Category: retaliation

Posted on

Iron Hill Brewery to Pay $115,000 in Race Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit

Race discrimination, retaliation, workplace violation lawyers of Los Angeles Helmer Friedman LLP.

Federal Agency Charged Restaurant Discriminated and Retaliated Against Black Employee

In a recent settlement, the current federal administration reaffirmed its commitment to protecting employees from workplace discrimination and retaliation. This time, Iron Hill Brewery of Buckhead, LLC and Iron Hill Brewery, LLC, a chain of breweries and restaurants across several states, found themselves in the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) spotlight.

According to the settlement, Iron Hill Brewery agreed to pay $115,000 and furnish other relief to settle a race discrimination and retaliation lawsuit. The suit alleged Iron Hill Brewery discriminated against an African American employee at its Buckhead location.

The employee, a sous chef-in-training, was allegedly dismissed due to his race and for reporting discrimination against women and Hispanic colleagues. An unmerited disciplinary action was swiftly followed by termination.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, such alleged conduct is prohibited. This significant law prevents employers from carrying out retaliation for engaging in protected activity and discrimination based on race.

Protected activity, as outlined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, encompasses various actions taken by employees to oppose discrimination or participate in proceedings related to discriminatory practices. In this particular case involving Iron Hill Brewery, the protected activity refers to the sous chef-in-training reporting instances of discrimination within the workplace. Specifically, the employee raised concerns about discriminatory behavior targeting women and Hispanic colleagues, which is considered a protected act under federal law. By voicing these grievances, the employee engaged in a legally protected activity aimed at confronting and challenging unfair treatment. Consequently, when the employee faced unwarranted disciplinary action and subsequent termination, it was alleged to be retaliatory—an illegal response to their protected activity of reporting discrimination.

In addition to the considerable financial settlement, the decree necessitates nationwide training for Iron Hill Brewery employees centered on Title VII’s prohibitions against race discrimination and retaliation. Iron Hill Brewery must also institute an anti-retaliation policy providing examples of unlawful retaliation in the workplace. These moves illustrate the seriousness of the situation and the serious implications of breaching Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC Atlanta District Office Regional Attorney, Marcus G. Keegan, opined, “This settlement sends a strong message that the EEOC will continue to vindicate the rights of individuals with the courage to come forward to report discrimination against themselves or others in the workplace.”

This case serves as a stark reminder of employees’ rights. If you believe that you or someone you know may be experiencing or witnessing race discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in the workplace, don’t hesitate to seek legal advice. Reach out to a lawyer in your area who specializes in employment law. Remember, everyone deserves a respectful and fair working environment.

Posted on

$200,000 to Clean Up a Hostile Work Environment of Sexual Harassment

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

The settlement reached with The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley underscores a pivotal moment in addressing workplace sexual harassment and retaliation

In a compelling tale of courage and justice, employees at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley, a cleaning service provider in eastern Wisconsin, stood up against the indignities and violations they faced at work.

“Sexual harassment violates the law, and this case shows despite all the public attention the issue has received, female workers remain vulnerable to harassment in the workplace because of their sex,” said Diane Smason, acting district director of the EEOC’s Chicago District.

The Cleaning Authority’s website boasts, “Professional Cleaning that leaves you stress-free.” However, this claim starkly contrasts with the experiences shared by employees, who describe a workplace riddled with stress and unfair practices. It’s ironic considering both the company’s promises and the reality depicted by its workforce. On one side, the company guarantees clients a spotless home and a worry-free experience, supported by meticulously crafted cleaning plans and eco-friendly products. On the other side, employee narratives highlight issues such as inappropriate touching, sex-based derogatory comments, and retaliation from management. Balancing these perspectives illuminates the complex nature of workplace dynamics within The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley. Their bravery in confronting adversity and unfair treatment culminated in a significant victory for themselves and other employees facing similar hostile conditions. On September 28, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley, accusing the company of fostering a hostile work environment and retaliating against female employees who resisted sexual harassment.

“An employer cannot fire employees because they oppose sexual harassment or threaten them to deter them from complaining,” said Gregory Gochanour, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago District. “Prosecuting such violations of Title VII is critical to ensuring the law fulfills its purpose.”

Imagine working a physically demanding job while enduring an employer’s inappropriate behavior and harassment. The job’s physical requirements are exhausting, demanding daily energy and endurance. The emotional burden of unwanted advances and improper conduct from an employer adds a distressing dimension to an already challenging situation. Employees often feel trapped, burdened by fear of retribution and a pervasive sense of helplessness. Against this backdrop, the significance of the employees’ actions at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley becomes evident; their resistance to harassment is a personal triumph and a beacon of hope for others in similar circumstances.

The lawsuit revealed instances of inappropriate touching, derogatory comments based on sex, and other harassing behaviors. Some employees felt compelled to quit their jobs, and one was even threatened into early retirement.

In a victory, The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley agreed to pay $200,000 and provide additional relief to settle the lawsuit, as announced by the EEOC on May 15, 2024. However, the impact of their actions extended further. Under a three-year consent decree, The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley will review, revise, and implement robust anti-discrimination policies prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation.

As part of this agreement, all employees will receive in-person training on sexual harassment, with managers and supervisors receiving additional training. Furthermore, an external monitor will be appointed for the first year to receive and review complaints related to harassment and retaliation.

The courage displayed by the employees has led to a substantial settlement and driven systemic changes at The Cleaning Authority-Fox Valley. Their brave actions serve as a powerful reminder of the ongoing fight against illegal sexual harassment, retaliation, and hostile work environments that regrettably persist today.

Posted on

Bako Pays $50,000 Pregnancy Discrimination and Retaliation

Pregnancy discrimination lawyers Beverly Hills Helmer Friedman LLP.

Pregnancy discrimination laws provide robust protection for employees, defending them against termination due to pregnancy-related complications. This legal safety net was highlighted in the recent case with Bakotic Pathology Associates, LLC (Bako), which was involved in a lawsuit over allegations of pregnancy discrimination and retaliation. The lawsuit, presented by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), asserted that Bako unfairly treated an employee suffering from pregnancy-related ailments.

Bako terminated the employee during her authorized medical leave and while she was availing short-term disability benefits, following her reports of pregnancy discrimination. This alleged behavior contravenes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that explicitly forbids sex-based discrimination and retaliation for participation in protected activities.

As a result of the lawsuit, Bako agreed to a settlement involving a $50,000 payment and the implementation of remedies. Additionally, Bako is now obligated to provide its employees with specialized training on Title VII, share internal complaint procedures and Title VII policies with the workforce, and report any pregnancy discrimination complaints to the EEOC.

Specific situations that would constitute pregnancy discrimination and/or retaliation include:

  • An employer refusing to accommodate reasonable requests made for pregnancy-related conditions, especially when such accommodations are provided for other employees with different medical conditions.
  • Openly demoting, reducing the hours, or offering lower pay to an employee upon learning of her pregnancy, under the guise of unrelated performance issues.
  • Dismissal of a pregnant employee using the pretext of organizational restructuring, when in reality, the position remains open or is quickly filled by someone not pregnant.
  • Subjecting a pregnant employee to frequent, unwarranted disciplinary actions following the announcement of her pregnancy, suggesting a motive grounded in discrimination rather than actual performance issues.
  • Failing to reinstate an employee to her original or equivalent position after returning from maternity leave, which is guaranteed under certain conditions by the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
  • Retaliating against an employee for filing a complaint regarding pregnancy discrimination or for participating in an investigation about such allegations, often seen through sudden negative performance reviews or exclusion from meetings and company events.

For more information on pregnancy discrimination, visit the www.HelmerFriedman.com website or reach out through 1-310-396-7714 or info@HelmerFriedman.com. Ensure your rights are protected.

Posted on

Whistleblower Case Against City of Florence Moves Forward: Judge Denies Dismissal

Sex discrimination is not only illegal, but it has been proven to negatively affect public safety.

Is your city safe? The question might seem straightforward, but for the people of Florence, the answer might be more complex than it seems. Sex discrimination is not only illegal but it has been proven to negatively affect public safety. Sarah Glenn, a city employee, alleges that the City of Florence has been systematically violating state and federal civil rights laws, even retaliating for exercising her First Amendment rights.

Glenn’s allegations include being treated less favorably than her male counterparts, being assigned menial tasks, and expressing genuine safety concerns that were ignored. The city attempted to dismiss Glenn’s First Amendment claim, arguing that her disclosures were not of public concern and could disrupt the workplace. However, a statement from US District Court Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer suggests otherwise. He denied this motion, emphasizing that Glenn’s claims can’t simply be bulldozed as personal grievances.

The City is now seeking a summary judgment to resolve the First Amendment claim in their favor and is hoping to avoid a trial. However, it’s worth noting that this isn’t the first litigation against the City of Florence, as there’ve been multiple lawsuits, including allegations of misconduct by the former city manager.

This case reveals the dark side of sex discrimination. It obstructs justice, inhibits the free flow of information, and potentially risks public safety. It’s time to recognize these issues. Stand with Sarah Glenn. Stand up for equal rights and public safety.

Posted on

Unspoken Rides: Addressing the Pervasive Harassment and Discrimination in America’s Auto Dealerships

Sexual harassment in the workplace is a pervasive issue in auto dealerships throughout America.

The American auto dealership industry, boasting a backbone of shiny cars and robust sales pitches, hides an alarming and corrosive problem under its hood – sexual harassment. Despite being a cornerstone of America’s retail economy, auto dealerships have become notorious battlegrounds for gender respect and workplace equality.

In this probing examination, we will delve deep into the personal stories that shed light on the struggle many female employees face, survey the bleak statistics that run rampant across the industry, and provide concrete steps and resources for those affected by such improper conduct in their workplaces.

Personal Narratives of Harassment

Personal accounts bring the shocking reality of workplace harassment out of the shadows. In a Utah auto dealership, a former employee recounts days filled with anxiety and fear as her supervisor would casually assault female staff members, dealing out demeaning acts like smacks on the buttocks as casually as if he were giving out office memos.

The situation in Texas paints an equally grim picture, with managers at South Austin Nissan openly and relentlessly parading their predatory behavior. Women working there faced an ongoing onslaught of unwanted touching, lewd comments dissecting their appearance, and invasive inquiries into their private lives.

Moving west to San Francisco, the narrative continues with former employees, all women, who weathered unwelcome sexual advances, offensive remarks, and physical contact—all undermining not only their sense of security but their professional worth.

A Statistical Glimpse into the Workplace

Behind these personal stories lies a staggering trail of data:

  • According to the National Women’s Law Center, a harrowing 65% of women in dealership roles have dealt with sexual harassment at their job.
  • An EEOC study alerts us to over 60 official sexual harassment charges filed in the span of eight years, a period where the true scope of the issue likely exceeds recorded figures due to unreported incidents.
  • An Auto News survey tragically indicates that the immense majority—7 out of every 10 women in the dealership industry—experienced a form of sexual harassment.
  • From an occupational health psychology perspective, the non-physical damages are substantial too, resulting in a workplace rife with dissatisfaction, distress, and high turnover rates.

This data paints a sobering picture: the car sales floor, rather than being a place of negotiation and commerce, is often an arena of gender-based violation and abuse.

Stepping Stones to Change

These harrowing accounts and disheartening figures cannot fade into mere statistics. Change is imperative. To catalyze this transformation, advocacy must be a community affair – everyone is a stakeholder in making dealerships safe environments that uphold gender respect and equality. Here’s what can be done:

  • Workplace Policies – Dealerships must institute clear, robust, and non-negotiable policies against harassment, with transparent channels for reporting and addressing complaints.
  • Training Programs – Regular and compulsory training sessions can educate all employees on what constitutes sexual harassment and how to prevent it.
  • Peer Support – Fostering a culture where colleagues support one another and victims don’t feel isolated or helpless.

Legal Recourse and Support Systems

Empower yourself with knowledge and support:

  • EEOC Guidance – Connect with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for advice and action against employment discrimination.
  • Legal Expertise – A specialized workplace discrimination or harassment attorney can offer legal counsel and potentially represent your case.
  • Law Enforcement – If you’ve been physically harassed or assaulted, contact the local police.
  • Support from Nonprofits – Organizations like the National Women’s Law Center offer legal resources to women facing discrimination and harassment.
  • Community Networks – Join support groups where shared experiences and solidarity can foster recovery and collective action.

Conclusion: Toward a Respectful Workspace

Making our workplaces safe sanctuaries of productivity and respect demands courage, persistence, and unity. If you or someone you know is enduring sexual harassment within an auto dealership or any workplace, remember that silence benefits only the perpetrators. It’s time to revamp the industry not just from a business standpoint but from a foundational perspective that respects and values all employees equally.

Make Dealerships Safe: Advocate for Gender Respect and Equality

Now is the time for action, for support, and for change. Stand up for a harassment-free workplace, and navigate the road ahead with the dignity and equality every person deserves.

Posted on

Racial Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment – SFSD Clerks Awarded Over $1 Million in Lawsuit

Trust the attorneys of Helmer Friedman LLP to aggressively protect employee rights to a workplace free from discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

Two Black employees of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department have sued the city, alleging racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation while on the job. Danielle Dillard and Kim Lee work as clerks processing warrants for criminal suspects. They claim that they have been subjected to a workplace culture of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

It Broke Me Down

The conditions at work worsened for Dillard and Lee after they complained about alleged discriminatory acts by co-workers and superiors that had been happening for several years. Among several other claims, Dillard says a supervisor referred to her as a “monkey” in 2016 after she introduced herself as a clerk and shop steward with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) 1021 union.

Ms. Dillard would spend her lunch and rest times crying due to the hostile atmosphere she found herself in, not being able to speak at all to colleagues.

Dillard claims she received racial discrimination complaints from other Sheriff’s Department employees as a union shop steward and brought them to Captain James Quanico, who oversees Dillard’s unit. A month later, Dillard claims she was served with a cease-and-desist order stating she could not communicate with employees in her division. Lee’s discrimination allegations also began in 2016.

On November 15, 2023, a jury awarded Danielle Dillard $523,400 and Kim Lee $616,000 for their racial discrimination lawsuit against the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. The San Francisco Sheriff’s Department and the City Attorney’s Office released a joint statement claiming they oppose harassment and discriminatory behavior.

“As one of the most diverse sheriff’s departments in the nation that values equity and inclusion, any form of harassment or discriminatory behavior is antithetical to our values. We are surprised and disappointed by the outcome of this case and will be working with the City Attorney’s Office to evaluate any next steps.”

Posted on

School District Fails to Protect Employee from Racist Attacks by Parents

Internet troll or cyberbully posting hate speech on Social Media, in comments online.

Black Ex-employee Sues Rockwood for Discrimination

Brittany Hogan, the former Director of Educational Equity and Diversity at Rockwood School District, filed a lawsuit in February 2021, alleging that she was subjected to racial abuse by parents and that the administration ignored her complaints. Hogan served the district for eight school years but resigned in April 2021.

The lawsuit claims that Hogan received threatening messages through various channels, including email, phone, and social media, after promoting an anti-racism book called “Stamped” in December 2020. While the book was part of the district’s One Read program, Hogan did not choose it. District officials brought her in to discuss ways to promote the book, but Hogan faced backlash as a result.

The suit said Hogan began receiving racist messages through the district’s Twitter account, with one message saying Hogan and another Black Rockwood official should “work at a different school district where the students were Black.”

In January 2021, Hogan and her secretary began receiving threatening and profane phone calls and email messages, the suit said. One caller demanded that Hogan’s secretary disclose Hogan’s physical location. An email from a parent read, “I hope you sleep well at night …” which the lawsuit claims implied that Hogan might not be safe at night.

The lawsuit said Hogan’s secretary notified administrators about the threatening messages. It also said administrators took no action to protect Hogan, who at the time worked at an unsecured building near one of the district’s middle schools that made her vulnerable to possible altercations.

In February, a human resource employee told Hogan in a telephone call that things had become “out of control.” Still, the lawsuit said she received no assistance or written response.

On Feb. 4, 2021, Hogan emailed her supervisors to tell them she would not participate in the scheduled Feb. 10, 2021, reading of “Stamped” on Zoom with the community. In the email, she said she was being “trolled,” or harassed, by white supremacists on the Twitter diversity account, according to the lawsuit.

She also wrote in that email, “As the only Black woman in district leadership, I am concerned and uncomfortable of how quickly I’ve become the scapegoat of white rage,” the lawsuit said.

During a superintendent’s cabinet meeting in the first week of February 2021, copies of the threats Hogan had received on Twitter were given to every cabinet member. The lawsuit said the only action taken was on Feb. 8, 2021, when then-Superintendent Mark Miles told Hogan to block Twitter accounts harassing her.

Hogan’s lawsuit against the district alleges that they violated her rights by allowing race-based discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. The case lists several incidents throughout the 2020-2021 school year, supposedly demonstrating that Rockwood officials sidelined Hogan, making it impossible for her to perform her job effectively. The lawsuit claims the district created a hostile work environment, leading to Hogan’s constructive discharge.

Following the lawsuit, the Rockwood School District settled for $175,000 through an insurance policy, which included attorney fees and other costs. Hogan’s attorney, Javad Khazaeli, expressed Hogan’s desire to move on from the situation and focus on future endeavors.

Posted on

Physical and Verbal Harassment

Sexual harassment causes long term damage to the victims psyche.

Sun Chemical Sued for Failure to Correct Racial Discrimination

An employee at Sun Chemical manufacturing facility in Kansas City, Missouri, was subjected to racial harassment by a coworker. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that the victim faced verbal and physical harassment, including being called the N-word, which was known to other employees. Yet, the management failed to take corrective actions against the harasser. To make matters worse, when the employee complained about the harassment, Sun Chemical issued him a written warning for using profanity against the harasser. This is unacceptable. The lawsuit filed against Sun Chemical demands justice for the victim and action from the company to prevent future racial discrimination. We must stand together against racial harassment in the workplace.

Posted on

Walmart Pays $87,500 to Settle Unlawful Retaliation Lawsuit

Walmart settles Retaliation Lawsuit.

Two Adult Children Were Unlawfully Rejected for Jobs Because of Mother’s Prior Sex Discrimination Complaint

A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., L.P. (doing business as Walmart stores in Albuquerque) for retaliation. The lawsuit claimed that Walmart Store #835 on Eubank in Northeast Albuquerque refused to hire Ramona Bradford’s adult son and daughter for entry-level positions because Ms. Bradford had filed a sex discrimination charge against Wal-Mart with the EEOC.

Retaliation against employees because of their opposition to discrimination or participation in protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC also alleged that Ramona Bradford was a victim of retaliation because her two adult children were being denied employment because she was complaining about discrimination and her charge filing.

The consent decree settling the suit provides for monetary relief for the Bradfords, as well as an injunction prohibiting retaliatory practices, training for managerial employees on retaliation, and posting a notice advising employees of their rights under Title VII.

Retaliation continues to be a high priority for the EEOC, which receives more retaliation charges than any other kind of discrimination charges. The EEOC is pleased that this case could be resolved for the Bradfords and mandates that Wal-Mart train its managers about retaliation.

Eliminating policies and practices that discourage or prohibit individuals from exercising their rights under employment discrimination statutes or that impede the EEOC’s investigative or enforcement efforts is one of six national priorities identified by the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP).

Posted on

Race and Religious Harassment at Trucking Company

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Trucking Company Allowed Harassment of Former Employee Because of His Race and Religion, Federal Agency Charges

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against Wheeler Trucking for violating federal civil rights laws. The lawsuit alleges that the company subjected an employee at its Lorain County, Ohio location to harassment based on his religion and race. The former employee was also denied a religious accommodation he requested, and faced retaliation when he complained about the harassment. Ultimately, he was separated from employment.

According to the EEOC, Wheeler Trucking personnel frequently and severely harassed the former employee using racial slurs and derogatory terms. The former employee complained multiple times, but the company failed to take meaningful action to address the harassment or prevent future incidents. When the former employee spoke out against the discrimination and harassment, the company’s treatment of him worsened, leading to his separation from employment.

The EEOC filed the lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits retaliation, race discrimination, and religious discrimination. The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (EEOC v. Wheeler Trucking d/b/a Wheeler Trucking, Inc. and Wheeler Logistics, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-01874) after the EEOC’s attempt to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process failed.