Category: retaliation

Posted on

Systemic Gender Bias in Academia: Manifestations & Legal Recourse

Constitutional rights, discrimination lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Systemic Gender Bias in Academia: Why the Ivory Tower is Still Tilting

The image of academia is often one of pure meritocracy—a place where ideas reign supreme and the sharpest minds rise to the top, regardless of who they are. But peel back the ivy-covered façade, and a different reality emerges. For many women, the academic ladder is missing rungs, and the “publish or perish” culture comes with an unwritten addendum: navigate a labyrinth of bias or risk your career.

While universities pledge diversity and inclusion in glossy brochures, the data—and the lawsuits—tell a starkly different story. Systemic gender bias isn’t just about a single sexist professor or one overlooked promotion; it is the silent architecture of the institution itself. It is woven into pay scales, embedded in tenure reviews, and whispered in the hallways where “culture fit” becomes a convenient excuse for exclusion.

This blog explores the pervasive nature of systemic gender bias in higher education, moving beyond anecdotes to examine the structural barriers that continue to hold women back. We will look at how this bias manifests, the toll it takes on brilliant careers, and why recent legal battles, such as the one against California State University, are exposing cracks in the system.

Defining Systemic Gender Bias

It is crucial to distinguish between individual bias and systemic bias, though they often feed into one another. Individual bias refers to the specific prejudices or actions of a single person—a department head who believes women aren’t “serious” researchers, for example.

Systemic bias, however, is far more insidious. It refers to the policies, practices, and cultural norms that disadvantage a specific group across an entire organization or sector. In academia, this looks like tenure clocks that don’t account for maternity leave, teaching evaluations that consistently rate women lower than men for identical performance, and salary algorithms that perpetuate historical pay gaps. It is not just a “bad apple” problem; it is a “rotten barrel” problem.

Manifestations of Gender Bias in Academia

Systemic bias manifests in nearly every facet of academic life, creating a cumulative disadvantage for women that researchers often call “death by a thousand cuts.”

Hiring and Promotion Disparities

Despite earning the majority of doctoral degrees in many fields, women remain significantly underrepresented in tenured positions and leadership roles. The “leaky pipeline” phenomenon sees women dropping out of academia at higher rates than men at every stage of career progression. This is often due to vague criteria for “leadership potential” that favor traditionally masculine traits, leading to women being passed over for deanships and presidencies.

The Persistent Pay Gap

The ivory tower is not immune to the wage gap. A study by the California State University Employees Union found that white women are paid roughly 5% less than white men, while women of color face a nearly 7% disparity compared to white men. These gaps often start at the initial hiring offer and compound over decades, resulting in significantly lower lifetime earnings and retirement savings for female academics.

Research Opportunities and Funding

Access to grants is the lifeblood of academic research. Yet, studies consistently show that women receive smaller grants than men and are less likely to receive funding for follow-up research. This lack of resources restricts the scope of their work, reduces their publication output, and ultimately hampers their chances for tenure and promotion.

Recognition and Awards

Women are also less likely to be nominated for or win prestigious awards. This lack of recognition renders their contributions invisible, reinforcing the false narrative that male academics are the primary drivers of innovation and scholarship.

Workplace Climate and Harassment

Perhaps the most damaging manifestation is a hostile workplace climate. This ranges from overt sexual harassment to constant microaggressions—being interrupted in meetings, having ideas appropriated by male colleagues, or being addressed informally while male peers are called “Doctor.”

Case Study: The California State University Lawsuit

The theoretical framework of systemic bias becomes starkly real when we look at recent litigation. A high-profile lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of the California State University (CSU) serves as a potent example of how these issues play out in real time.

Plaintiffs Dr. Clare Weber and Dr. Anissa Rogers alleged a “cesspool of gender harassment and discrimination” within the CSU system. Their complaint detailed a culture where female executives were routinely paid less than their male counterparts—specifically, female Vice Provosts earned approximately 7% less on average.

The allegations painted a disturbing picture of leadership. The lawsuit claimed that high-ranking officials, including President Tomás Morales and Dean Jake Zhu, created a culture of fear. They were accused of “ranting” at female employees, holding them to higher standards than men, and subjecting them to “screaming rampages.” Dr. Zhu allegedly mocked Dr. Rogers for using gender pronouns in her Zoom name and told Dr. Deirdre Lanesskog, a female professor, “women need to have the bigger heart for her male colleagues.”

Perhaps most damning was the alleged institutional response. Instead of addressing the complaints, the lawsuit claims CSU silenced the victims. Dr. Rogers and Dr. Weber were allegedly directed to lie to colleagues and students by saying they were “resigning,” under threat of being fired. This retaliation highlights a critical component of systemic bias: the protection of the institution over the protection of its employees.

The outcome was significant: Dr. Anissa Rogers was awarded $6 million in a jury verdict for the emotional distress and personal toll of this discrimination. This victory underscores that these are not just “HR issues”—they are violations of civil rights.

The Impact of Gender Bias

The fallout from systemic bias extends far beyond the individuals directly involved.

Individual Impact: For women in academia, the toll is heavy. Beyond the financial loss from pay gaps, there is a profound psychological cost. The stress of navigating a hostile environment can lead to burnout, anxiety, and a loss of confidence. Brilliant careers are derailed, and many women simply leave the profession entirely, taking their expertise with them.

Institutional Impact: When bias goes unchecked, universities lose out on talent, innovation, and diverse perspectives. A homogeneous faculty is less equipped to mentor a diverse student body or tackle complex global problems. Furthermore, lawsuits like the one against CSU damage an institution’s reputation, making it harder to recruit top talent in the future.

Addressing Systemic Gender Bias

Dismantling systemic bias requires more than lip service; it demands structural change.

  • Policy Overhauls: Institutions must implement transparent audits of pay and promotion. Salary algorithms should be reviewed to ensure they don’t carry forward historical inequities.
  • Accountability: There must be real consequences for harassment and discrimination, regardless of a perpetrator’s tenure status or grant income. “Rainmakers” cannot be exempt from professional conduct standards.
  • Mentorship and Sponsorship: Formal mentorship programs can help women navigate the unwritten rules of academia, while sponsorship programs can ensure women are actively championed for leadership roles.
  • Unconscious Bias Training: While not a silver bullet, training can help search committees and tenure boards recognize and mitigate their biases during decision-making.

A Call for Equitable Change

Systemic gender bias in academia is a formidable foe, deeply entrenched in tradition and power structures. However, as the $6 million verdict against CSU demonstrates, the tide is turning. Legal action is becoming a powerful tool for holding institutions accountable.

If you believe you have faced systemic discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in your academic career, you are not alone, and you have rights. Silence only serves the system. By speaking out and seeking legal counsel, you contribute to dismantling the barriers that have held women back for too long.

We must demand an academia that lives up to its ideals—where merit matters more than gender, and where every scholar has an equal opportunity to thrive.

Posted on

DHL Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $640,000

Female warehouse employee reporting Hostile Work Environment.

DHL To Pay $640k Settlement After Ignoring Sexual Harassment Complaints Creating Hostile Work Environment

For Tazaria Gibbs, an employee at a DHL facility in Memphis, the workplace became a site of fear rather than productivity. After being subjected to unwanted advances by an operations manager, she followed protocol. She reported the behavior to three separate supervisors. She asked not to be left alone with him.

The response? Silence. No reports were filed. No investigation was launched. And when she refused to meet her harasser alone, the company fired her for “insubordination.”

This case, now settled for $640,000, is a reminder that a hostile work environment is more than just bad management—it is a violation of federal law.

The Cost of Looking the Other Way

The lawsuit, filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), detailed a culture of unchecked harassment at the DHL Supply Chain facility. According to the EEOC’s findings, Gibbs was not the only victim. Other female employees confirmed that male coworkers, leads, and supervisors subjected them to sexual harassment.

Despite numerous complaints from multiple women, the company failed to act. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are legally obligated to investigate harassment claims. Ignoring these claims—or worse, punishing the victims who make them—exposes companies to significant liability.

Because DHL supervisors failed to report the complaints as required by their own company policy, the harassment festered. This negligence transformed a personnel issue into a federal lawsuit charging the logistics giant with sexual harassment and retaliation.

What Constitutes a Hostile Work Environment?

While the term is often misused to describe general rudeness or a demanding boss, a legally defined “hostile work environment” has specific criteria. It occurs when unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic (such as sex, race, or age) becomes so severe or pervasive that it alters the conditions of employment and creates an abusive atmosphere.

In the DHL case, the EEOC identified two primary violations:

  1. Sexual Harassment: The persistent, unwelcome conduct by the operations manager and other male staff.
  2. Retaliation: The firing of Gibbs for refusing to interact with her harasser alone.

Retaliation is frequently the “smoking gun” in employment law cases. It is illegal for an employer to fire, demote, or harass an employee for engaging in a protected activity, such as filing a complaint about discrimination.

The Settlement: More Than Just Money

To resolve the lawsuit, DHL agreed to a two-year consent decree approved by U.S. District Judge Tommy Parker. While the $640,000 payment to the class of female employees is significant, the non-monetary terms of the settlement are equally important for preventing future misconduct.

The decree mandates that DHL must:

  • Implement New Training: Managers, supervisors, and HR personnel at the Memphis facility must undergo training on preventing sexual harassment and retaliation.
  • Review Surveillance: The company must create procedures to review surveillance footage regarding reported or suspected complaints.
  • Corporate Accountability: A corporate management representative must attend training to affirm that harassment will not be tolerated.

These measures are designed to dismantle the culture of silence that allowed the harassment to continue in the first place.

Know Your Rights

The DHL settlement highlights a critical reality for employees: you do not have to endure abuse to keep your paycheck. If you are experiencing harassment, you have the right to seek justice.

Under federal and state laws, victims of a hostile work environment may be entitled to:

  • Back Pay: Compensation for wages lost due to wrongful termination.
  • Emotional Distress Damages: Compensation for the anxiety, depression, and mental anguish caused by the harassment.
  • Punitive Damages: Penalties levied against the employer to punish egregious conduct.
  • Reinstatement: The right to return to your job, although many clients choose to move forward elsewhere.

If you report harassment and your employer fails to investigate—or if you face retaliation for speaking up—you have legal recourse.

Taking the Next Step

Workplace harassment thrives in darkness. As the DHL case proves, when employees speak up and legal action is taken, companies are forced to change.

Hiring an experienced employment attorney significantly increases the likelihood of securing a larger settlement compared to pursuing a claim solely through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). While the EEOC provides a critical avenue for addressing workplace discrimination and harassment, their resources are often stretched thin, and they may focus on resolving cases quickly, sometimes at the expense of higher compensation for victims. Conversely, an experienced attorney can dedicate personalized attention to your case, thoroughly investigate the facts, gather compelling evidence, and advocate aggressively on your behalf. Attorneys also have the ability to leverage legal strategies, negotiate with employers, and even take cases to court if necessary, ensuring you receive the maximum compensation you deserve for the harm you’ve endured.

If you are facing a hostile work environment, retaliation, or discrimination, you do not have to fight alone. Document every incident, report the behavior according to your company’s policy, and consult with experienced legal counsel.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we have spent over 20 years advocating for employees who have been wronged. We offer confidential consultations to help you understand your rights and determine the best path forward.

Posted on

Fired for Complaining? Your Rights Against Workplace Retaliation

Dental assistant fired after reporting discrimination. Retaliation Lawyers Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Fired for Speaking Up? Understanding Workplace Retaliation Rights

It starts with a feeling of unease. You witness a manager making a derogatory comment, or perhaps you notice a pattern of unfair treatment directed at you or a colleague. You decide to do the right thing: you speak up. You file a complaint with Human Resources or mention your concern to a supervisor.

You expect an investigation. You expect professionalism. What you don’t expect is to find your shifts suddenly cut, your workload doubled, or your employment terminated entirely.

This scenario is not just unfair; it is often illegal. In the legal world, this is known as workplace retaliation. It is a pervasive issue that silences victims and allows toxic workplace cultures to fester. Understanding your rights is the first step toward protecting your livelihood and holding employers accountable.

Defining Workplace Retaliation

Retaliation occurs when an employer takes an “adverse action” against an employee for engaging in “protected activity.”

In simpler terms, your employer cannot punish you for asserting your rights. Under federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as various California state laws, you have the right to work in an environment free from discrimination and harassment. Just as importantly, you have the right to complain about legal violations without fear of retribution.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports that retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector. It is a common tactic used to intimidate workers, but the law provides a shield against it.

Recognizing the Signs: What Does Retaliation Look Like?

Retaliation is not always as obvious as a firing squad. While termination is the most severe form, retaliatory actions can be subtle, designed to make an employee’s life difficult enough that they quit voluntarily—a concept known as “constructive discharge.”

Any action that would deter a reasonable person from making a complaint can constitute retaliation. Common examples include:

  • Demotion or Pay Cuts: Being moved to a lower-ranking position or having your salary reduced shortly after making a complaint.
  • Exclusion: Suddenly being left out of meetings, training opportunities, or social events that are essential to your job function.
  • Schedule Changes: Being assigned to the least desirable shifts or having your hours drastically reduced.
  • Undeserved Discipline: Receiving negative performance reviews or disciplinary write-ups that are inconsistent with your actual performance history.
  • Hostility: Facing verbal abuse or the “cold shoulder” from management or peers acting on management’s behalf.

Examining the Evidence: EEOC v. CASSE

To understand how retaliation plays out in the real world—and how the courts view it—we can look at the recent case of EEOC v. Council for the Advancement of Social Services and Education (CASSE). This case serves as a reminder that employers cannot punish employees for raising a concern.

The Incident

Destiny Johnson, a Black dental assistant at a health clinic in Louisiana, found herself in an uncomfortable position in June 2020. During a time of nationwide racial justice protests, the clinic’s dental director—who was White—asked Johnson, in front of White colleagues, if she had attended a “Black Lives Matter” protest.

Feeling singled out and humiliated by what she perceived as a racially charged inquiry, Johnson did exactly what company policies usually dictate: she complained to a co-worker, and the information was relayed to management.

The Employer’s Reaction

Instead of investigating Johnson’s concern neutrally, the organization’s CEO, Mary Elizabeth Chumley, took immediate action against Johnson. Ms. Chumley sent a text message placing Johnson on unpaid administrative leave.

The reasoning? The CEO claimed the suspension was necessary pending an investigation into Johnson’s “introduction of race” into the workplace. Johnson was never asked to return to work.

The Legal Outcome

When this case reached federal court, the judge ruled in favor of the EEOC on the retaliation claim. The court noted that placing Johnson on unpaid leave constituted a clear adverse action.

Crucially, the court found “direct evidence” of retaliatory intent. The CEO’s own text messages and statements admitted that Johnson was punished for complaining about discrimination. The employer tried to argue that Johnson was fired for performance issues, but the evidence—the text message explicitly linking the suspension to the complaint—was undeniable.

This case highlights a critical legal principle: You do not have to prove that the underlying discrimination (the comment about the protest) was illegal to win a retaliation claim. You only have to prove that you had a “reasonable belief” that it was illegal and that you were punished for opposing it.

The Three Pillars of a Retaliation Claim

If you believe you are a victim of retaliation, establishing a claim generally requires proving three specific elements:

1. Protected Activity

You must have engaged in an activity protected by law. This includes:

  • Filing a formal complaint with the EEOC or a state agency.
  • Complaining internally to management or HR about discrimination or harassment.
  • Participating in an investigation as a witness.
  • Requesting an accommodation for a disability or religious practice.
  • Resisting sexual advances.

2. Adverse Action

Your employer must have taken action against you that was materially adverse. As noted earlier, this goes beyond minor annoyances. It must be something that could reasonably discourage an employee from coming forward.

3. Causal Connection

There must be a link between your protected activity and the adverse action. This is often the hardest part to prove. Courts look at:

  • Timing: Did the discipline happen immediately after your complaint?
  • Knowledge: Did the person punishing you know about your complaint?
  • Consistency: Were you treated differently from employees who didn’t complain?

Your Legal Protections

Retaliation is prohibited under several federal and state statutes.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees who oppose discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects individuals who request accommodations or complain about disability discrimination.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers aged 40 and older from retaliation regarding age discrimination complaints.

In California, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) provides even stronger protections than federal law in many instances, covering a broader range of employers and protected categories.

What To Do If You Suspect Retaliation

If you find yourself in the crosshairs of a vindictive employer, taking the right steps early is crucial for your case.

Document Everything

In the CASSE case, a single text message from the CEO became the smoking gun. Save emails, text messages, and voicemails. Keep a journal of dates, times, and details of retaliatory incidents. If you receive a sudden negative performance review, draft a written rebuttal.

Follow Internal Procedures

If your company has a handbook, follow the complaint procedure outlined there. This puts the company on notice. If they fail to act—or if they punish you—it strengthens your claim that they were aware of the issue.

Consult a Retaliation Attorney

Retaliation cases are fact-specific and complex. Employers rarely admit they are retaliating; they will often manufacture “performance issues” to justify their actions. An experienced attorney can help you cut through these defenses.

Standing Up for Justice

The law recognizes that workplaces must be safe and that employees must be free to speak the truth. When an employer retaliates, they are not just harming one worker; they are attempting to silence everyone.

You should not have to choose between your dignity and your paycheck. If you have been fired, demoted, or harassed for doing the right thing, you have legal avenues to seek justice.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we are dedicated to advocating for employees who have been wronged. We understand the courage it takes to speak up, and we are committed to ensuring your voice is heard in the legal system.

If you believe you have been the victim of workplace retaliation, contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a confidential consultation.

Posted on

Fired for Unionizing? Your Rights Against Wrongful Termination

Unionizing & class action lawsuits allow the average employee to band together and get justice from large powerful corporations.

Fired for Organizing? Why Union Busting is Wrongful Termination

Losing a job is never easy, but losing a livelihood because you stood up for better working conditions is a profound violation of trust and law. When employees at Snohetta, a prominent architecture firm, attempted to unionize, they faced what many fear: sudden unemployment. A federal labor regulator accused the firm of laying off eight employees specifically in retaliation for their organizing efforts.

This scenario highlights a critical tension in the modern American workplace. While employees legally possess the right to organize, some employers respond with punitive measures that cross the line into illegality. If you have been dismissed for discussing wages, safety conditions, or unionization with your coworkers, you may be a victim of wrongful termination. Understanding where the legal lines are drawn is the first step toward reclaiming your career and holding corporations accountable.

Understanding Wrongful Termination

The term “wrongful termination” is often misunderstood. In the legal world, it does not simply mean a firing was unfair or harsh. Most employment is “at-will,” meaning an employer can fire you for almost any reason—or no reason at all. However, there is a massive exception: they cannot fire you for an illegal reason.

Wrongful discharge occurs when a termination violates specific statutes, employment contracts, or public policy. It goes beyond a personality clash; it is a contravention of the law. Common examples of illegal dismissals include:

  • Discrimination: Firing someone based on race, gender, age, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.
  • Whistleblowing: Retaliating against an employee who reports corporate wrongdoing, safety violations, or fraud.
  • Refusal to Commit Crimes: dismissing an employee because they refused to engage in illegal or unethical activities.
  • Protected Activities: Firing an employee for exercising their legal rights, such as taking medical leave, serving on a jury, or—crucially—organizing a union.

The Right to Unionize

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), you have the right to form, join, or assist a union. This federal law protects your ability to negotiate with your employer over wages, hours, and other terms of employment.

These protections are robust. You have the right to:

  • Distribute Union Literature: You can share information in non-work areas during non-work times, such as break rooms or parking lots.
  • Wear Union Insignia: In most cases, you can wear buttons, t-shirts, or stickers supporting your union.
  • Discuss Union Matters: You are free to discuss the pros and cons of unionizing with your coworkers.
  • Solicit Signatures: You can ask coworkers to sign authorization cards.

Importantly, supervisors cannot spy on you, coercively question you about your union stance, or threaten you with adverse consequences for your support. If an employer implies that the business will close or that layoffs will occur because of unionization, they are likely violating federal law.

Legal Protections for Union Activities

The core of the NLRA is the prohibition of retaliation. Employers cannot fire, discipline, demote, or penalize you for engaging in “concerted activity” for mutual aid or protection.

The allegations against Snohetta serve as a stark warning. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) stated that the layoffs were a direct response to the employees’ attempt to organize. This type of retaliation strikes at the heart of labor rights. When a company targets the organizers of a union drive, they are attempting to chill the speech and actions of the entire workforce.

If an investigation proves that an employer fired staff to crush a union drive, the consequences can be severe. Remedies often include reinstating the fired workers and providing back pay. The law recognizes that the power to organize is meaningless if exercising it costs you your job.

Employer Restrictions and Employee Rights

While your rights are broad, they are not without limits. “Working time is for work” is a general rule recognized by the NLRB. Employers can maintain non-discriminatory rules that limit solicitation during actual work hours.

However, the key word is non-discriminatory.

If your employer allows employees to chat about the weekend, sports, or local news while working, they generally cannot prohibit you from talking about a union. They cannot enforce a “no-talking” rule only when the topic shifts to wages or organization. Furthermore, they cannot prohibit you from soliciting support or distributing literature during your own time (lunch breaks or before/after shifts), even if you are on the company premises.

Key Federal and State Laws

Wrongful termination claims often intersect with various federal and state protections. While the NLRA covers union activity, other laws provide a bulwark against discriminatory firing.

Federal Protections

  • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII): Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
  • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Protects qualified individuals with disabilities and mandates reasonable accommodations.
  • The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA): Protects workers aged 40 and older from age-based bias.
  • The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA): Ensures employees cannot be fired for taking protected leave for family or medical reasons.

California Protections

For employees in California, state laws offer even stronger shields:

  • California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): Provides broader protections than federal law, covering sexual orientation, gender identity, and marital status.
  • California Labor Code § 1102.5: This statute explicitly protects whistleblowers who report unlawful activities or refuse to participate in them.

What to Do If Wrongfully Terminated

If you believe you have been targeted for layoff because of your union activities or membership in a protected class, swift and deliberate action is necessary to protect your claim.

1. Document Everything

Memory fades, but documentation lasts. Create a detailed timeline of events leading up to your termination. Save emails, performance reviews, and any written communication regarding your dismissal. If you were questioned about your union views by a manager, write down the date, time, and specific comments made.

2. Do Not Use AI for Legal Research

It might be tempting to plug your situation into an AI chatbot to see if you have a case. Do not do this. Conversations with AI platforms are not privileged. They are discoverable by the opposing party in a lawsuit. If you provide an AI with inconsistent details or vent your frustrations, the defense could potentially use those logs to damage your credibility in court.

3. Do Not Sign Immediately

Employers often present severance packages that include a release of claims. Signing this may waive your right to sue for wrongful termination. Do not sign anything until you fully understand what rights you are giving up.

4. Seek Legal Counsel

Wrongful termination cases, especially those involving union retaliation, are legally complex. They require proving the employer’s intent was illegal. Consult with an experienced employment attorney who can evaluate the facts, guide you through the filing process with the NLRB or EEOC, and advocate for your justice.

Protecting Your Future

The decision to unionize or speak out against workplace injustice should not cost you your livelihood. Whether it is a high-profile architecture firm or a small local business, no employer is above the law.

If you suspect your rights have been violated, do not face the corporate legal machinery alone. By understanding the protections afforded to you by the NLRA and state laws, you can stand your ground. Contact a qualified wrongful termination attorney to discuss your case confidentially and take the first step toward holding your employer accountable.

Posted on

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

Celebrating a victory for justice.

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

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

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

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

The Case Against SHRM

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

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

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

A Pattern of Retaliation

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

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

Inside the Trial: Why the Jury Sided with the Employee

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

Flawed Investigations

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

Disparate Treatment

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

Reckless Indifference

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

Implications for HR Practices

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

The Danger of Performative HR

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

Accountability for Retaliation

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

Protection for Whistleblowers

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

Understanding Your Rights: The Legal Framework

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

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

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

Section 1981

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

Strategies for Employees Facing Discrimination

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

Document Everything

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

 

 

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

Posted on

The $103 Million Verdict: Age Discrimination in the Workplace

Laws protect against age, gender, race discrimination. Helmer Friedman LLP represents discrimination victims.

The $103 Million Wake-Up Call: Age Discrimination in the Workplace

For thirty-one years, Joy Slagel was a loyal employee. She built a career, managed cases, and even won awards for her customer service. But in the corporate world, three decades of experience doesn’t always guarantee respect—sometimes, it paints a target on your back. After a leadership change in 2012, the atmosphere at her workplace shifted. Older colleagues began disappearing, forced into resignation or fired outright. Slagel found herself isolated, criticized for “setting the bar too high,” and eventually terminated without explanation after returning from medical leave.

Her story isn’t an anomaly, but the outcome was historic. A Los Angeles jury recently ordered her former employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., to pay $103 million in damages. The verdict sends a thunderous message to boardrooms across America: discriminating against older workers is not just unethical; it is a massive financial liability.

Age discrimination remains a pervasive, often silent issue in the modern workforce. While we frequently discuss diversity in terms of race and gender, age bias often flies under the radar until it causes irreparable harm to careers and health. Whether it manifests as a subtle comment about “fresh energy” or a blatant firing of senior staff, ageism is illegal, harmful, and costly.

Federal Age Discrimination Laws

Understanding the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

At the federal level, the primary shield against this bias is the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). This law explicitly protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older from employment discrimination based on age. It applies to both employees and job applicants.

Under the ADEA, it is unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their age with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment. This is a broad umbrella that covers nearly every aspect of the working relationship, including:

  • Hiring: Employers cannot refuse to hire a candidate simply because they are over 40.
  • Firing and Layoffs: Targeting older workers for redundancy during restructuring is prohibited.
  • Compensation and Benefits: Older workers cannot be paid less or denied benefits offered to younger counterparts.
  • Promotions and Training: denying career advancement or upskilling opportunities based on age is illegal.

The law applies to employers with 20 or more employees, including employment agencies, labor organizations, and federal, state, and local governments. Additionally, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) amended the ADEA to prohibit employers from denying benefits to older employees, recognizing that the cost of providing benefits should not be used to discourage hiring experienced talent.

California Age Discrimination Laws

Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)

The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is a California law that offers strong protections against age discrimination for individuals aged 40 and older. Under FEHA, age discrimination occurs when an employer treats a job applicant or employee less favorably because of age. This can include actions such as denying promotions, terminating employment, or refusing to hire someone solely based on their age. FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees and requires that all workplace decisions be based on merit and qualifications rather than age. Additionally, FEHA prohibits practices like including age preferences in job advertisements or enforcing seemingly neutral policies that disproportionately affect older workers without legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. This law serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that older employees are treated fairly and have equal opportunities in the workplace.

While the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) offer similar federal safeguards, they aim to prevent age discrimination but differ in scope and application. FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees and includes broader protections against various types of discrimination beyond age discrimination. In contrast, the ADEA specifically addresses age discrimination and applies to employers with 20 or more employees, making its coverage threshold stricter.

Another key distinction between the two laws is the age group protected. Under the ADEA, the law specifically protects individuals aged 40 and older from discrimination. FEHA, however, doesn’t explicitly set a minimum age but prohibits age-based discrimination more generally, which may allow for a broader interpretation within California. Additionally, claims under the ADEA are typically filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), while FEHA claims are processed through the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). This emphasizes the overlap yet distinct processes these laws provide. Together, FEHA and ADEA establish a comprehensive framework to protect workers from age discrimination, especially in jurisdictions like California, where state and federal regulations intersect.

How Age Discrimination Manifests in Real Life

Bias rarely announces itself with a megaphone. Instead, it often creeps into the workplace through coded language and subtle exclusions. While the law is clear, the application of discrimination can be murky.

In hiring, it might look like job postings that seek “digital natives” or caps on years of experience, effectively filtering out older applicants before they even apply. In the office, it can be social exclusion—being left out of meetings, overlooked for challenging assignments, or subjected to “jokes” about retirement or adaptability to technology.

The most damaging forms often occur during restructuring. Companies looking to cut costs often target higher-salaried employees, who tend to be older workers with long tenure. If a layoff disproportionately affects those over 40, it may violate the ADEA.

Similarly, promotions may be withheld under the guise that an older employee “lacks long-term potential” or “isn’t a cultural fit,” phrases that often serve as smokescreens for bias.

Anatomy of a Verdict: The Liberty Mutual Case

To understand the severity of age discrimination, one need look no further than the recent case against Liberty Mutual. The details, as presented in court, paint a disturbing picture of a systematic effort to push out older workers.

According to court filings, the environment at Liberty Mutual shifted dramatically around 2012 following the promotion of a new regional claims manager, Ariam Alemseghed. The complaint alleged that a pattern emerged where employees in their 50s and 60s were forced to resign. Eventually, of the approximately 120 employees in the department, only two were over 40. Joy Slagel was one of them.

The harassment Slagel endured was calculated. Despite a spotless 30-year record, she was suddenly criticized for being a bad team player. The complaint detailed how she was ignored during morning greetings and singled out during meetings. When she won a customer service award and a $1,000 gift for her exemplary work, the regional manager allegedly undercut the achievement by telling her she “got lucky” and that it “would never happen again.”

The stress of this hostile environment took a physical toll. Slagel’s blood pressure worsened, forcing her to take a short-term disability leave. While she was away, the company sent a courier to retrieve her laptop—an unusual move that foreshadowed her fate. Upon her return, her access badge had been deactivated. She was called into a conference room and fired, effective immediately. She was replaced by a white male in his late 20s.

The jury’s verdict—$20 million in compensatory damages and $83 million in punitive damages—was a direct rejection of these tactics. Justin Shegerian, the lead trial attorney, stated that the verdict is a “resounding message” that juries will hold employers accountable for such harm.

Strategies for Employees Facing Discrimination

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

Document Everything

Paper trails are essential. Keep a detailed record of discriminatory comments, exclusion from meetings, or sudden negative shifts in performance reviews that contradict your actual output. In the Liberty Mutual case, the timeline of events—from the leadership change to the specific comments made during the award ceremony—helped establish a pattern of behavior.

Know Your Rights Regarding Waivers

Employers sometimes ask departing employees to sign waivers releasing the company from ADEA claims, often in exchange for a severance package. Under the OWBPA, these waivers must meet strict standards to be valid. You must be given at least 21 days to consider the agreement and seven days to revoke it after signing. Most importantly, you should be advised in writing to consult an attorney. Do not sign away your rights without legal counsel.

Oppose the Behavior

Retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices is illegal. If you report age discrimination to HR or file a charge, and your employer punishes you for it, that retaliation is a separate legal violation.

For employers, the $103 million verdict against Liberty Mutual should serve as a stark warning. The costs of age bias extend far beyond legal fees; they damage reputation, morale, and institutional knowledge.

“This verdict is a resounding message to corporations nationwide: age discrimination is illegal, it is harmful and juries will hold employers accountable,” Justin Shegerian, lead trial attorney and founder of Shegerian & Associates, said in a statement.

Preventing discrimination starts with culture. Employers must ensure that performance reviews are based on objective metrics, not subjective feelings that can mask bias. Leadership training is crucial—managers need to understand that comments about “fresh blood” or “digital natives” can be evidence of discriminatory intent.

Furthermore, audits of hiring and firing practices can reveal statistical anomalies before they become lawsuits. If a reduction in force impacts 80% of your workforce over 50, you have a problem. Building an inclusive workplace means valuing experience as an asset, not a liability.

Upholding Dignity in the Workforce

Joy Slagel gave 31 years to a company that ultimately treated her as disposable. The jury’s decision to award her over $100 million restores a measure of justice, but it cannot undo the stress and indignity she suffered.

Age discrimination is not merely a legal issue; it is a human one. We will all age. Creating a workplace that respects tenure and experience protects everyone’s future. Whether you are an employee facing bias or an employer seeking to avoid liability, understanding the high stakes of age discrimination is the only way forward.

Posted on

Happy Hanukkah

Happy Hanukkah from Helmer Friedman LLP legal team.

As the days grow shorter and the nights longer, a celebration of light, resilience, and faith begins. Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, is a story passed down through generations, a testament to the enduring power of hope in the face of darkness.

More than two millennia ago, the land of Judea was ruled by the Seleucid Empire. Its king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, sought to suppress Jewish culture and religious practice. He desecrated the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, the center of Jewish life, and outlawed core traditions. In response, a small band of Jewish rebels, led by Judah Maccabee and his family, rose up against the powerful army. They were known as the Maccabees, a name meaning “the hammers.”

Happy Hanukkah!Against all odds, after a three-year struggle, this small group of fighters successfully reclaimed the Temple. Their victory was not just a military one; it was a triumph for religious freedom. When they entered the Temple to rededicate it, they found it in disarray. They worked to purify it and relight the menorah, a sacred candelabrum meant to burn continuously.

Here, a new challenge arose. They could find only one small jar of consecrated olive oil, enough to light the menorah for a single day. Yet, a miracle occurred. The small amount of oil burned for eight nights, the time it took to prepare new, pure oil.

This is why Hanukkah is celebrated for eight nights. Each evening, another candle is added to the menorah, symbolizing the miracle and the growing light that pushes back the darkness. We eat foods fried in oil, like latkes (potato pancakes) and sufganiyot (jelly-filled pastries like donuts), to remember the oil that burned so brightly. We play with the dreidel, a spinning top that recalls a time when studying the Torah was forbidden, and children would pretend to play games while secretly learning.

Today, the story of Hanukkah speaks to a universal human experience. It is a reminder that even in moments of profound adversity, faith and resilience can lead to miraculous outcomes. It teaches us that the light of a single candle, like a single act of courage or hope, can defy the shadows. As we gather with loved ones, the glow of the menorah is more than just a tradition; it is a symbol of hope for all people, a celebration of light’s enduring power to overcome darkness, and the quiet strength found in unwavering belief.

Posted on

Discrimination Against American Workers: Your Legal Rights

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

Protecting American Workers from Discrimination

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

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

What is National Origin Discrimination?

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

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

Types of Discrimination Against American Workers

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

Discriminatory Job Advertisements

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

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

Unequal Treatment

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

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

Harassment

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

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

Retaliation

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

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

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

What Doesn’t Excuse Discrimination?

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

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

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

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

Real-World Examples: The Chivas USA Case

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

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

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

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

Filing a Charge with the EEOC

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

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

Protecting Your Rights

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

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

 

Posted on

Ephraim McDowell Health Settles Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Constitutional rights, discrimination lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

A Hospital’s $335K Lesson in Sex Discrimination

In a case that underscores the ongoing fight for workplace equality, a Kentucky-based healthcare system, Ephraim McDowell Health, Inc. (EMH), has agreed to a significant settlement following a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case centered on allegations of blatant sex discrimination and subsequent retaliation against a female employee who was denied a promotion based on her gender. This incident serves as a stark reminder that discriminatory practices, no matter how subtly or overtly expressed, have no place in the modern workplace and carry severe legal and financial consequences.

The resolution of this case, which includes a $335,000 payment and mandatory policy changes, highlights the critical role of federal protections in safeguarding employee rights. For workers who face similar injustices, it demonstrates that there are legal avenues for recourse. It also sends a clear message to employers across all industries: promotion decisions must be based on qualifications and merit, not on outdated and illegal gender stereotypes.

Background of the Case

Ephraim McDowell Health, a healthcare system headquartered in Danville, Kentucky, found itself under scrutiny after a female employee, Shannon Long, was passed over for a promotion. The case was brought to the forefront by the EEOC, the federal agency responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination.

The EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Kentucky, initiated legal action after its attempts to resolve the matter through a pre-litigation settlement process, known as conciliation, were unsuccessful. The subsequent lawsuit detailed a clear violation of federal law, bringing the hospital’s hiring practices into the public and legal spotlight.

The Allegations: Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

The core of the EEOC’s lawsuit, filed on March 27, 2024, rested on a series of damning allegations against Ephraim McDowell Health and its leadership.

A Blatant Denial of Opportunity

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Shannon Long, a qualified female employee, sought a promotion to an administrator position at EMH’s Fort Logan Hospital in Stanford, Kentucky. She met all the necessary qualifications, including the educational requirements for the role.

However, she was allegedly told directly by the company’s CEO that she would not be selected for the position because of her sex. The lawsuit stated the CEO held a belief that “men work better with men and that it was best to have a male in that position.” Consequently, the promotion was given to a male employee who, according to the EEOC, did not meet the position’s existing education requirements. Long was instead placed in a lower-paying role that reported directly to the man who had been promoted over her.

Retaliation for Speaking Out

After being denied the promotion, Long filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, exercising her right to report unlawful employment practices. The lawsuit charged that instead of addressing the issue, EMH retaliated against her. The retaliation culminated in her termination in December 2022, compounding the initial act of discrimination with a punitive and illegal response.

Legal Framework: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

The actions alleged in the lawsuit are direct violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It specifically outlaws:

  • Sex-Based Discrimination: Making employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, and promotions, based on an individual’s gender. The CEO’s alleged statements are a textbook example of this prohibited practice.
  • Retaliation: Taking adverse action against an employee for engaging in a legally protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC. Firing an employee after they have reported discrimination is one of the most severe forms of retaliation.

The EEOC’s lawsuit sought to hold Ephraim McDowell Health accountable for these violations and to secure justice for the affected employee.

The Settlement and Its Terms

On November 21, 2025, the EEOC announced that Ephraim McDowell Health had agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement demonstrates the gravity of the charges and the strength of the evidence against the healthcare system. Under the terms of the two-year consent decree, EMH agreed to:

  • Pay $335,000: This monetary relief will be paid to Shannon Long to compensate for the discrimination and retaliation she endured.
  • Provide Mandatory Training: The company is required to conduct equal employment opportunity training for its staff to prevent future incidents.
  • Report to the EEOC: EMH must provide annual reports to the EEOC to ensure compliance with the terms of the decree.
  • Post Employee Rights Notices: The hospital must display a notice informing employees of their rights under federal anti-discrimination law.

Kenneth Bird, the EEOC’s Indianapolis Regional Attorney, commented on the resolution, stating, “We appreciate Ephraim McDowell for working with us to resolve this litigation and agreeing to implement changes to prevent future hiring violations. These steps demonstrate a commitment to achieving a workplace free from discrimination and retaliation.”

A Firm Stance Against Workplace Injustice

This case is a powerful example of the EEOC’s unwavering commitment to its mission. When the lawsuit was initially filed, EEOC Indianapolis District Director Michelle Eisele affirmed, “The EEOC is firmly committed to ensuring that all workers have an equal opportunity for advancement.”

The timing of the lawsuit’s filing during Women’s History Month was not lost on the agency. Attorney Kenneth L. Bird noted its significance, stating, “Employers who use an employee’s gender as the basis for promotion decisions are clearly practicing unlawful discrimination… This lawsuit seeks to ensure that qualified female applicants will be judged by their education, experience, and other qualifications, and not passed over because of their gender.”

The settlement reinforces this message, demonstrating that the agency will vigorously pursue justice for victims of discrimination and hold employers accountable for their unlawful actions.

Protecting Your Rights in the Workplace

The Ephraim McDowell Health case is a critical reminder that sex discrimination remains a persistent issue. It also shows that legal protections are in place to fight back against such injustice. If you have experienced sex discrimination or have knowledge of unfair practices in your workplace, it is crucial to consult a reputable attorney with proven expertise in employment law.

Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP offer skilled legal advocacy to help address these injustices. With over 20 years of experience, a strong history of case victories, and a commitment to personalized client support, Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through the legal process and work to secure the justice and compensation you deserve. Don’t hesitate to reach out for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation.

Posted on

UPS Driver Wins $238M in Race Discrimination Lawsuit

Refusing reasonable accommodations is disability discrimination and it is illegal. Contact the ADA Lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP.

UPS Driver Awarded $238M in Race Discrimination Verdict

In September 2024, a jury delivered a stunning $238 million verdict against United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), finding the company liable for racial discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation against a former Black driver, Tahvio Gratton. The verdict includes $198 million in punitive damages and $39.6 million for emotional distress, humiliation, pain, and suffering. This monumental decision sends a powerful message to employers everywhere about the severe consequences of failing to prevent and address workplace discrimination.

The case, Gratton v. United Parcel Service, Inc., highlights the systemic issues that can fester within a company, leading to devastating personal and financial outcomes. For employees, it underscores the importance of standing up against injustice. For employers, it serves as a stark reminder of their legal and ethical obligations to foster a safe and equitable workplace for everyone.

Background of the Case

Tahvio Gratton, a Black man, began his employment with UPS in 2016. In January 2018, he transferred from the Seattle UPS center to the Yakima, Washington, location. According to his complaint, the racial harassment and discriminatory treatment started almost immediately.

Gratton alleged a series of discriminatory actions by his supervisors. He was frequently “laid off” for the day, even as white drivers with less seniority were given routes, a clear violation of union rules. He was also assigned less desirable and more physically demanding routes, like the “mall route,” which involved heavier, bulkier packages.

The harassment escalated during a “ride-along” in April 2018 with a white manager, Sam O’Rourke. Throughout the day, O’Rourke repeatedly and demeaningly referred to Gratton as “Boy.” Despite Gratton’s direct request to stop, O’Rourke dismissed it, stating, “I’m from the South. That’s how I talk.” This exchange, witnessed by a customer, left Gratton feeling humiliated and distressed. When he reported the incident to another manager, Erik Loomis, the complaint was brushed off with, “That’s just how he talks.”

Legal Arguments and Evidence

Gratton filed multiple complaints with his union and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) between 2018 and 2021. He detailed not only the initial racial harassment but also the ongoing retaliation he faced for speaking out.

The evidence presented a pattern of discriminatory behavior:

  • Unequal Work Assignments: White drivers were given preferential routes, while Black drivers, including Gratton, were burdened with overloaded routes and then unfairly disciplined for taking too long.
  • Targeted Discipline: Gratton and other Black employees were reprimanded for minor infractions like visible tattoos or wearing a sweater, while white drivers were not.
  • Retaliation: After Gratton became a union shop steward and helped other Black employees file grievances, the retaliation intensified. Supervisors actively sought reasons to discipline him, and one witness testified that a manager referred to Gratton with a racial slur.
  • Wrongful Termination: In October 2021, UPS fired Gratton, citing an “unprovoked assault” on a female coworker. Gratton maintained that he tripped and accidentally steadied himself on her back. The conflicting witness accounts and the history of retaliation led Gratton to claim his termination was pretextual—a fabricated reason to fire him for his race and protected activities.

The Verdict

The jury sided with Gratton, finding that UPS’s conduct was “malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of his rights.” They determined that he had proven his claims of racial discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharge.

The staggering $238 million award—$198 million in punitive damages and $39.6 million for emotional distress—reflects the jury’s condemnation of the company’s failure to address the severe and persistent hostile work environment Gratton endured. While UPS has stated it plans to appeal, the verdict stands as a landmark victory against workplace discrimination.

Understanding Race Discrimination in the Workplace

Race discrimination in the workplace is strictly prohibited by federal and state laws. Key legislation includes:

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This federal law makes it illegal for employers with 15 or more employees to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any aspect of employment.
  • 42 U.S.C. § 1981: This statute provides all persons with the same right to make and enforce contracts as is enjoyed by white citizens, which applies to employment relationships.
  • California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): In California, this law offers even broader protections, applying to employers with five or more employees and prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

These laws cover hiring, firing, promotions, compensation, job assignments, and any other terms or conditions of employment. Creating a hostile work environment based on race—where conduct is so severe or pervasive that it creates an abusive atmosphere—is also a form of illegal discrimination.

What This Means for Employers

The Gratton v. UPS verdict is a wake-up call. Employers have a legal and moral responsibility to create a workplace free from discrimination and harassment. Prevention is the most effective tool.

Employers should:

  • Implement Strong Policies: Establish clear, written policies against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
  • Provide Regular Training: Conduct mandatory training for all employees and managers on diversity, sensitivity, and anti-discrimination laws.
  • Establish a Complaint Procedure: Create a safe and clear process for employees to report incidents without fear of retaliation.
  • Investigate Promptly and Thoroughly: Take all complaints seriously. Conduct immediate, impartial investigations and take appropriate corrective action if misconduct is found.
  • Foster a Culture of Respect: Leadership must champion a workplace culture where diversity is valued and all employees are treated with dignity.

Ignoring or dismissing complaints, as Gratton’s managers allegedly did, can lead to catastrophic legal and financial consequences, not to mention irreparable damage to a company’s reputation.

Your Rights as an Employee

If you are facing discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at work, you have rights. It is illegal for your employer to punish you for reporting unlawful conduct.

Legal options for employees include:

  • Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of discriminatory incidents, including dates, times, locations, individuals involved, and what was said or done.
  • Report the Conduct: Follow your company’s internal complaint procedure to report the harassment or discrimination.
  • File a Complaint with a Government Agency: You can file a charge with the EEOC or a state agency like California’s Civil Rights Department (CRD).
  • Seek Legal Counsel: An experienced employment lawyer can help you understand your rights, navigate the legal process, and pursue a claim for damages, including lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages.

Stand Up for Your Rights

The verdict in Tahvio Gratton’s case is a powerful testament to the importance of holding employers accountable for creating and maintaining a hostile work environment. It shows that the justice system can and will protect employees who have been subjected to race discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation.

No one should have to endure the humiliation and distress that Mr. Gratton experienced. His courage to speak out and fight back has not only brought him justice but has also shone a bright light on the persistent issue of workplace discrimination.

If you believe you have been the victim of discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination, do not stay silent. You have the right to work in an environment free from prejudice and hostility.

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

The race discrimination lawyers at Helmer Friedman LLP represent employees who have experienced injustice in the workplace. If you need a confidential consultation, contact us today to learn how we can help you stand up for your rights.