.J., involving Becky Pepper-Jackson, a transgender high school track athlete who had undergone hormone therapy from a young age.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh interpreted the term “sex” in Title IX’s sports provisions to refer exclusively to biological sex. He cited unsettled science around whether transgender women who have undergone hormone therapy retain physical advantages, and concluded that allowing transgender girls to compete on girls’ teams could place other competitors at a “serious disadvantage.”

The ruling leaves in place restrictions in 29 states, most of which explicitly bar transgender women and girls from women’s and girls’ school sports teams, according to the Movement Advancement Project. Idaho was the first state to enact such a law, in 2020.

Critically, the decision does not require states to ban transgender athletes—it permits them to do so. States like California, which allows transgender athletes to compete consistent with their gender identity, retain that right for now. But the ruling signals a future in which those inclusive policies face escalating legal and political pressure.

What did the dissenting justices say?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, questioning the majority’s cavalier treatment of transgender individuals’ rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. She acknowledged that bans on transgender women and girls in female sports may not always violate Title IX, but argued that at least one of the cases—Becky Pepper-Jackson’s—warranted further fact-finding, given that Pepper-Jackson never went through male puberty.

Sotomayor also underscored the human cost of the ruling. “Sports can help build resilience, tenacity, leadership, and discipline,” she wrote. “It can lead to life-long friendships, community, and a sense of belonging… Sports, of course, are often zero sum, but the law need not and should not be.”

Workplace Discrimination Against Transgender Individuals: What It Looks Like in Practice

What are the most common forms of workplace discrimination against transgender employees?

Workplace discrimination against transgender people rarely presents as a single, obvious act. It tends to accumulate—a pattern of behavior that, taken together, creates a hostile and intolerable work environment.

Common forms include:

  • Persistent misgendering: Deliberately using incorrect pronouns or names, especially after being corrected, can constitute harassment under Title VII.
  • Exclusion from meetings or opportunities: Systematically leaving a transgender employee out of professional development, team discussions, or advancement opportunities.
  • Hostile work environment: Allowing coworkers or management to make derogatory comments, spread false rumors, or engage in targeted bullying.
  • Wrongful termination: Firing an employee because of their transgender identity or because they reported discrimination.

Employers face potential liability not just for their own conduct, but for the conduct of managers and coworkers if they knew—or should have known—about the harassment and failed to act.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), harassment complainants filed 35,774 claims in 2024, representing an approximately 32% increase from 2022. That surge reflects growing awareness of legal rights—but also a worsening climate of discrimination.

What legal remedies are available to transgender employees?

Under Title VII, transgender employees who experience discrimination can file a complaint with the EEOC. If the agency finds merit in the claim, it can pursue conciliation or litigation on the employee’s behalf. Employees may also file a private lawsuit seeking compensatory damages, back pay, reinstatement, and attorneys’ fees. California employees have additional protections under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which explicitly prohibits discrimination based on gender identity and expression and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for transitioning employees.

The Capital Crew Case: When Harassment Happens to a Child

Few cases illustrate the lived reality of anti-transgender discrimination more starkly than the lawsuit filed against Capital Crew, a competitive youth rowing program housed at the Sacramento State Aquatic Center.

According to a lawsuit filed in Sacramento County Superior Court, a 12-year-old transgender girl—identified by a pseudonym—endured more than two years of bullying, exclusion, and harassment at the hands of teammates and coaches. The alleged discrimination began after a parent publicly complained that she was “a boy on the girls’ team.” What followed, per the lawsuit, was systematic and relentless.

Teammates allegedly excluded her from team meetings, refused to acknowledge her presence, laughed at her, and threatened her only friend against spending time with her. Coaches, the lawsuit claims, failed to acknowledge her achievements, misgendered her, and omitted her from team selections. In January, she was allegedly separated from the rest of the team and made to practice alone on land while her teammates were on the water.

In April, a false rumor that she had inappropriately touched a teammate spread through the program. The mental health consequences were severe. According to the lawsuit, she experienced self-harm and suicidal ideation before eventually quitting the team.

The lawsuit names the coaches, Capital Crew, the Sacramento State Aquatic Center, Sacramento State, the Associated Students, Inc., and the California State University trustees. It seeks her reinstatement, the termination of the implicated coaches, an end to discrimination against transgender individuals, and compensatory damages.

Attorney Susie Cirilli, who represents the child and her mother, was unequivocal about the case’s significance. “The reason why this case is important, because at issue in this complaint, is the treatment of a child,” Cirilli said. “For over a year, this child was left unprotected while the people in charge—when not actively engaging in the hostility themselves—condoned the unlawful harassment that was being committed by the other girls on the rowing team.”

Cirilli also drew a direct line between the political climate and the harm suffered by the child. “It is important to understand that the rhetoric that is out there in the zeitgeist right now… people need to understand that it has direct effects on children.”

How does harassment in youth sports differ from workplace discrimination—and where do they overlap?

Youth sports programs like Capital Crew occupy a distinct legal space. They are not traditional employers, and participants are not employees. However, programs housed within or affiliated with institutions that receive federal funding—such as a university aquatic center—may be subject to Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.

The legal remedies available in such cases can include reinstatement, compensatory damages, and institutional accountability measures—such as the lawsuit’s demand to strip Associated Students of its auxiliary status at Sacramento State. Organizations that fail to protect minors in their programs from harassment and discrimination face not only legal liability but significant reputational and institutional consequences.

The Gap Between Legal Protections and Lived Experience

Federal law, as it stands, provides meaningful protections for transgender employees. Bostock v. Clayton County was a watershed moment. California’s FEHA offers some of the strongest protections in the country. Yet as the Capital Crew case and the EEOC’s rising claims data both demonstrate, legal protections on paper do not automatically translate into safety in practice.

Discrimination compounds. A transgender teenager who is bullied out of a rowing program carries that experience into adulthood—into job interviews, performance reviews, and every subsequent environment where they must decide how much of themselves to reveal. The intersection of hostile rhetoric, inadequate institutional responses, and unsettled law creates conditions where discrimination can persist even where it is technically prohibited.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 sports ruling has not resolved these tensions—it has intensified them. Legal experts noted that the decision was deliberately narrow, tailored to sports and leaving many broader transgender rights questions open for future litigation. As Deborah Brake, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who has written extensively about Title IX, observed, nothing in the decision “forecloses challenges to transgender discrimination in other areas.”

Understanding Your Rights and Taking Action

The legal framework around transgender rights is evolving rapidly, and not always in a protective direction. That makes it more important than ever for transgender individuals—and their advocates—to understand what protections currently exist, where enforcement gaps remain, and when to seek legal recourse.

If you or someone you know has experienced workplace discrimination, harassment in a sports or educational program, or retaliation for reporting such conduct, the time to act is now. Legal claims are subject to statutes of limitations, and delays can affect your ability to seek justice.

Helmer Friedman LLP has represented clients in complex discrimination, harassment, and civil rights cases for over 20 years. Our attorneys understand both the legal landscape and the human cost of discrimination. If you believe your rights—or a child’s rights—have been violated, contact us for a confidential consultation. We will listen, evaluate your case honestly, and advocate fully on your behalf.

Posted on

MetaMate AI Discrimination: Know Your Legal Rights

Artificial Intelligence conversations are not confidential.

When AI Fires You: Algorithmic Discrimination and the Law

In Brief: AI systems are now making—or heavily influencing—hiring, performance, and termination decisions across U.S. workplaces. Workers on medical, parental, or disability leave are disproportionately harmed when automated scoring tools penalize legitimate absences. Federal and state laws still apply, and recent court rulings signal growing judicial scrutiny of algorithmic employment decisions.

In July 2026, 26 workers filed an anonymous lawsuit against Meta. Their allegation: that AI-powered productivity tools scored their performance while they were on approved medical, parental, or disability leave—then used those lowered scores to select them for termination in a mass layoff affecting nearly 8,000 employees.

This is widely reported as the first lawsuit against a major U.S. tech company to directly challenge AI-driven layoff decisions. It almost certainly will not be the last.

AI systems now influence every stage of the employment lifecycle—screening candidates before a human ever sees a résumé, monitoring keystrokes and browser activity, scoring performance, and flagging workers for layoffs. The technology moves fast. Legal accountability is catching up. And for workers in protected categories, the stakes could not be higher.

This post explains how algorithmic discrimination harms protected workers, what laws apply, how AI is reshaping pay equity, and what you can do if an automated system has affected your job.

How AI Has Taken Over Workplace Decision-Making

AI is no longer just a recruiting filter. Companies now deploy it across the entire employment relationship—from the moment a candidate submits an application to the moment a worker is selected for termination.

The systems at the center of the Meta lawsuit illustrate how far this has gone. According to the complaint, Meta used MetaMate, an internal large-language-model assistant, alongside an employee-trained “second brain” that tracked communications and documents, and a productivity-scoring tool that drew data from keystrokes, screen activity, browser history, messaging, and email. Meta has maintained that human managers made workforce decisions using neutral criteria—job level, historical performance ratings, and tenure—not AI, and not protected characteristics.

That defense highlights the central problem. When human decisions rely on data generated by automated systems, the line between algorithmic output and human judgment becomes difficult to locate—and nearly impossible for workers to challenge.

The scale of AI deployment is significant. According to a MyPerfectResume report, 73% of employers now use AI in hiring decisions, with half reporting that their tools automatically reject up to 50% of applications before any human review. More than 80% of U.S. employers, and virtually all Fortune 500 companies, currently use some form of AI screening in their hiring process.

Why Workers on Protected Leave Are Disproportionately at Risk

Many AI productivity and performance tools measure output continuously—without accounting for legitimate interruptions like medical leave, disability accommodations, pregnancy, or family caregiving. The result is a structural disadvantage built into the system itself, not necessarily into anyone’s intent.

In the Meta case, plaintiffs allege their AI-adoption metrics and productivity scores declined while they were lawfully away from work. Those lower scores, they contend, fed directly into the termination selection process. An algorithm that treats a worker on approved FMLA leave identically to one who is actively working will systematically penalize people with serious health conditions, disabilities, or pregnancy-related absences. The discrimination is encoded in the design.

This dynamic extends beyond layoffs. AI-driven systems increasingly personalize compensation—setting pay rates and bonus thresholds based on granular behavioral and performance data. When workers in protected categories generate less trackable “output” for legitimate reasons, their algorithmic scores—and corresponding pay—can fall accordingly. Two employees doing the same job at the same company may earn meaningfully different wages based entirely on AI-generated performance data, with no single discriminatory decision ever made.

The pattern is visible in industries far from Silicon Valley. Delivery and gig workers whose earnings are dictated by automated scorecards face situations where a minor metric decline—attributable to illness, injury, or a medical appointment—can eliminate bonus eligibility without any human review of the underlying cause.

Stanford University research reinforces the concern. A study following 3.4 million people submitting 4 million job applications across 1,700 positions found that an AI hiring tool can pass a standard bias audit at the aggregate level while still systematically screening out Black applicants and Asian applicants for specific roles. Applying the EEOC’s standard adverse impact threshold, the study found 26% of Black applicants and 15% of Asian applicants were affected in ways a standard audit would not have flagged.

What the Law Says—and Where Enforcement Falls Short

Existing federal and state laws apply to algorithmic employment decisions. The challenge is proving a violation when the algorithm itself is a proprietary trade secret.

Key legal protections include:

  • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, firing, and compensation, and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations.
  • Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Protects employees on approved leave from adverse employment actions, including termination.
  • Title VII / Pregnancy Discrimination Act / Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Prohibits discrimination based on sex, pregnancy, and related medical conditions.
  • California FEHA: Provides broader state protections against disability and pregnancy discrimination, requiring employers to explore all reasonable accommodations before making an adverse employment decision.

Courts are beginning to take these claims seriously in the AI context. In Mobley v. Workday, a federal judge allowed discrimination claims to proceed under the ADA, California law, and federal anti-discrimination statutes. The plaintiff, Derek Mobley—a Black man over 40 with a disability—alleged he was rejected from more than 100 positions at companies using Workday’s AI screening platform, often within minutes of applying. Court filings show that approximately 1.1 billion applications were rejected using Workday’s tools during the relevant period. Workday denied wrongdoing, stating that its technology “looks only at job qualifications, not protected traits.”

In the Meta litigation, U.S. District Judge William Orrick declined to block the layoffs while acknowledging “serious questions going to the merits,” and separately required Meta to explain specifically why four visa-holding plaintiffs were selected—signaling that documentation of human decision-making carries real weight in court.

The EEOC has been direct on employer liability: employers are responsible for AI bias in tools supplied by third-party vendors. Delegating screening to an outside platform does not transfer legal exposure.

Colorado’s AI Act, effective June 2026, requires employers deploying high-risk AI systems to take reasonable care to protect consumers from algorithmic discrimination. California and New York City have enacted laws requiring bias testing of AI hiring tools. Compliance, however, remains inconsistent—and enforcement has not kept pace with deployment.

AI and Pay Discrimination: The Hidden Wage Gap

Algorithmic discrimination does not stop at who gets hired or fired. AI systems now personalize compensation in ways that can compound existing gender and racial wage gaps without generating any obvious paper trail.

Rather than applying a uniform wage, some AI compensation models calculate individualized pay offers based on behavioral indicators, location, work history, and projected acceptance rates. Workers who have taken protected leave, are managing disabilities, or have caregiving responsibilities may generate less trackable productivity data—and receive lower AI-generated compensation scores as a result.

What Workers Can Do Right Now

If you believe an AI system has influenced an adverse employment action against you, your response in the days and weeks that follow matters significantly.

Document everything. Keep records of approved leave, performance reviews, changes in productivity scores, and any communications about your role or compensation. Patterns matter in algorithmic discrimination claims—and courts have demonstrated they are willing to scrutinize them.

Know your rights. Employers are generally required to pause automated monitoring during approved leave or adjust scores to account for it. Failure to do so may constitute discrimination under the ADA, FMLA, Title VII, or applicable state law.

Demand transparency. In California and New York City, AI hiring tools are subject to bias-testing requirements that workers can invoke. You have a right to understand how decisions affecting your employment are being made.

Act quickly. Employment discrimination claims are subject to strict filing deadlines. Delaying consultation with an attorney can limit your legal options, sometimes significantly.

The Law Is Catching Up—But Workers Must Act

AI does not eliminate workplace discrimination. It can systematize it at scale, quietly and without obvious fingerprints. The Meta and Workday cases mark a turning point: courts are now scrutinizing AI-assisted employment decisions, and the legal frameworks workers need already exist.

What is required is workers who understand their rights, document their circumstances, and move before deadlines close.

If you were terminated, had your pay reduced, or experienced any adverse employment action that you believe was influenced by an AI system—and you were on medical leave, are pregnant, have a disability, or belong to any protected class—you may have a legal claim. Contact Helmer Friedman LLP for a confidential consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue my employer for using AI to fire me?
Yes, in certain circumstances. If an AI-assisted termination decision disadvantaged you because of a protected characteristic—such as disability, pregnancy, race, age, or sex—existing federal and state anti-discrimination laws may apply. Recent lawsuits against Meta and Workday have established that courts are willing to allow these claims to proceed. An employment attorney can help evaluate whether the specific facts of your situation support a viable legal claim.

Is AI-based pay discrimination illegal?
It can be. The Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and California’s Equal Pay Act prohibit pay disparities based on sex, race, and ethnicity. When AI compensation tools systematically assign lower pay to workers in protected categories—for example, those who have taken medical or parental leave—those disparities may constitute unlawful discrimination, even if no individual decision-maker intended to discriminate.

Are employers liable for AI discrimination if the tool came from a third-party vendor?
Yes. The EEOC has stated clearly that employers are responsible for vetting AI tools used in their hiring and employment processes, even when those tools are supplied by a third party. The Workday case also established a legal framework under which the vendor itself may face liability—but that does not eliminate the employer’s exposure.

What evidence do I need to challenge an AI-driven employment decision?
Documentation is critical. Records of approved leave, performance reviews, changes in scores or compensation, and any communications about your role or termination can help establish a pattern. Courts have shown they are willing to scrutinize algorithmic decision-making when workers can demonstrate a correlation between protected activity—such as taking FMLA leave—and adverse employment outcomes.

What is the deadline for filing an employment discrimination claim?
Filing deadlines vary depending on the type of claim and jurisdiction. Federal discrimination claims generally require filing a charge with the EEOC within 180 to 300 days of the discriminatory act. State law deadlines may differ. Acting promptly is essential—delaying consultation with an attorney can limit your options.

Posted on

The Wage Gap Is Real — Here’s How to Fight It

Equal pay for equal work - paying women less than men is sex discrimination.

The Battle For Equal Continues

For every dollar earned by a White man, a Latina woman earns just 57.8 cents. That figure comes from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research — and it hasn’t budged much in decades, despite the Equal Pay Act being on the books since 1963. Pay inequality is not a relic of the past. It is an ongoing, well-documented reality that affects millions of workers across every industry, every state, and nearly every pay grade.

Understanding why pay discrimination persists — and what workers and employers can do about it — starts with knowing the facts. This post breaks down what pay inequality actually looks like, which laws protect you, and how real workers have successfully challenged discriminatory compensation practices.

What Is Workplace Pay Inequality?

Pay inequality and pay discrimination are related — but they’re not the same thing. Pay inequality is the broad term for disparities in earnings across groups. Pay discrimination is the illegal act of compensating workers differently based on protected characteristics like sex, race, or national origin.

Both are serious. Both cause real harm.

The most common forms include:

  • Gender pay gap: Women consistently earn less than men for the same work, across virtually every occupation.
  • Racial and ethnic disparities: Non-White employees earn significantly less than White counterparts, even when controlling for education and experience.
  • Intersectional inequality: Women of color face compounded disadvantages — they don’t just experience the gender pay gap or the racial wage gap. They experience both, simultaneously.

Pay discrimination can be overt — a direct wage difference between two employees doing the same job — or subtle, operating through mechanisms like job segregation, reliance on salary history, and compensation secrecy that shields disparities from scrutiny.

The Legal Framework: What Laws Protect Workers from Pay Discrimination?

Several federal and state laws give workers meaningful legal recourse.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was the first major federal protection. It requires equal pay for equal work, regardless of sex. Same role, same qualifications, same pay — that’s the standard. Violations can be pursued through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or civil litigation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) extends those protections further. It prohibits pay discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and national origin — and applies not just to wages, but to hiring, promotions, and virtually every condition of employment.

The California Equal Pay Act goes further still. Under California law, employees cannot be paid less than workers of a different sex, race, or ethnicity for “substantially similar work” — meaning work requiring similar skill, effort, and responsibility under comparable working conditions. Employees in California also have an explicit right to discuss their wages with coworkers, and employers cannot retaliate for those conversations.

Workers who experience retaliation for reporting pay discrimination — whether through demotion, termination, or hostile treatment — have additional legal protections. Acts of retaliation can form the basis of a separate legal claim.

Pay Discrimination in Action: Real Cases, Real Stakes

The legal framework matters. But what makes pay discrimination tangible is the human cost behind it.

Maria Alza vs. University of Texas Medical Branch

In June 2026, the EEOC filed a lawsuit against the University of Texas Medical Branch on behalf of Maria Alza, a solutions architect who earned approximately $12,000 less per year than a male colleague performing the same role — despite having more experience, more certifications, and a higher level of education. When Alza requested a formal salary review, UTMB failed to act. Even after she earned a master’s degree, no raise was issued without simultaneously giving her male colleague a raise as well.

EEOC trial attorney Claudia Molina stated plainly: “We will continue to advocate for compliance with the Equal Pay Act to ensure that employees are paid equally when they perform substantially equal work.”

Dr. Anissa Rogers vs. California State University

A jury awarded Dr. Anissa Rogers $6 million in her lawsuit against California State University San Bernardino. Dr. Rogers, a former Associate Dean, had filed multiple harassment reports against Dean Jake Zhu. CSU took no meaningful action. The resulting constructive dismissal — forcing Dr. Rogers out of her position — reflected not just individual misconduct, but systemic institutional failure.

Google’s $28 Million Settlement

An internal spreadsheet exposed systematic pay disparities targeting Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander employees at Google. The resulting settlement required not only financial compensation but mandatory pay equity reviews and policy overhauls — recognition that money alone cannot fix a structural problem.

Activision Blizzard’s $54.8 Million Resolution

The gaming company agreed to pay $54.8 million to resolve claims of unequal pay and sex-based discrimination against female employees in California. As part of the resolution, independent consultants were appointed to review compensation policies. Systemic change, not just financial penalties, is increasingly what courts and regulators expect.

The Real Cost of Pay Inequality

The wage gap is not just a line in a spreadsheet. Its effects accumulate across a lifetime.

Lower wages mean lower retirement contributions, reduced credit access, and diminished lifetime earnings. The gap that appears modest on a monthly paycheck becomes staggering over a 30-year career. Beyond finances, pay discrimination frequently accompanies limited advancement opportunities — creating cycles that are difficult to break without deliberate intervention.

Then there is the psychological toll. Dr. Rogers’ $6 million award included noneconomic damages — recognition by a jury that the emotional distress caused by sustained workplace discrimination is real, serious, and worthy of legal redress. At the societal level, persistent pay inequality weakens families, narrows economic mobility, and reinforces generational disadvantage.

How to Fight Pay Inequality: Strategies for Employees and Employers

For Employees: Identify, Document, and Act

Know your rights. The Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and state laws like the California Equal Pay Act all provide meaningful protections. Familiarity with these frameworks is the starting point for any challenge to pay discrimination.

Compare compensation. Use public salary data, LinkedIn Salary, Glassdoor, and direct conversations with colleagues. In California, those conversations are legally protected. Employers cannot prohibit or punish employees for discussing wages.

Document everything. Performance reviews, qualifications, job responsibilities, salary conversations — keep records of all of it. Documentation is the foundation of any credible legal claim.

Report internally first. File a formal complaint with HR and record every response (or non-response). Internal reporting creates a paper trail and may trigger employer obligations to investigate.

Consult an employment attorney. If internal channels produce no results, legal counsel is the next step. Many employment attorneys who specialize in pay discrimination offer free, confidential consultations and can assess whether a viable claim exists.

For Employers: Build a Fairer Workplace

Conduct regular pay audits. Proactively review compensation data across gender, race, and ethnicity. Disparities identified internally are far less costly — financially and reputationally — than those surfaced through litigation.

Eliminate salary history reliance. California Labor Code § 432.5 prohibits employers from using prior salary to set compensation. The reason is straightforward: basing pay on historical wages entrenches the inequities those wages already reflected.

Publish pay scales. Compensation transparency reduces the conditions under which underpayment goes undetected and unchallenged.

Normalize wage conversations. A workplace culture that discourages salary discussions is a workplace where pay discrimination is easier to sustain.

Where to Turn for Help

Several organizations and legal channels are available to workers experiencing pay discrimination:

  • Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): Federal charges can be filed at eeoc.gov. The EEOC investigates pay discrimination claims under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
  • California Department of Industrial Relations: Handles state-level complaints under the California Equal Pay Act.
  • National Women’s Law Center (NWLC): Advocacy, resources, and legal information focused on gender pay equity.
  • Employment attorneys: Specialists in pay discrimination can provide a confidential assessment of your situation, often at no upfront cost.

The Fight for Pay Equity Demands Action

Pay inequality remains widespread. The legal protections are real. And workers — from Maria Alza to Dr. Anissa Rogers — have demonstrated that challenging discriminatory practices through proper legal channels produces results.

Awareness is not enough. Knowing that a wage gap exists does not close it. What closes it is action — employees who document their circumstances and seek legal counsel, employers who audit their compensation practices with honesty, and courts and regulators who hold violators accountable.

If you believe you’ve been subjected to pay discrimination, don’t wait. Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a free, confidential consultation with an experienced pay discrimination attorney. Your legal rights exist to be used — and the right advocate can make all the difference.

Posted on

When City Hall Retaliates: What Public Employees Must Know

Whistleblower Attorneys Los Angeles, rewards and protection.

City Manager Retaliation: What Public Employees Must Know

Workplace retaliation doesn’t only happen in corporate boardrooms. It happens inside government institutions—city halls, police departments, and public agencies—where power is concentrated, bureaucratic loyalty runs deep, and the cost of speaking up can be severe.

Travis Martinez, a 30-year veteran of the Redlands Police Department and deputy police chief, found this out firsthand. After reporting alleged sexual misconduct by a senior officer, raising public safety concerns about a fatal Metrolink crash, and advocating for an employee unfairly denied bilingual pay, Martinez alleges he was stripped of responsibilities, passed over for promotion, and publicly undermined. In April 2025, the Redlands City Council voted 3-2 to settle his whistleblower claim for $871,956—a figure that reflects the serious legal and financial consequences of retaliation in public institutions.

His case is not an outlier. It is a warning.

This post explains what workplace retaliation is, which activities the law protects, and what steps you should take if you believe you’re being punished for doing the right thing.

What Is Workplace Retaliation?

Retaliation occurs when an employer takes a “materially adverse” action against an employee for engaging in a protected activity. In plain terms: it is punishment designed to silence you or make your working conditions so unbearable that you quit.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector and the most common finding in federal sector cases. That prevalence is even more troubling in city and municipal environments, where wrongdoers often have the added protection of bureaucratic hierarchy and institutional loyalty.

One important clarification: not every unpleasant workplace experience qualifies. A rude comment or a petty slight typically doesn’t meet the legal standard. To be actionable, the employer’s behavior must be severe enough to deter a reasonable person from reporting discrimination or illegal conduct in the future.

How Retaliation Manifests: Recognizing the Signs

Retaliation is rarely as clean-cut as a termination letter. City managers and public officials often deploy subtler tactics—incremental, deniable, and designed to erode an employee’s standing over time.

Legally recognized forms of adverse action include:

  • Demotion: A reduction in rank, pay, or professional status
  • Exclusion: Being shut out of key meetings, training opportunities, or career advancement pathways
  • Unwarranted Discipline: Negative performance reviews that contradict an employee’s documented history
  • Responsibility Changes: Having duties stripped or being reassigned to less desirable roles
  • Hostility: Verbal abuse or a deliberately hostile work environment intended to force resignation

Martinez’s allegations illustrate this pattern precisely. Despite his qualifications, decades of experience, and national reputation in community policing, he claims he was bypassed for the police chief role in favor of a candidate with less experience—a decision he attributes directly to retaliation for his whistleblowing.

What Activities Does the Law Protect?

Central to any retaliation claim is the concept of a “protected activity.” These are specific actions the law shields from employer punishment. Under California and federal law, you cannot legally be retaliated against for:

  • Reporting corporate wrongdoing, fraud, or illegal conduct (whistleblowing)
  • Reporting workplace harassment or discrimination based on race, gender, age, or disability
  • Refusing to participate in unlawful or unethical conduct
  • Advocating for employees’ rights, such as fair pay practices
  • Filing a workers’ compensation claim
  • Reporting safety hazards to government agencies or law enforcement

The breadth of Martinez’s allegations is instructive. His claim spans multiple protected activities: reporting alleged sexual misconduct to the FBI, raising concerns about a fatal public safety risk, advocating for an officer denied bilingual pay, and supporting the findings of a DEI instructor who was later let go. Each action, on its own, would likely qualify for legal protection.

Your Rights Under California Law: Labor Code Section 1102.5

California Labor Code Section 1102.5 is one of the most powerful whistleblower protection statutes in the country. It prohibits employers—including public agencies—from retaliating against employees who disclose information to a government or law-enforcement agency when the employee has reasonable cause to believe that a legal violation has occurred.

The most critical word in that statute is reasonable. California law protects you even if the reported violation did not ultimately occur or cannot be proven, provided your belief was reasonable at the time you made the report. This standard matters enormously. It prevents employers from using “no violation was found” as a legal shield against retaliation claims, and it substantially lowers the threshold for employee protection.

Beyond California, similar whistleblower protections exist across a range of federal statutes, broadening the scope of potential claims for employees in other states.

Case Spotlight: Martinez v. City of Redlands

In June 2023, Travis Martinez filed a 16-page government claim against the City of Redlands—a required step under California law before suing a public agency.

The claim detailed an alleged pattern of retaliation following his reports of serious misconduct. Martinez alleged that after reviewing security footage of the April 4, 2023 Metrolink crash—which killed 47-year-old Heather Lynn Woolard and her 11-year-old daughter Presley—he raised concerns about dangerous conditions at the rail crossing. According to the claim, city officials sought to suppress that information to protect the city from litigation exposure.

He also alleged that high-ranking city officials had been aware of sexual misconduct allegations against then-Deputy Chief Mike Reiss for months and took no action. When Martinez reported his concerns to the FBI, he claims the city retaliated by denying him the interim police chief position—a role he describes as one he was the most qualified candidate for. The city instead appointed Commander Rachel Tolber, whom the claim characterizes as a less experienced choice made partly to signal reform amid ongoing harassment lawsuits.

Martinez’s case was not isolated. The City of Redlands had already paid $1.7 million to settle a related sexual harassment lawsuit brought by two officers who alleged a “culture of pervasive sexual favoritism.” A separate case, Alvarado-Salcido v. City of Redlands, remains active in San Bernardino Superior Court.

On April 15, 2025, the Redlands City Council voted 3-2 to settle Martinez’s claim for $871,956. Under the terms of the agreement, Martinez retired within 10 days and received additional benefits, including the right to review his personnel file and the designation of an honorably retired officer’s badge.

The Consequences of Retaliation for Employers

Organizations that ignore or facilitate retaliation pay dearly for it—in courtrooms, in public trust, and at the taxpayer’s expense.

In Redlands, the $871,956 settlement with Martinez followed a $1.7 million payout in the Reiss-related lawsuit, with additional litigation still pending. The cumulative cost of mishandling misconduct complaints represents a significant financial burden on the community the city was elected to serve.

The exposure isn’t limited to public agencies. Helmer Friedman LLP recently secured a $6 million verdict against California State University in a gender discrimination and retaliation case—a result that demonstrates the scale of liability employers can face when courts side with employees.

Beyond financial damages, organizations found liable for retaliation face leadership turnover, reputational harm, diminished employee morale, and heightened regulatory scrutiny. The lesson is consistent: the cost of suppressing misconduct reports almost always exceeds the cost of addressing them.

Steps to Take If You Suspect Retaliation

If you recognize the warning signs, swift and deliberate action is essential.

  1. Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of events—dates, times, locations, and the names of any witnesses. Save emails, memos, and any communications that reflect a shift in how you are treated after your protected activity.
  2. Report Internally: If your organization has a retaliation reporting policy, use it and document that you did. Creating a formal paper trail establishes that the agency or employer was on notice.
  3. Preserve Evidence: Collect copies of performance reviews, especially positive ones that predate your protected activity. A clear before-and-after contrast can be critical to your case.
  4. Seek Legal Counsel Immediately: Retaliation cases are complex, fact-specific, and time-sensitive. In California, government employees must file a public claim before suing a public agency—a procedural requirement the Martinez case illustrates clearly. An experienced retaliation attorney can assess the merits of your claim and guide you through each step.

Protecting the People Who Speak Up

Retaliation is pervasive. It takes many forms, operates across every sector, and carries real legal consequences for employers—particularly when employees understand their rights and act on them.

The “reasonable belief” standard is a powerful tool in your corner. You don’t need to prove a law was broken to deserve legal protection. You need only to have reasonably believed one was at the time you came forward.

If you believe you have been retaliated against for reporting wrongdoing, advocating for your rights, or refusing to participate in illegal conduct, you don’t have to face it alone. Helmer Friedman LLP offers confidential consultations to evaluate your situation. With over 20 years of experience and a proven track record of settlements and court victories—including a $6 million verdict in a retaliation case—the firm provides the personalized legal advocacy needed to hold employers accountable, whether they operate in a corporation or a city hall.

Posted on

Transgender Rights Under Attack: What You Need to Know

Sexual abuse causes long term harm to victims.

Transgender Rights Are Under Attack—Here’s What’s at Stake

Transgender Americans have made hard-fought legal gains over the past two decades. Yet those gains are now being systematically dismantled—through federal policy rollbacks, legislative attacks, and a climate of violence that is escalating by the year. The fight for transgender rights is not a culture war abstraction. It is a daily reality for millions of people whose safety, housing, employment, and healthcare hang in the balance.

HUD’s Proposed Rollbacks Are Putting Transgender People at Risk of Homelessness

On June 29, 2026, the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) led a coalition of gender justice and civil rights organizations in formally opposing proposed rule changes from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The coalition’s comment warned that HUD’s proposal would leave LGBTQIA+ people more vulnerable to systemic disparities affecting access to safe shelter and affordable housing.

Most alarmingly, the proposed rule would require housing providers—including emergency shelters—to exclude transgender people from sex-separated housing consistent with their gender identity. It would also allow providers to demand proof of a person’s sex, opening the door to invasive sex-screening procedures that would affect all women, transgender and cisgender alike. These are not bureaucratic technicalities. For a transgender person fleeing domestic violence or experiencing homelessness, losing access to safe shelter is a life-threatening outcome.

The Scale of Anti-Trans Targeting Is Growing

The housing threat is one piece of a much larger picture. According to GLAAD’s Anti-LGBTQ Extremism Reporting Tracker, transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals were targeted in over 52% of all anti-LGBTQ incidents tracked between May 2024 and April 2025—a 14% increase from the prior year. Across more than 930 incidents, 84 people were injured and 10 were killed.

Among the dead was Sam Nordquist, a Black transgender man from Minnesota who was tortured for weeks before being killed. Seven people were charged in connection with his murder. Minnesota State Representative Leigh Finke, the first openly transgender member of her state legislature, described her first year in office as “easily the worst year, personally, that I’ve ever had”—not because of policy disagreements, but because of the personal threats that followed her election.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Air Force denied retirement benefits to transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of service. Master Sergeant Logan Ireland, who served for 15 years including a deployment to Afghanistan, described feeling “betrayed and devastated.” These are not policy adjustments—they are targeted punishments for identity.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 makes the broader agenda explicit. The 900-page document calls for deleting “sexual orientation and gender identity” from federal rules and legislation, eliminating Medicare and Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care, banning transgender people from military service, and requiring parental permission before educators can use a student’s chosen name or pronouns.

Legal Victories That Cannot Be Abandoned

The legal foundation for transgender rights exists—but it is fragile. In 2020, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County established that firing someone for being transgender constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That ruling remains one of the most significant federal protections available to transgender workers.

The Obama administration’s 2016 guidance on bathroom access for transgender students demonstrated that federal protection is possible when the political will exists. At the state level, California has enacted some of the country’s most comprehensive transgender protections—covering healthcare access, educational facilities, employment, and streamlined processes for legal name and gender marker changes. These laws prove that robust protection is achievable.

The Human Cost Cannot Be Overstated

Every rollback carries a human cost. Denied shelter. Denied benefits. Denied the right to exist publicly as oneself. The data, the legislation, and the individual stories all point to the same conclusion: transgender Americans are facing a coordinated effort to remove them from public life.

Advocacy and awareness matter. So does legal action. Employment discrimination based on gender identity violates federal law under Bostock. Healthcare providers who deny services based on transgender status may violate state and federal anti-discrimination laws. Government agencies that single out transgender individuals for differential treatment face constitutional challenges under the Equal Protection Clause.

If you or someone you know has experienced discrimination, harassment, or retaliation based on gender identity or transgender status, legal options are available. Helmer Friedman LLP offers confidential consultations to help individuals understand their rights and explore their legal options. The fight for transgender rights continues—in statehouses, in shelters, and in courtrooms across the country. Experienced legal advocates are ready to help.

Posted on

Teacher Ageism: Your Rights & Legal Protections

School teachers face age discrimination by administrations.

When Experience Becomes a Target: Teacher Ageism in Schools

Decades of classroom experience. Thousands of students shaped and guided. An unwavering commitment to a profession that demands everything. And yet, some of the most skilled educators in America are being pushed out the door before they’re ready to leave.

Age discrimination in education is not an isolated complaint confined to a single district or a single disgruntled employee. Teacher ageism is a documented, nationwide pattern—one that strips experienced educators of their careers, robs students of their best teachers, and leaves school cultures fractured by hostility and fear. It is a crisis hiding in plain sight.

This post covers everything teachers over 40 need to know: the legal protections available to them, the real-world consequences of age-based targeting, a concrete case study out of Michigan, and actionable strategies for educators who believe they are already in the crosshairs. If you work in a school district, know someone who does, or advise those who face workplace discrimination, what follows is essential reading.

The Silent Crisis: Age Discrimination in the Teaching Profession

Age discrimination in an educational context—sometimes called teacher ageism—refers to the systematic targeting of teachers over 40 for removal, reduced responsibilities, or conditions designed to force resignation. The motivations are often financial. Experienced teachers earn higher salaries. Replacing them with younger, less experienced hires cuts costs. The math is straightforward. The damage is profound.

Across industries, age discrimination is well-documented. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regularly reports age-based charges as among the most common filed by workers. Education is no exception—and the irony is sharp. Experience arguably matters more in a classroom than almost anywhere else, yet the profession has proven no more immune to this bias than corporate America.

Many affected teachers don’t initially recognize what’s happening as discrimination. What begins as a changed dynamic with a new principal, or a sudden uptick in critical evaluations, can escalate into a hostile work environment: repeated belittlement, false accusations, excessive scrutiny, and relentless pressure to resign. By the time the pattern becomes undeniable, critical legal deadlines may already be slipping away.

Your Legal Shield: Protections Against Teacher Ageism

Federal law provides meaningful protections. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits employers—including public school districts—from discriminating against workers aged 40 and older in hiring, firing, compensation, and terms of employment. To prevail on an ADEA claim, an employee generally must show that an adverse employment action occurred and that age was a motivating factor in that decision.

One of the most important—and most misunderstood—legal concepts in teacher ageism cases is constructive discharge. This occurs when an employer deliberately creates working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. A teacher who “chooses” to retire early after months of targeted harassment has not freely left the profession. Under the law, that resignation may constitute an involuntary termination.

State law often provides additional protections that go further than the ADEA. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, for example, offer broader coverage and may lower the threshold for proving discrimination.

Pursuing a claim typically begins with filing a charge with the EEOC or the relevant state agency. Timelines are strict—generally 180 to 300 days from the discriminatory act—and missing these deadlines can eliminate legal options entirely. Documentation is critical: emails, evaluation records, meeting notes, and witnesses all strengthen a claim considerably.

⚠️ Important notice: Do not consult AI chatbots about your legal situation. Conversations with AI tools are not protected by the attorney-client privilege, and those chat records may be accessed by opposing counsel. If you believe your rights have been violated, speak with a qualified employment attorney in a confidential consultation.

The Human and Educational Cost of Losing Experienced Teachers

Teacher ageism does not only harm the individual educator. It harms every student who loses access to a skilled, experienced professional—and it harms the broader education system in ways that take years to feel.

Research consistently demonstrates that teacher effectiveness increases significantly with years in the classroom. The institutional knowledge carried by veteran educators goes beyond lesson plans: it encompasses mentorship of younger staff, deep relationships with families, and an understanding of community dynamics that no onboarding manual can replicate. When experienced teachers are driven out, that knowledge disappears with them.

The psychological toll is severe and lasting. Educators targeted for their age often report anxiety, stress-related health conditions, and the financial consequences of forced early retirement—consequences that compound for years after they leave. Colleagues who witness this treatment don’t escape unscathed either. A chilling effect sets in. Other older teachers begin self-censoring, disengaging, and quietly preparing for exits they never planned.

Gregory Friedman, attorney for plaintiffs in the Plymouth-Canton case discussed below, put the stakes plainly: “Some of our very best teachers at the peak of their careers are drummed out… The idea that we would deprive our children of the best public school teachers simply because they got older is just terrible public policy.”

Case Study: Four Teachers, One Principal, and a Systemic Pattern

In May 2026, four veteran teachers at Bentley Elementary School in Plymouth-Canton Community Schools filed suit in Wayne County Circuit Court, alleging age discrimination in what their attorney described as “a systemic effort to remove older teachers and replace them with substantially younger, less experienced individuals.” The case was reported by The Detroit News.

The allegations center on Principal Edward Latour, who arrived at Bentley Elementary in 2023. According to the complaint, Latour almost immediately began conducting retirement surveys and repeatedly asking teachers over 40 when they planned to leave. What followed, the plaintiffs allege, was a sustained campaign of belittlement, false accusations, and disproportionate burdens—including placing high-needs students in targeted teachers’ classrooms without adequate support.

The four plaintiffs—Michelle West, Linda Verduzco, Julie Cassar, and Sheri Bowler—each experienced the alleged conduct differently, but the pattern across their accounts is striking.

Michelle West, 61, filed a formal HR complaint in 2024. According to the lawsuit, conditions worsened rather than improved after she did so—a textbook retaliation scenario. She ultimately retired, which her attorneys argue constitutes constructive discharge.

Linda Verduzco, 54, retired two and a half years ahead of schedule after alleged incidents of yelling, baseless accusations about student behavior, and conduct she describes as deliberately anxiety-inducing.

Julie Cassar, 59, suffered a panic attack after Latour questioned the accuracy of her data without evidence. She eventually left the district after being placed on an Individual Development Plan—a tool her attorneys characterize as a pretext for removal.

Sheri Bowler was physically assaulted by a student and then reprimanded for calling 911 in response. She subsequently developed stress-induced alopecia and lockjaw.

An independent investigation into Latour’s conduct found that he had violated board policies on staff ethics and professionalism. Critically, however, the investigation did not formally find age discrimination—underscoring a legal reality that teachers must understand: employer investigations rarely result in findings of discrimination, even when the underlying conduct is documented and confirmed.

The Plymouth-Canton case illustrates a core legal principle: a hostile work environment combined with constructive discharge does not require a formal termination to constitute actionable age discrimination. The conduct itself—if severe enough and age-motivated—is what matters.

Read the full Detroit News account for a complete report on the allegations and proceedings.

How Teachers Can Fight Back Against Age Discrimination

Knowing your rights is the foundation. Acting on them, quickly and strategically, is what determines outcomes.

Document everything. Keep detailed records of discriminatory comments, written evaluations, meeting notes, and any communications that suggest age-based bias. Record dates, times, and the names of any witnesses present. This documentation becomes the backbone of any legal claim.

File a formal HR complaint. Even if HR concludes—as often happens—that no discrimination occurred, the formal complaint creates an official paper trail and activates anti-retaliation protections. Filing is not admitting defeat; it is protecting your position.

Know your union rights. Many teachers belong to unions with the resources to provide representation, advocacy, and legal guidance. A union representative should be among your first calls when discriminatory conduct begins.

Understand FMLA protections. Teachers whose health has been affected by a hostile work environment may be entitled to leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act while they address their situation.

Consult an employment attorney before you resign. This point bears emphasis. If working conditions have become so intolerable that resignation feels inevitable, legal counsel should be sought before leaving—not after. Resigning without legal advice can complicate or eliminate a constructive discharge claim.

Act within the legal deadlines. The ADEA requires a charge to be filed with the EEOC within 180 to 300 days of the discriminatory act, depending on the state. These deadlines are strict. Waiting too long forfeits legal options that cannot be recovered.

What Schools and Districts Must Do Differently

Individual legal recourse matters. But systemic change requires action at the administrative and policy level.

School districts must implement clear anti-discrimination training for principals and administrators—training that explicitly addresses age-based bias, not just race or gender. Evaluation criteria must be transparent, consistently applied, and auditable across all age groups. Retirement survey practices deserve particular scrutiny: asking employees when they plan to retire, especially in a targeted manner, is not a neutral administrative exercise.

When independent investigations confirm that an administrator violated board policies on professionalism and ethics—as occurred in Plymouth-Canton—consequences must follow. The absence of meaningful accountability signals to other administrators that the same behavior carries no real risk.

Protecting experienced teachers is not merely a legal obligation. It is an educational one. The students who lose their most seasoned educators are the ultimate casualties of a system that treats experience as a liability.

Experience Deserves a Defense

Age discrimination in schools is a documented, harmful pattern. It deprives dedicated educators of their careers and students of their most effective teachers. The law provides real protections—but only for those who recognize what is happening to them, understand their rights, and act before the deadlines pass.

Teachers over 40 who are experiencing a hostile work environment, facing pressure to retire, or being subjected to conduct they believe is age-motivated should not wait to see how things unfold. The time to seek legal counsel is early—when documentation is fresh, deadlines are intact, and options remain open.

Helmer Friedman LLP offers confidential consultations for educators facing employment discrimination. With over 20 years of experience and a proven track record in discrimination and hostile work environment cases, our attorneys are prepared to listen, assess, and advocate. Contact us today to discuss your situation confidentially—because experience deserves a defense.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a teacher sue for age discrimination?
Yes. Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), teachers aged 40 and older are protected from discrimination in hiring, firing, compensation, and other terms of employment. State laws may offer additional protections. A teacher who can show that an adverse employment action was motivated by age may have a viable legal claim.

What counts as constructive discharge for a teacher?
Constructive discharge occurs when an employer creates working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. For teachers, this can include sustained harassment, false accusations, excessive scrutiny, or hostile conduct specifically targeting older educators. If the resignation was effectively forced, it may be treated legally as an involuntary termination.

How do I prove a hostile work environment at school?
A hostile work environment claim typically requires showing that the conduct was severe or pervasive, that it was based on a protected characteristic such as age, and that it affected the terms or conditions of employment. Documentation—emails, meeting records, performance reviews, and witness statements—is critical to building a credible claim.

How long do I have to file an age discrimination claim?
Under the ADEA, employees generally have 180 to 300 days from the discriminatory act to file a charge with the EEOC, depending on the state. State deadlines may differ. Missing these deadlines typically eliminates federal legal options, which is why consulting an attorney early is essential.

Should I file an HR complaint before consulting a lawyer?
Filing an HR complaint can create a valuable paper trail and trigger anti-retaliation protections. However, consulting an employment attorney first—or simultaneously—is strongly advisable. An attorney can help you document the situation effectively, understand your rights before you act, and avoid steps that could inadvertently weaken your legal position.

Posted on

No Woman Should Have to Endure Sexual Harassment to Earn a Living

Pay discrimination, Forced arbitration clauses challenge consumers, employees. Helmer Friedman LLP aggressively protect your rights.

No Woman Should Have to Endure Sexual Harassment to Earn a Living: Lessons from the $900,000  Settlement with California Produce Company

In a powerful affirmation of women’s rights in the workplace, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a sexual harassment lawsuit against Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, based in California, and agreed to pay $900,000 to women who suffered harassment and to adopt strict measures to prevent such abuse in the future.

A Story Too Common, Yet Too Often Unheard

The lawsuit revealed that female workers experienced repeated sexual advances, inappropriate touching, and lewd comments from male supervisors—treatment no one should ever be forced to tolerate. Even more distressing, some women who spoke out faced retaliation, such as reduced hours or losing their jobs entirely. These actions did not just violate the law—they violated basic human dignity.

For many women in agriculture and other low-wage industries, reporting harassment can mean risking their livelihood and their family’s well-being. Cultural barriers, fear of not being believed, and the threat of retaliation can silence even the most egregious abuses. This reality is unacceptable in any society that values justice and equality.

A Step Toward Justice

The EEOC’s intervention resulted in more than just financial compensation. The settlement requires the companies to implement robust anti-harassment policies, train all employees and managers, and be monitored for compliance for three years. These changes are designed to create a safer, more respectful workplace.

But the real victory is in the message this case sends: No woman should have to choose between keeping her job and preserving her dignity. Sexual harassment is not the price of employment. It is a violation of fundamental rights.

Standing Up and Speaking Out

This case is a call to action for all employers to create environments where everyone—regardless of gender or background—is safe, valued, and heard. It’s also a reminder to those suffering in silence that they are not alone, and that help is available.

Conclusion

As a community, we must support those who come forward, hold offenders accountable, and demand change from those in power. Every worker deserves to earn a living free from fear of harassment or retaliation.

The EEOC’s settlement with Fresh Venture Foods, LLC is a step forward, but the fight for safe workplaces continues. Let us stand together to ensure that no woman—no person—has to endure harassment just to put food on the table. Dignity at work is not negotiable. It is a right.

Posted on

Age Discrimination in the House: Impact on Employees

Workplace discrimination lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Ageism at Work: The Hidden Cost to Employee Well-being

Ageism is one of the most underreported forms of workplace discrimination—and one of the most damaging. Older employees face a unique kind of professional erosion: the gradual stripping of responsibilities, the sting of dismissive comments, and the creeping fear that their careers are ending not on their own terms, but on someone else’s. The consequences extend far beyond the office.

This post examines how age discrimination harms employee well-being at every level—psychologically, professionally, and legally—and what workers can do when it happens to them.

What Is Ageism in the Workplace—and How Common Is It?

Workplace ageism refers to prejudice or discrimination against employees based on their age. It most commonly affects workers 40 years and older, manifesting through hiring bias, exclusion from training opportunities, reassignment of duties to younger colleagues, or outright dismissal.

The problem is widespread. According to the AARP, approximately two out of three workers between 45 and 74 say they have seen or experienced age discrimination on the job. Despite being illegal under federal law, it remains one of the most difficult forms of discrimination to prove—and one of the least reported.

“The treatment I endured in Congressman Troy Nehls’s office left me feeling depressed, humiliated, and insulted,” Countie wrote in his ethics complaint—”feelings I had never experienced during my years at the Drug Enforcement Administration and in association with the Army.”

The Psychological Toll of Age Discrimination

What makes ageism particularly insidious is the way it compounds over time. Unlike a single discriminatory incident, age-based prejudice often unfolds gradually—a dismissive remark here, a skipped invitation there—until the cumulative effect becomes undeniable.

For many workers, the psychological damage is severe. Studies have linked workplace age discrimination to decreased self-esteem, heightened anxiety, clinical depression, and reduced overall life satisfaction. Employees subjected to ageist treatment frequently describe feelings of humiliation and isolation that follow them outside of work—disrupting sleep, straining personal relationships, and diminishing their sense of professional identity.

Kevin Countie’s experience offers a compelling illustration. Countie, a retired Army colonel and former senior intelligence analyst with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, was hired at age 63 as deputy chief of staff for Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX). In a 2023 ethics complaint filed with the House Ethics Committee, Countie alleged that Nehls and his chief of staff, Robert Schroeder, created a hostile work environment for older employees.

According to Countie’s complaint, Nehls regularly referred to him as “the old colonel”—a nickname that spread to colleagues and office visitors alike. Younger staffers called him “old man,” a pattern Countie alleged Schroeder observed but never corrected. After a staff golf event, Countie wrote that Schroeder patted him on the back and called him “old timer.”

“The treatment I endured in Congressman Troy Nehls’s office left me feeling depressed, humiliated, and insulted,” Countie wrote in his ethics complaint—”feelings I had never experienced during my years at the Drug Enforcement Administration and in association with the Army.”

Nehls’ office dismissed the complaint as “baseless lies,” but the Ethics Committee appeared to be reviewing the allegation, with Countie interviewed by the committee in June 2025.

Professional Ramifications: More Than Just Hurt Feelings

Age discrimination rarely stops at words. In Countie’s case, the psychological harm was compounded by a systematic dismantling of his professional role.

By early 2022, he returned from vacation to find his business cards removed and his desk relocated to a less central position. His legislative portfolio—built on decades of military and intelligence experience—was progressively transferred to younger colleagues. Schroeder denied his requests to attend specialized training programs, instead prioritizing younger employees. Eventually, Countie was told he would not be needed in the next Congress.

This pattern—diminished roles, reassigned duties, stifled development, and eventual forced exit—is a hallmark of constructive dismissal driven by age bias. Another former Nehls staffer described a similar strategy in a 2022 letter: Schroeder had allegedly advised a colleague to “overwhelm” an older employee during training, with the explicit goal of compelling them to quit or retire.

The professional ramifications of such treatment extend beyond any single job. Older workers who are pushed out often face longer unemployment periods, reduced earning potential, and difficulty re-entering their industries—consequences that can reshape the trajectory of an entire career.

Legal Protections Against Age Discrimination

Workers facing age discrimination are not without recourse. Several layers of legal protection exist at both the federal and state levels.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967

The ADEA is the primary federal law protecting workers from age discrimination. It covers individuals 40 years of age or older and applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including state and local governments, employment agencies, and labor organizations.

Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against an employee because of age in any aspect of employment, including:

  • Hiring and firing
  • Compensation and benefits
  • Job assignments and promotions
  • Training opportunities
  • Layoffs

Importantly, the ADEA also prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose discriminatory practices, file a complaint, or participate in an investigation or legal proceeding.

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) of 1990

The OWBPA amended the ADEA to specifically prohibit employers from denying benefits to older employees. It also introduced strict requirements for valid ADEA waivers—ensuring that workers cannot be pressured into unknowingly signing away their rights. Among other standards, a valid waiver must be written in understandable language, allow at least 21 days for consideration, and provide seven days for revocation after signing.

State Protections

Many states provide even broader protections than federal law. California, for example, extends age discrimination protections to employers with five or more employees—a significantly lower threshold than the federal standard—and allows for greater damages in certain cases.

Strategies for Addressing Ageism

For Employees

Recognizing age discrimination is the first step—but acting on it requires documentation. If you believe you are experiencing age-based discrimination, start keeping a detailed record of incidents: dates, times, witnesses, and the specific conduct or remarks involved. Save relevant emails and communications.

From there:

  • Report concerns internally through your HR department or a formal complaint process, and document those reports as well.
  • File a charge with the EEOC. Before pursuing a federal lawsuit under the ADEA, employees must first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the discriminatory act (or 300 days if state law also applies).
  • Seek legal counsel early. An experienced employment attorney can assess the strength of your claim, guide you through the filing process, and help you avoid procedural missteps that could jeopardize your case.

For Employers

Organizations that want to address ageism proactively should conduct regular audits of promotion, training, and layoff decisions to identify patterns of age bias. Anti-discrimination training should explicitly address ageism—not just race and gender. Mentorship and professional development programs should be accessible to employees across all age groups. And when complaints arise, they must be taken seriously and investigated promptly.

$1,643,000.00 Arbitration Award in Age Discrimination Case

Mr. Greg Helmer of Helmer Friedman LLP obtained an award on behalf of an employee who was discriminated against and harassed because of his age. At the time, the landmark arbitration award was reputed to be one of the largest ever received by an individual in a discrimination case.

Take Action Before It’s Too Late

Age discrimination is not a minor workplace inconvenience. For the workers who experience it, the damage is real—professionally, financially, and psychologically. And as Kevin Countie’s case demonstrates, even decades of distinguished service offer no immunity.

If you believe you have been discriminated against because of your age, the attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP are here to help. With over 20 years of experience in employment discrimination law and a proven track record of significant settlements and court victories, our team provides the personalized, expert advocacy you deserve.

Contact us today for a confidential consultation and let us evaluate your case—because no worker should be forced out of their career simply for growing older.

Frequently Asked Questions About Age Discrimination

What qualifies as age discrimination under federal law?

Under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, age discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee or job applicant unfavorably because of their age. This applies to workers 40 and older and covers hiring, firing, pay, promotions, job assignments, training, and benefits. The ADEA applies to employers with 20 or more employees.

How do I prove age discrimination at work?

Proving age discrimination typically requires demonstrating a pattern of adverse treatment connected to your age. Evidence may include discriminatory comments, performance reviews that changed without cause, documentation showing younger employees were treated more favorably, or records of responsibilities being reassigned to younger colleagues. An employment attorney can help you build a compelling case.

Can I sue my employer for age discrimination if I was forced to retire early?

Yes. Forced early retirement or constructive dismissal driven by age bias may constitute a violation of the ADEA. If the circumstances of your departure were made intolerable due to age-related mistreatment, you may have a viable claim. Consulting an employment attorney is the best way to assess your specific situation.

How long do I have to file an age discrimination claim?

Under federal law, you generally have 180 days from the date of the discriminatory act to file a charge with the EEOC—or 300 days if your state has its own anti-discrimination law. Filing deadlines are strict, so it is important to seek legal counsel as soon as possible.

Does age discrimination law protect workers under 40?

The ADEA specifically protects workers 40 years of age and older. However, some state laws may offer broader protections. In California, for example, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides protections that go beyond the federal standard in several key areas.

Posted on

Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit: Sac State DEI Case

Women of Color in leadership face discrimination at alarming rates.

When DEI Leaders Face Discrimination: The Sac State Lawsuit

She was hired to champion equity. Now she’s suing the institution that hired her for the very discrimination she was brought in to fight.

Mia Settles-Tidwell spent 32 years building a career around inclusion and fairness. In November 2021, Sacramento State recruited her as Chief Diversity Officer and Vice President for Inclusive Excellence. She arrived with a clear mandate: lead the campus’s diversity efforts, implement an antiracism plan, and strengthen the school’s response to sexual harassment cases. By most measures, she delivered.

Yet today, Settles-Tidwell has filed a lawsuit against Sacramento State, naming President Luke Wood and the California State University Board of Trustees as defendants. Her claims? Age, race, and gender discrimination, along with allegations of a hostile work environment that ultimately forced her out.

This post breaks down what happened: the details of the lawsuit, the alleged discriminatory treatment, how it fits into a troubling pattern of discrimination claims across the CSU system, the protections California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) offers employees, and what you can do if you find yourself facing something similar.

A Promising Start That Took a Dark Turn

Settles-Tidwell’s early record at Sac State speaks for itself. She hired the school’s first Universal Access and Inclusion director. She led the CSU-wide Juneteenth Symposium in 2024. She created taskforces to confront both antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus. By any reasonable standard, she was doing the job she was hired to do—and doing it well.

“It was a campaign of harassment and retaliation against my client and we’re hoping to be vindicated in court.” Mainak D’Attaray

Her working relationship with President Luke Wood, who stepped into his role in July 2023, started on solid ground. In fact, in November 2023, Wood wrote her an unsolicited letter of recommendation. That detail matters. It paints a picture of a leader who, at least on paper, valued her contributions.

Then things changed. By early 2024, that relationship had soured dramatically. What had looked like mutual respect gave way to a series of actions that, according to the lawsuit, created an increasingly hostile work environment. The speed of that shift forms the backbone of her case.

The Alleged Discriminatory Treatment

The lawsuit lays out specific allegations that, taken together, describe a pattern of mistreatment:

  • Exclusion. Settles-Tidwell was removed from the Black Honors College leadership team—despite having written the original proposal herself. She was also shut out of budget planning processes central to her role.
  • Pay discrimination. She received a 1.5% merit pay raise. Her peers received a minimum of 2.5%. That gap, the lawsuit argues, reflects pay discrimination tied to her protected characteristics.
  • Public humiliation. In a March 2024 email, President Wood told her that her leadership was “perceived as not effective.” According to the complaint, he berated her in front of cabinet-level colleagues.
  • Stripping of responsibilities. Her authority to hire staff and direct divisional programming was restricted, undercutting her ability to do the job she was recruited to lead.

Her attorney, Mainak D’Attaray, put it plainly: “It was a campaign of harassment and retaliation against my client and we’re hoping to be vindicated in court.”

When Settles-Tidwell raised concerns, the situation reportedly worsened. She requested a meeting with Wood to discuss his March email. She received no response.

Constructive Dismissal: When Resignation Is Not Really a Choice

Sometimes an employee resigns—but the resignation isn’t truly voluntary. The law calls this constructive dismissal. It happens when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel they have no choice but to quit. In the eyes of the law, that kind of forced resignation can be treated much like a wrongful termination.

On April 11, 2024, Settles-Tidwell resigned. She cited “continuous, disparate and adverse actions that created a hostile working environment.”

What followed was striking. The same day she resigned, Wood publicly announced her departure. He asked her, via a group text, not to attend cabinet meetings. And yet, in public, he praised her as a “strategic thinker.” That contradiction—private exclusion paired with public praise—is exactly the kind of mixed signal that often surfaces in constructive dismissal claims.

Settles-Tidwell didn’t stay silent. She wrote a farewell letter to the student newspaper, The State Hornet. She later published a book, Unscathed: A Harm Reduction Strategy for Women of Color in the Workplace, framing her experience as part of a broader pattern of institutional harm.

A Pattern of Discrimination at CSU

Settles-Tidwell’s case does not stand alone. It fits into a wider series of discrimination claims against the California State University system—the largest public university system in the country.

Earlier this year, CSU paid a $12 million settlement to former Cal State San Bernardino administrators Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers. Both alleged they were fired or pushed out after reporting gender inequities, harassment, and discrimination. Dr. Rogers alone received a $6 million jury award for non-economic damages tied to gender-based hostile work environment claims—believed to be among the largest employment discrimination settlements ever against the system.

The irony is hard to ignore. These cases are unfolding inside an institution that publicly markets itself as a leader in diversity, equity, and inclusion. The gap between that public message and these private allegations is precisely what makes the pattern so concerning.

Understanding Your Rights: FEHA and Hostile Work Environments

If you work in California, you have powerful legal protection through the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In several key ways, FEHA goes further than federal law—making it especially important for employees facing a hostile work environment, sexual discrimination, or pay discrimination.

Here’s what sets FEHA apart:

  • Severe or pervasive. Under FEHA, a hostile work environment can be established if the conduct is either severe or pervasive. Federal law typically requires both. This lower threshold makes it easier for employees to bring valid claims.
  • Personal liability for supervisors. Individual supervisors—not just the employer—can be held personally liable for harassment.
  • Broad coverage. FEHA applies to employers with as few as five employees.
  • Prevention requirements. Employers must provide regular anti-harassment training and maintain clear, written anti-harassment policies.

So what actually counts as a hostile work environment? Not every difficult or unpleasant job qualifies. The law draws a line: conduct becomes legally actionable when it targets you because of a protected class—such as race, gender, or age—and is either severe or pervasive enough to alter your working conditions.

Pay discrimination follows similar logic. When pay disparities are tied to protected characteristics like race and gender, they can violate both FEHA and federal law. And the gap doesn’t have to be dramatic. Even a difference as small as the roughly 1% alleged in Settles-Tidwell’s case—1.5% versus 2.5%—can be the basis for a valid claim.

The Broader Implications for Women of Color in Leadership

Settles-Tidwell’s experience reflects a systemic challenge facing women of color in leadership roles, particularly within academic institutions. They are often hired to drive institutional change—then subjected to the very discrimination they were brought in to address. It’s a position that demands enormous resilience while offering little protection.

Women of color experience race discrimination and harassment.

The stakes can be devastating. Settles-Tidwell herself pointed to the tragic story of Antoinette Candia-Bailey, a Black vice president at Lincoln University who died by suicide in January 2024. Settles-Tidwell cited that loss as a catalyst for writing her book and speaking publicly about what she endured.

Women of color in DEI leadership face a particular kind of vulnerability. They carry the responsibility of reshaping institutions, yet they frequently lack the support, authority, and protection that role requires. When the same institutions that recruited them turn hostile, the consequences—professional, financial, and personal—can be profound.

Where the Case Stands Now

Settles-Tidwell filed her lawsuit on May 5, 2025, in Los Angeles County Superior Court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The case has been assigned to Hon. Gail Killefer in Department 37.

Several legal milestones lie ahead. The court has scheduled a Case Management Conference, along with a September 8 hearing on CSU’s motion to transfer the case to Sacramento County Superior Court. Settles-Tidwell opposes the transfer, citing concerns about potential jury pool bias in Sacramento.

For its part, CSU denies all of the allegations. The university has stated it is “prepared to vigorously defend against these claims.” As with any lawsuit, these remain allegations until proven in court.

If This Sounds Familiar, You May Have Legal Options

Settles-Tidwell’s case carries a clear lesson: discrimination can happen at any level, in any organization—even one that publicly champions equity. Hostile work environments, pay discrimination, and sexual discrimination don’t disappear simply because an institution says the right things about inclusion.

If you work in California, FEHA gives you real, enforceable protections. You do not have to endure discriminatory treatment in silence, and you do not have to navigate it alone.

If any part of this story resonates with your own experience, the most important step you can take is to speak with an experienced employment attorney—ideally before taking any other action, including resigning. Early legal guidance can protect your rights and strengthen your position.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we’ve spent more than 20 years advocating for employees facing discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. We offer personalized attention, a proven track record of results, and complete confidentiality.

Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your case. Your advocate in justice is just one conversation away.

Frequently Asked Questions

What qualifies as a hostile work environment in California?
Under California’s FEHA, a hostile work environment exists when you face conduct that targets you because of a protected characteristic—such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation—and that conduct is either severe or pervasive enough to affect your working conditions. Unlike federal law, FEHA only requires one of those two factors, not both. A genuinely difficult boss isn’t automatically illegal; the conduct must be tied to a protected class to be actionable.

Can I sue for pay discrimination in California?
Yes. If you’re paid less than colleagues doing similar work, and that difference is connected to a protected characteristic like race or gender, you may have a valid pay discrimination claim under both FEHA and federal law. Importantly, even small gaps can be actionable. A consultation with an employment attorney can help you determine whether your situation qualifies.

This article includes information from the reporting of Tarini Mehta.

Posted on

Workplace Harassment Victims: Legal Recourse & Rights

Sexual harassment, race discrimination and retaliation lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Facing Workplace Harassment? Know Your Legal Rights

Workplace harassment can leave deep psychological scars and disrupt promising careers. When an employer permits a toxic culture to thrive, employees often feel isolated, intimidated, and powerless. It’s important to recognize that silence only serves to empower those who engage in abusive behaviors. Understanding your legal rights is a vital first step in reclaiming your dignity and livelihood. This guide aims to illuminate the legal options available for victims of workplace harassment, helping you to hold both perpetrators and negligent employers accountable.

Understanding Workplace Harassment

Harassment can take many forms, including physical assault, verbal abuse, visual displays of derogatory images, or explicit threats. Under federal law, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as state laws like California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), both sex discrimination and sexual harassment are strictly prohibited.

It’s important to know that harassment can occur from anyone— a direct supervisor, a coworker, an agent of the employer, or even a non-employee like a client. For behavior to be deemed illegal, it typically must be unwelcome and severe or pervasive enough to create a truly hostile work environment. Sometimes, it may involve “quid pro quo” situations, where job benefits are unjustly linked to sexual favors.

Initial Steps for Victims

If you’re facing harassment, taking immediate action is essential for your well-being and for any potential legal claims you may wish to pursue. Start by documenting each incident carefully. Record the dates, times, locations, and specific details of what occurred, including the names of any witnesses.

After documenting everything, report the behavior internally in line with your company’s official policy—usually by speaking to Human Resources. Preserving this evidence and demonstrating that your employer was made aware of the situation can significantly strengthen your legal position.

Legal Avenues: EEOC and Lawsuits

Victims have robust legal mechanisms to seek justice. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) investigates workplace discrimination and can litigate against negligent companies. For example, the EEOC sued GEM Management, LLC, alleging the property management company ignored a site manager’s reports of severe coworker harassment.

When companies fail to protect their staff, the financial and public consequences are severe. In the related settlement for the GEM Management lawsuit, the company—operating as Fitch Irick Management—was ordered to pay $90,000. Furthermore, the court mandated sweeping policy revisions and management training. In this case, the harasser threatened to shoot and torture the victim, forcing her to resign. This scenario is a textbook example of a constructive discharge claim, where an employee quits because the working conditions become intolerable.

Beyond the EEOC, victims can file private lawsuits in state or federal court. Juries frequently penalize institutions that turn a blind eye to abuse. Recently, a jury awarded $6 million to Dr. Anissa Rogers, a former Associate Dean at California State University, San Bernardino. Despite multiple reports of harassment by a superior, the university failed to intervene, resulting in her constructive dismissal. Successful litigation can yield significant remedies, including compensation for emotional distress, lost wages, and punitive damages.

Why Legal Action Matters

Filing a claim goes beyond securing personal compensation; it promotes accountability within organizations. When brave individuals come forward, they shine a light on systemic failures and urge companies to adopt strict anti-harassment policies. By taking legal action, you’re not just advocating for yourself; you’re helping to prevent others from experiencing similar trauma and ensuring that abusers face real, lasting consequences for their actions. Your courage can make a difference.

Reclaiming Your Future and Seeking Justice

You don’t have to endure an abusive or hostile work environment alone. It’s important to know that the law offers powerful tools to help fight against discrimination. However, navigating the legal system can be challenging, which is why experienced advocacy is crucial. By exploring your legal options, you can move from feeling like a victim of harassment to becoming an empowered agent of change.

If you or someone you care about has faced sexual harassment, retaliation, or a hostile workplace, please know that you deserve compassionate and confidential support. The expert employment attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP are here to help you. Reach out to them today at (310) 396-7714 to discuss your situation and take the first step towards seeking justice. You are not alone in this journey.