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.
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).
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.
Dad, Son Refused to Fix Tenant’s Gas Leak After She Reported Sexual Harassment
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Javier Salazar Jr., Javier Salazar Sr., and Ricardo Covarrubias, a maintenance worker, the manager, and the owner, respectively, of rental properties in Bakersfield, California, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
Preying on renters who have few housing options is abhorrent and illegal.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleges that Javier Salazar, Jr., a maintenance worker, sexually harassed a female tenant from December 2018 through March 2019 by repeatedly asking the tenant to engage in sexual acts with him, asking her to be in a relationship with him, describing the sexual acts he wished to engage in with her and persistently commenting on her appearance.
The Justice Department is committed to holding accountable any person in the housing sector who sexually harasses, assaults or retaliates against tenants, from the housing owner to the maintenance worker. A home should be a place of refuge and sanctity, not sexual assault and exploitation, and we will continue to use the Fair Housing Act to hold violators accountable.
According to the complaint, on two occasions, Javier Salazar Jr. touched the tenant’s body without her consent. He secretly took digital photographs of framed print pictures in her home of her and her daughter. The tenant reported Salazar Jr.’s conduct to Salazar Sr., who was both the property manager and Salazar Jr.’s father. After she reported the harassment and threatened to contact a lawyer or the police if it continued, the Salazars refused to fix a leaking gas line in her dwelling, causing her to go without heat for one month and consequently forcing her to move out. The complaint also alleges that the property owner, Covarrubias, is vicariously liable for the Salazars’ conduct because they were his agents when they engaged in sexual harassment and retaliation.
“Sexual harassment in rental housing preys on tenants who are especially vulnerable, including those who rely on their housing provider for critical maintenance services,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “The Justice Department is committed to holding accountable any person in the housing sector who sexually harasses, assaults or retaliates against tenants, from the housing owner to the maintenance worker. A home should be a place of refuge and sanctity, not sexual assault and exploitation, and we will continue to use the Fair Housing Act to hold violators accountable.”
“For four months this tenant refused the repeated sexual advances by the maintenance worker at her rental home, and when she reported the sexual harassment, she faced retaliation,” said U.S. Attorney Phillip A. Talbert for the Eastern District of California. “The actions of Salazar Jr. and the failure or refusal of Salazar Sr. and Covarrubias to act on the tenant’s behalf caused her harm and distress. The U.S. Attorney’s Office will hold accountable any landlord who enables or engages in sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Housing Act.”
“Preying on renters who have few housing options is abhorrent and illegal,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Demetria McCain of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “HUD will continue to work with DOJ to enforce the law and protect tenants.”
The lawsuit arose from a complaint the former tenant filed with HUD. After HUD investigated the complaint, it issued a charge of discrimination, and the matter was referred to the Justice Department. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages to compensate the victim and a court order barring future discrimination.
The Justice Department’s Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative is part of the Civil Rights Division in coordination with U.S. Attorney’s Offices nationwide. The initiative aims to address and raise awareness about sexual harassment by landlords, property managers, maintenance workers, loan officers, or other people who have control over housing. Since launching the Initiative in October 2017, the Justice Department has filed 34 lawsuits alleging sexual harassment in housing.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division enforces the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability, and familial status.
Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of sexual harassment by Javier Salazar Jr., or at rental dwellings owned or managed by Ricardo Covarrubias or Javier Salazar Sr., or who have other information that may be relevant to this case should call the Justice Department’s Housing Discrimination Tip Line at 1-800-896-7743, email the Justice Department at fairhousing@usdoj.gov, or submit a report online.
Labor Code Section 1102.5(b) Encompasses A Report Of Unlawful Activities Made To An Employer Or Agency That Already Knew About The Violation
People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., 2023 WL 3575254 (2023)
In Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 832, 858 (2012), the Court of Appeal oddly held that whistleblower protections are not available for employees who disclose illegal conduct to the employer or to a government or law enforcement agency if the employer or government or law enforcement agency was already aware of the illegal conduct. In Kolla’s, the California Supreme Court rejected the reasoning in Mize-Kurzman and held that the Labor Code whistleblower retaliation statute does not require that a reported violation be unknown to the recipient.
A federal agency has charged that a for-profit graduate medical education provider in Nashville terminated an employee for filing a discrimination complaint.
HCA Healthcare, Inc. (along with its divisions Tennessee Healthcare Management, Inc. and GME Overhead), a for-profit healthcare corporation based in Nashville that provides graduate medical education in over 2,300 facilities, is facing a lawsuit. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has accused HCA Healthcare of violating federal law by denying a promotion to an employee based on his age, race, and national origin and subsequently firing him in retaliation for complaining about the discrimination.
The employee, who is Asian American, has claimed that despite meeting all necessary qualifications, HCA Healthcare selected an underqualified white candidate for the promotion over him. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is seeking injunctive and monetary relief against HCA Healthcare for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
It is imperative to abide by state and federal laws that prohibit any form of discrimination based on race or nationality in the workplace. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title VII, is a critical law that unequivocally prohibits racial discrimination in every aspect of employment. Employers are legally bound to ensure they do not engage in discriminatory practices such as refusing to hire or promote someone or treating them unfairly regarding compensation or job benefits due to their race or national origin.
Age discrimination and harassment are strictly prohibited by both California and Federal law. It is important to note that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”) is a federal law that provides extensive protection to individuals aged 40 or above from age-based discrimination in employment. Any form of discrimination against a person due to their age with respect to any employment term, condition, or privilege, including but not limited to hiring, firing, layoff, compensation, promotion, or job assignments, is considered illegal under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
It is worth noting that HCA Healthcare owns and operates over 100 hospitals and employs over 275,000 people in multiple states and the United Kingdom.
Retaliation Verdict In Favor Of Employee Reversed Where Trial Court Allowed Into Evidence Actions That The Employer Took Before The Plaintiff Engaged In The Protected Activity
Kourounian v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, 2023 WL 3612540 (2023)
Rafi Kourounian obtained a $425,562 jury verdict in his favor on his claim that the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration retaliated against him for filing an internal complaint with its Equal Opportunity Office (EEO). The Department appealed, contending that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of allegedly retaliatory conduct, which pre-dated the filing of his internal complaint. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in admitting evidence about activity that occurred before the filing of his EEO complaints:
As a matter of both logic and law, acts of retaliation must occur after the protected activity. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity, that she was thereafter subjected to adverse employment action by her employer, and there was a causal link between the two. Because retaliation under FEHA requires the plaintiff to show that the employer was motivated to retaliate by the plaintiff’s protected activity, actions the employer took before the plaintiff engaged in the protected activity necessarily are irrelevant.
Kourounian v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, 2023 WL 3612540 * 8 (2023)(cleaned up).
The Court of Appeal also held that the trial court should not have admitted the plaintiff’s EEO complaint because it was hearsay:
Hearsay may be briefly understood as an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of its content. Evidence Code section 1200, subdivision (a) formally defines hearsay as evidence of a statement that was made other than by a witness while testifying at the hearing and that is offered to prove the truth of the matter stated. A ‘statement’ is oral or written verbal expression or the nonverbal conduct of a person intended by him as a substitute for oral or written verbal expression. Documents like letters, reports, and memoranda are often hearsay because they are prepared by a person outside the courtroom and are usually offered to prove the truth of the information they contain. Documents may also contain multiple levels of hearsay. An emergency room report, for example, may record the observations made by the writer, along with statements made by the patient. If offered for its truth, the report itself is a hearsay statement made by the person who wrote it. Statements of others, related by the report writer, are a second level of hearsay. Multiple hearsay may not be admitted unless there is an exception for each level.
There is no doubt that the EEO complaints were prepared outside the courtroom. Thus, like an emergency room report, Kourounian’s written complaints, if offered for its truth, is a hearsay statement made by Kourounian, the person who wrote it.
The fact that Kourounian was available for cross-examination does not transform his statements in the complaints into non-hearsay or provide an exception to the hearsay rule. Hearsay is generally excluded because the out-of-court declarant is not under oath and cannot be cross-examined to test perception, memory, clarity of expression, and veracity and because the jury (or other trier of fact) is unable to observe the declarant’s demeanor. To challenge a testifying witness’s own prior, out-of-court statement as inadmissible hearsay is unusual, but we agree with the defendant that the testifying witness’s own statement to his wife constituted hearsay evidence, for it was an out-of-court statement that was offered for its truth. We are not free to disregard this holding by the Supreme Court and contrary to Kourounian’s claim, neither was the trial court.
The fact that Kourounian is a party, not merely a witness, does not make his out-of-court statements admissible. The Evidence Code provides only limited exceptions to the hearsay rule for the out-of-court statements of a party, and Kourounian has not identified any of them as applicable.
Finally, by way of analogy, federal caselaw is abundant that EEOC charges are inadmissible hearsay, as is the narrative attached to the charge.
Kourounian v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, 2023 WL 3612540 * 9 (2023)(cleaned up).
An athlete with Down syndrome made history. Then the abuse began, the suit says.
Caden Cox ran out to the 13-yard line with 3:22 left in the third quarter as his Hocking College Hawks battled the Sussex County Community College Skylanders on Sept. 11, 2021.
With Cox ready, the center snapped the football to the holder, who caught it and put it on the turf. Wearing No. 21, Cox trotted forward, pulled back his right leg, and swept it forward, lifting the ball through the uprights.
The extra point was good.
With that, Cox made history as the first known player with Down syndrome to score during a college football game. The feat earned him a spot in the history books and a 5½-minute segment on ESPN.
People talked to me and said, ‘Wow, it was an awesome kick
“People talked to me and said, ‘Wow, it was an awesome kick,’” he told a reporter at the time.
Less than two years later, Cox is suing his alma mater, alleging that the very thing that made his kick historic also made him a target for discrimination. In a lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio, Cox alleges that college officials in Nelsonville, Ohio, discriminated against him because he has Down syndrome and then retaliated against him when he reported it to administrators. In one incident, a supervisor at the college’s student center threatened him with a knife and was later convicted in the incident.
President Betty Young declined to comment on Cox’s allegations but, in a statement to The Washington Post, said that she’s “happy Hocking College could provide opportunities for Caden to receive a college education and to participate in college athletics.”
“We remain committed to provide such to all our students,” she added.
Cox alleges that the discrimination started soon after June 2021 when the college hired Matthew Kmosko, a former professional soccer player, as a soccer coach and a supervisor at the college’s student center. In the latter role, Kmosko oversaw Cox, who worked at the center as a student-employee. As Cox’s boss, Kmosko consistently used “derogatory slurs” about people with Down syndrome and repeatedly berated him in front of his co-workers, the suit alleges.
Court records do not yet list an attorney for Kmosko. The public defender who represented Kmosko in the criminal trial declined to comment on Cox’s allegations in the civil suit.
In July 2021, Cox’s mother, Mari, who works at the college, filed a written complaint about Kmosko’s behavior with the college’s human resources department, according to the suit.
The misbehavior not only continued but also escalated, it alleges.
In January 2022, Mari emailed another complaint about Kmosko, asking that he be replaced as her son’s supervisor, the suit says. In the message, she accused Kmosko of calling her son the r-word, taking his phone without permission, and “putting his hands on [her son] inappropriately.”
Then, on May 12, when Cox went into a men’s bathroom to change the garbage bags, Kmosko allegedly followed him, blocked the exit and screamed at Cox while preventing him from leaving. As Kmosko did, he pointed a knife at Cox’s chest, the suit states.
Cox told investigators he feared that Kmosko would stab him, according to a police report.
Surveillance cameras captured Kmosko walking into and out of the bathroom with the knife, the suit states. Shaken and scared, Cox returned to the front desk, where he said he received a call from Kmosko. He allegedly told Cox that he could see him sitting there and ordered him to “get up and do something” before hanging up.
Cox “was terrified and traumatized and called his mother immediately,” according to the suit.
In July, Kmosko, who resigned from the college, was charged with aggravated menacing, a misdemeanor, in connection with the incident, and an Athens County jury found him guilty in January of menacing, a lesser charge. He was sentenced to 30 days in jail.
This past October, the college sent an email to employees calling for nominations for awards at the fall graduation ceremony, the suit states, and Cox “was nominated for nearly every award” by several staff members, including his coaches. Once the votes were tallied on Nov. 11, Cox had won three honors: the Inspirational Award, the Scholar Athlete Award, and the Hocking College Trustee Award, which was to be bestowed at a graduation ceremony on Dec. 10.
On Dec. 2, lawyers representing the Cox family delivered a letter to Young, laying out their allegations of discrimination, harassment, and assault.
On Dec. 9, a day before the ceremony, Cox’s father, Kevin, who worked at the college as a football coach until he resigned in February, arrived at the school to set up for the next day’s festivities. Reviewing the ceremony program, he noticed it listed his son as having won only one award, although a QR code on posters around the school routed to a digital version showing all three.
“Retaliation is the only plausible reason for the surreptitious and punitive removal of [Cox’s] graduation awards days before the graduation ceremony was to take place,” the suit alleges.
For people with Down syndrome, a longer life, but under a cloud
After graduating, Cox completed a football-related internship at Texas A&M University, where his older brother works as a strength coach, his lawyer, Mark Weiker, told The Post. He’s back in Ohio and, in June, plans to go to orientation at an Ohio State University program for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
But a year later, the knife incident still haunts Cox, according to his lawsuit. He continues to suffer from nightmares and anxiety. When he visits Hocking’s campus, he gets especially scared when he sees a red car like the one Kmosko used to drive to school.
“The distress that [Caden] suffered and continues to suffer from as a result of the trauma he endured,” the suit states, “will affect him emotionally and psychologically for the rest of this life.”
New Hampshire chimney services contractor pays $26K to settle allegations of retaliation and interference with a federal investigation of pay practices.
Federal law prohibits employers from punishing workers who exercise their legal rights.
MANCHESTER, NH – A Manchester chimney services contractor has paid a total of $26,163 to three workers to resolve allegations that the employer violated the Fair Labor Standards Act’s anti-retaliation provisions enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.
The U.S. Department of Labor takes allegations of employee retaliation very seriously. Federal law protects workers’ ability to exercise their rights freely without fear of reprisals,” explained Wage and Hour Division District Director Steven McKinney in Manchester, New Hampshire. “These rights include the ability to contact the department and other agencies about the employer’s pay practices and to speak openly with investigators and other department officials during an investigation.
Division investigators found Ceaser Chimney Service Inc. fired an employee in June 2021 after they contacted the New Hampshire Department of Labor to inquire about their rights under the labor laws. During its investigation, the employer also unlawfully questioned two other employees regarding their communications with the Wage and Hour Division. Anti-retaliation provisions in the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibit employers from discharging an employee or discriminating against an employee who engages in protected activity, including filing a complaint, participating in an investigation, or even simply asking questions about their wages.
Per the settlement agreement, Ceaser Chimney Inc. has done the following:
Paid the terminated employee a total of $21,163, which includes $2,463 in back pay for the time they were unemployed after the termination, $8,700 in front pay, and $10,000 in punitive damages.
Paid the other employees punitive damages totaling $5,000, or $2,500 each.
Agreed not to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because they filed a complaint, testified, or participated in any Fair Labor Standards Act investigation or proceeding or has asserted any right guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Agreed to provide all current and future employees with a written statement of their Fair Labor Standards Act rights for a five-year period.
The division will continue to enforce these protections vigorously and make it clear – as Ceaser Chimney Inc. has learned – that retaliation against workers has costly consequences. The Wage and Hour Division encourages workers and employers in northern New England to contact the Manchester District Office to learn more about their respective rights and responsibilities under federal law,” added McKinney.
The FLSA requires that most employees in the U.S. be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at not less than time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Learn more about the Wage and Hour Division, including a search tool if you think you may be owed back wages collected by the division. Employers and workers can call the division confidentially with questions regardless of their immigration status. The department can speak with callers confidentially in more than 200 languages through the agency’s toll-free helpline at 866-4US-WAGE (487-9243).
Burger King Franchise to Pay $60,000 to Settle EEOC Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Suit
Employer Allowed Abuse of Pregnant Employee and Fired Her After She Complained, Federal Agency Charged
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – North Georgia Foods, Inc., a Georgia-based company operating several Burger King restaurants, including one in Murphy, North Carolina, has agreed to pay $60,000 and provide other relief to settle a sex harassment, retaliation, and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
According to the EEOC’s complaint, from at least August 2018 through approximately July 2019, a team member at North Georgia Foods’ Murphy, North Carolina location was sexually harassed by a male assistant manager. The harassment included vulgar sexual comments, threatening behavior, and unwelcome sexual touching. The team member complained multiple times and asked not to work alone with the male assistant manager. North Georgia Foods did not take action to stop the harassment but instead removed the team member from the schedule completely in June 2019. The company refused to communicate with the team member and later refused to reinstate her employment. The EEOC also alleged the team member was discriminated against because of her pregnancy.
This alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which protects employees from sex-based harassment in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. North Georgia Foods, Inc, d/b/a Burger King, Case No. 1:22-cv-00049) in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement via its voluntary conciliation process.
The outcome of this case demonstrates that employers who ignore complaints of sex-based harassment in the workplace or retaliate against employees for asserting their rights under Title VII will be held accountable.
The suit was resolved by a two-year consent decree that prohibits North Georgia Foods from discriminating and retaliating against employees in violation of Title VII. North Georgia Foods must also prominently post a telephone number for an off-site reporting official, revise its written anti-discrimination policies, and train employees on the process for reporting complaints of discrimination and the requirements of Title VII, including its anti-retaliation provisions.
“The outcome of this case demonstrates that employers who ignore complaints of sex-based harassment in the workplace or retaliate against employees for asserting their rights under Title VII will be held accountable,” said EEOC Regional Attorney Melinda C. Dugas.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. The EEOC’s Charlotte District is charged with enforcing federal employment discrimination laws in North Carolina, Virginia, and South Carolina.
