Category: racial harassment

Posted on

Understanding Employment Cases of 2024 and Their Impacts on Employees

High Court Ruling on employment cases.

1. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis:

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

2. Murray v. UBS Securities:

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

3. Okonowsky v. Garland:

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

4. Rajaram v. Meta Platforms:

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

5. Daramola v. Oracle America:

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

6. Castellanos v. State of California:

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

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

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

8. Quach v. California Commerce Club:

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

9. Huerta v. CSI Electrical Contractors:

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

10. Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services:

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

11. Vazquez v. SaniSure:

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

12. Mar v. Perkins:

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

13. Osborne v. Pleasanton Auto:

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

14. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines:

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

15. Shah v. Skillz Inc.:

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

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

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

Standing Up to Harassment and Discrimination in Science and Academia

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

The Role of an Employment Attorney Standing Up to Harassment and Discrimination in Science and Academia

The fields of science and academia are often seen as exciting spaces for discovery, innovation, and enlightenment. However, they can also hide a darker side that includes sexual misconduct, harassment, and discrimination. These issues particularly affect women and women of color and persist despite the progress that has been made in these areas.

A recent article in Scientific American discusses these widespread problems. The authors—including Rukmani Vijayaraghavan, Kristy L. Duran, Kelly Ramirez, Jane Zelikova, Emily Lescak, and the organization 500 Women Scientists—share their personal experiences and highlight the systemic harassment and discrimination occurring within these fields.

Victims often face significant obstacles when trying to speak out. Fear of retaliation, a lack of institutional support, and societal norms that perpetuate predatory behavior all contribute to an environment where victims are silenced, offenders are protected, and misconduct goes unaddressed.

In their call for change, the authors emphasize the need for individuals, institutions, and policies to take a stand. They advocate for the implementation of advanced reporting systems, such as Callisto, and a revision of codes of conduct. The scientific and academic communities must unite against harassment and discrimination.

is where employment attorneys play a crucial role. With proven track records in handling discrimination and harassment cases, these attorneys provide invaluable support to individuals who have experienced misconduct in the workplace. This support is especially vital in science and academia, where victims often feel isolated or unheard.

An effective employment attorney can be a lifeline for victims. They are familiar with complex employment laws and can offer informed guidance on how to proceed with complaints. By advocating for victims, employment attorneys work tirelessly to hold offenders accountable. Their assistance may include evidence collection and representation during trials, ensuring that victims have a voice and seeking justice on their behalf.

Furthermore, employment attorneys can collaborate with institutions to develop practices and policies intended to prevent harassment and discrimination. They can provide essential advice on creating effective reporting systems, establishing mandatory education and training programs, and drafting codes of conduct that comply with legal standards.

As emphasized by the Scientific American article, systemic change is crucial to addressing these issues. Employment attorneys not only support victims on an individual level but also help push for much-needed institutional and policy reforms.

In a world that urgently needs to evolve, employment attorneys are at the forefront, advocating for safer, more inclusive, and equitable environments in science and academia. For victims of harassment and discrimination, an employment attorney can serve as a powerful advocate—a beacon of justice in the midst of challenges.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

9 Years of Hell – Ethnicity Discrimination at UAB

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

The University of Alabama at Birmingham has been ordered to pay nearly $4 million to Dr. Fariba Moeinpour, an Iranian-born former cancer research scientist, who alleged that she endured nearly a decade of harassment from a co-worker due to her nationality. Dr. Moeinpour, now 62 years old, filed a lawsuit against the university in October 2021, claiming the harassment was a daily occurrence and that the institution consistently ignored her complaints.

Dr. Moeinpour is a naturalized U.S. citizen who began her tenure at the UAB lab in February 2011. Unfortunately, her employment was terminated in February 2020 following a confrontation with her supervisor. The co-worker accused of harassment, identified in court documents as Mary Jo Cagle, allegedly made derogatory comments about Dr. Moeinpour’s name, referring to it as a “weird a** name,” and even told her to “go back to Iran.” In a particularly alarming incident, Cagle is accused of driving her vehicle toward Dr. Moeinpour and her daughter in the UAB parking lot while brandishing a firearm and hurling racial slurs at them.

In a further troubling development, after Dr. Moeinpour reported the harassment, her supervisor, Clinton Grubbs, who is not named in the lawsuit, allegedly dismissed her concerns by stating he was powerless to act against Cagle due to fears for his safety. He reportedly claimed that taking action could lead to severe repercussions, including losing his job or even facing harm. Grubbs allegedly suggested that Cagle was associated with the mafia and recounted a disturbing incident where four men showed up at his home to intimidate him after he threatened to fire Cagle.

The lawsuit details a disturbing account where Dr. Moeinpour sought help from Grubbs regarding the lack of action taken against Cagle. Instead of providing support, Grubbs reportedly called the police, indicating he would damage her reputation. He claimed that the discussions regarding her complaints were merely “his word against hers.” When Dr. Moeinpour insisted that she could prove her case, Grubbs allegedly physically assaulted her, grabbing her by the chin, knocking her down, and injuring her face in the process. He then reportedly fell on top of her and restrained her, leading her to slap him in self-defense.

When a UAB police officer arrived at the scene, Dr. Moeinpour admitted to hitting Grubbs in an attempt to stop his assault. Instead of addressing her claims, the officer escorted her out of the building, and she reportedly fainted when informed she was being arrested. Upon regaining consciousness, Dr. Moeinpour found herself restrained to a gurney in the emergency room, with both her ankles and wrists handcuffed. She was subsequently taken to jail and held overnight, which added to the distress of her situation.

In the police report filed by UAB, Dr. Moeinpour was characterized as an “out of control” aggressor. However, Grubbs surprisingly informed the police that he did not wish to press charges and mentioned that he and Dr. Moeinpour had been in a relationship over the past year, which she firmly denied, asserting they had never been romantically involved. Ultimately, Dr. Moeinpour was terminated from her position on February 13, 2020, for alleged violations of the university’s policy against fighting and absenteeism, despite her claims of being assaulted by Grubbs and without any investigation into her allegations or consideration of evidence.

Throughout the four-year trial, witness testimonies and audio recordings that supported Dr. Moeinpour’s claims were presented to the jury. One key witness, a mall security guard, recounted an incident where Cagle followed Dr. Moeinpour and her daughter around the mall, subjecting them to racial slurs. Dr. Moeinpour’s legal team also provided documentation showing her persistent attempts to report the harassment to human resources over the years.

The federal jury ultimately determined that Cagle acted with “malice and reckless indifference” toward Dr. Moeinpour’s federally protected rights based on her nationality. The jury ruled that the university’s decision to arrest Dr. Moeinpour constituted an “adverse employment action.” On Monday, the jury mandated that UAB pay Dr. Moeinpour $3.8 million, while Cagle was ordered to pay her $500,000 in compensatory damages and an additional $325,000 in punitive damages.

Reflecting on her ordeal, Dr. Moeinpour expressed the emotional toll this experience had taken on her life, stating, “Day and night, I was looking for a job, any job, but nobody would hire me because my name was tarnished. Now, my good name has been restored.” In response to the verdict, UAB spokeswoman Alicia Rohan emphasized that the university “does not tolerate harassment, retaliation, or discrimination of any kind.” However, she also indicated that the university disagrees with the jury’s verdict and is “considering next steps” in the legal process.

Posted on

Courage Under Fire: How Qiqiuia Young Prevailed against Stanford Health in a Racial Harassment Lawsuit

Racial harassment, and discrimination in hospital - Helmer Friedman LLP.

A judge has ordered Stanford University and Stanford Health Care to pay $10 million to QIQIUIA YOUNG, an African American woman who valiantly stood her ground amid a protracted legal struggle. Young accused Stanford Health of fostering an environment marred by racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation for whistleblowing, for which she bore the brunt.

One of the many incidents involved a co-worker donning attire resembling that of a Ku Klux Klan member during a Halloween event. The photograph of this incident circulated widely through the office, leaving an indelible mark on Young. Even after reporting the incident, instead of receiving support, Young experienced retaliation from her supervisors, including denial of promotional opportunities and equitable pay.

In another shocking instance, Young said that co-workers used racial slurs and mistreated black patients, including using the N-word. Despite bringing this to the attention of her supervisor, no substantial probe was initiated.

In 2017, Young made the bold choice of filing a lawsuit, alleging not only personal racial harassment but also mistreatment of black patients. Following her audacious move, an email was circulated by Stanford’s Dean and Stanford Health Care CEO to thousands of recipients, misleadingly indicating Young’s dishonesty in reporting such misconduct. However, the Alameda County Superior Court jury brought justice to light by declaring the email as defamatory towards Young.

Following a nearly decade-long David versus Goliath battle, as Young’s attorney aptly put it, the jury awarded Young a hefty $20 million in damages, albeit later reduced to $10 million by the Judge. But the victory goes beyond monetary considerations. Young, undeterred by the size and reputation of her adversary, firmly held her ground, serving as an inspiration for many within and beyond Stanford’s walls.

In her own words, “I couldn’t turn a blind eye to what people were doing. I had to speak out. And when I did, they tried to silence me.” But silence her, they could not. Her indomitable spirit and courage led her to triumph over adversity, bringing to light the deeply entrenched systemic racism and inspiring countless others to stand up against injustice.

Stanford Health Care, despite the verdict, continues to defend its stance. Nevertheless, this remarkable case serves as a wake-up call for organizations across the globe, reaffirming the importance of fostering an inclusive, respectful, and equitable work environment for all.

Posted on

Lawsuit Shines a Light on Alleged Racial Harassment at Tesla

Tesla must pay $137 million to a Black employee who sued for racial discrimination.

A California Superior Court recently ruled to validate a class-action lawsuit alleging “severe and pervasive race harassment” against Black employees at a Tesla factory in Fremont. This lawsuit not only affects the alleged victims but also sheds light on the controversial work environment within Tesla.

The claims stem from around 500 declarations, indicating that incidents of racial harassment have been frequent in Tesla’s Fremont factory for nearly eight years. These incidents include the use of racial slurs and derogatory language towards Black employees, as well as a lack of diversity within management positions at the factory. The plaintiffs argue that Tesla has created a hostile work environment for its Black employees, which violates California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act.

“There is much work to do, but we believe we will succeed in showing at trial that there has been a pattern and practice of pervasive race harassment at Tesla’s Fremont factory.” Matthew Helland from Nichols Kaster LLP

Despite having a complaint system since 2017, the lawsuit alleges that Tesla failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action in response to these accusations. Over 200 plaintiffs working at the Fremont facility reported hearing racial slurs, and about two-thirds of those who provided sworn statements claimed they witnessed anti-Black graffiti and racial slurs.

Further allegations from individual plaintiffs suggest a deeply rooted issue within the factory’s management and work culture, as they reported unchanged racist behaviors despite complaints to supervisors and human resources.

This is not the first time Tesla has faced allegations of unchecked racial harassment and discrimination. In 2021, a former elevator operator at the Fremont factory was awarded $137 million by a federal jury in San Francisco in a racial harassment lawsuit. The significant award underscores the severity of the emotional distress and hostile work environment endured by the plaintiff during his time at the factory.

The lawsuit criticizes the alleged “pre-Civil Rights Era race discrimination” as a standard procedure at the Tesla plant. It asserts that despite awareness of the issue, Tesla took no action to stop it. This accusation contradicts Tesla’s stance in a 2022 blog post, where the company strongly opposed discrimination and harassment and stated that it terminated employees engaged in misconduct.

The case will now focus on determining if there was a pattern of widespread racial harassment at the Fremont factory, whether Tesla was aware of it, and if Tesla took adequate steps to address it. According to Alameda County Superior Court Judge Noel Wise, this lawsuit will provide common facts that can simplify individual cases, as hundreds or thousands of workers may wish to seek damages from Tesla over their treatment.

This case further highlights the ongoing struggle for equality and respect in the workplace, emphasizing the importance of ensuring a safe and comfortable working environment for all, regardless of the company’s size or caliber.

Posted on

Liberty Energy Faces $265,000 Penalty in Race/Color, National Origin Discrimination Case

Race, color, ethnic harassment and discrimination in the oil industry lawyers - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Federal Agency Announces Resolution to Charges of Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace

Liberty Energy, Inc., operating as Liberty Oilfield Services, LLC, has been ordered to pay $265,000 due to allegations of racial and ethnic discrimination. The lawsuit was led by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of three company mechanics, setting a powerful example of the financial consequences of not adequately addressing harassment complaints.

Regional Attorney Robert Canino said, “Unfortunately, we have often seen cases in which one account of discriminatory treatment against a person based on a particular race or ethnicity leads to evidence that other racial or ethnic minorities have also been caught up in a broader unhealthy environment of demeaning and unlawful conduct. This employer’s commitment to address the bigger-picture issues can be expected to have a broader positive impact beyond the individual who filed the charge.”

The case details suggest a hostile work environment at Liberty Energy’s Odessa, Texas location, involving a Black field mechanic and two Hispanic co-workers who were consistently targeted with racial and ethnic slurs. The employees alleged that their multiple reports of discrimination to supervisors and human resources were ignored, leading to a damaging atmosphere that ultimately forced the Black mechanic to resign.

This case underscores the legal and financial implications businesses face when they fail to meet their obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which strictly prohibits workplace discrimination based on race or national origin. In order to avoid substantial legal fees and monetary damages, it is crucial that complaints regarding discriminatory treatment are promptly and effectively addressed.
In addition to the financial penalty, Liberty Energy must now implement comprehensive measures and policies to prevent future discrimination, including:

  • Training programs on federal laws regarding employment discrimination.
  • A policy that empowers human resources and management personnel to promptly respond to discrimination reports.
  • A dedicated hotline for discrimination and harassment reporting.

EEOC Senior Trial Attorney Joel Clark expressed optimism about the settlement, expressing hope that the stipulated measures will foster a discrimination-free work environment within the company. Regional Attorney Robert Canino echoed the sentiment, highlighting that the employer’s commitment can contribute to a broader positive impact on workplace culture and practices.

Posted on

TikTok Race Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment and Wrongful Termination

TikTok employees alleging race discrimination, lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP Los Angeles CA.

Have you, or someone you know, experienced racial discrimination at TikTok? You’re not alone. Several former employees have claimed that they were victims of racial prejudice, being subjected to unfair treatment and a hostile work environment.

For instance, former workers Nnete Matima and Joël Carter have filed a federal lawsuit, alleging that they were treated less favorably than their white counterparts. They were allegedly referred to with insulting racial slurs such as “Black Snake”, and faced retaliation, culminating in unfair termination, when they raised this issue to human resources.

These instances are not just damaging to the morale of employees, but they are also illegal. It’s important to remember that TikTok, like all employers, claims to value diversity and has policies against racial discrimination and harassment. Yet, if the reality of your workplace tells a different story, please don’t be silent.

If you or someone you know have encountered similar experiences of racial discrimination, particularly involving unequal treatment, derogatory comments, or the encounter of a hostile work environment, it’s crucial to take the next step. Seek out the advisement of a reputable lawyer who specializes in race discrimination cases. Let’s ensure that your rights are protected and such instances are brought to light.

Posted on

Racial Discrimination, Harassment at Electric Boat Company

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

Imagine a workplace where your skills, experience, and professionalism can thrive without fear of racial discrimination or harassment. Sadly, for John Mack – an African-American man – this was just a dream. The reality, as alleged in a recent lawsuit, reveals a disturbing picture of racial discrimination within the Electric Boat Company.

Hired as a Structural Nuclear Welder by Riley Power Group (RPG) to work at Electric Boat, Mack performed his duties diligently and competently, receiving positive reviews about his work. Tragically, his experience soured as he began to face a hostile working environment, racial discrimination, and a series of assaults by a white supervisor.

What makes Mack’s story more shocking is the response when he reported these incidents. A human resources professional allegedly requested that he not file a police report, promising that Electric Boat would handle the matter internally.

Not only did this fail to bring any substantive disciplinary action against the perpetrator, but Mack also faced another racial incident involving a safety officer who made several racist comments about African-Americans. Yet again, despite reporting the incident, there was no significant disciplinary action.

The law is clear. The Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, the Rhode Island Whistleblower Protection Act, and the Fair Employment Practice Act prohibit discrimination and retaliation and protect employees against racial discrimination in the workplace. Mack bravely came forward to ensure that his rights and those of his coworkers are respected – and so can you.

Every employee deserves a safe, respectful, and equal work environment. Discrimination or harassment at work is not only damaging to individual rights, dignity, and sense of worth but also undermines the potential for businesses to enjoy a diverse, dynamic, and creative team.

If you experience or witness racial discrimination or harassment at work, know that you’re protected by law. Protect your rights. Take a stand. Speak out against racial discrimination, and together, let’s make our workplaces truly equitable and inclusive.