Category: wrongful termination

Posted on

Hightower Sued for Age Discrimination

Age discrimination wrongful termination lawyers - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Hightower Sued for Age Discrimination Wrongful Termination

Glenn E. Frank, a 69-year-old Massachusetts-based financial advisor, has found himself at the center of an intense legal battle against Hightower Holdings. Frank, who claims the firm made deliberate efforts to edge him out due to his age, has filed lawsuits alleging age discrimination and retaliation, demanding accountability from one of the wealth management industry’s largest firms. This controversial case shines a spotlight on age-related biases in corporate acquisitions and raises questions about workplace practices in financial services.

A Look at Glenn E. Frank’s Career

Frank began his career in 1997 and joined Lexington Wealth Management in 2010, a firm later acquired by Hightower in 2019. Bringing decades of experience and a loyal client base, Frank built a strong reputation as a trusted financial advisor. However, by 2016, he elected to shift to part-time work while maintaining the same responsibilities and title.

The trouble began after Hightower acquired Lexington. According to Frank, the acquisition set in motion a series of changes that left him sidelined. Frank alleges his role was reclassified, and his responsibilities were reduced without prior consultation. These changes ultimately left him struggling to maintain his connection with the clients he had fostered over the years.

Initial Lawsuit in Massachusetts

The drama unfolded publicly in August 2024, when Frank first filed a lawsuit in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that Hightower forced him to take a subordinate role by slashing his hours, cutting his pay in half, and heavily restricting his interaction with clients. Furthermore, Frank requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the enforcement of restrictive non-solicitation agreements, which he argued were overly broad and would prevent him from maintaining relationships with lifelong clients.

Although the Massachusetts court initially granted the TRO, the lawsuit itself was dismissed in December 2024 due to jurisdictional grounds. The court ruled that such claims needed to be litigated in Illinois, the state where Hightower is headquartered.

New Lawsuit in Illinois

Undeterred, Frank refiled his lawsuit in Illinois federal court in early 2025. This new filing brought forth familiar allegations of age discrimination but also escalated the narrative by pointing to alleged retaliation by Hightower after his Massachusetts case was dismissed. Frank claims that just one week after the dismissal, he was terminated by the firm.

The Illinois lawsuit seeks remedies including the reinstatement of the TRO, back pay for lost wages, attorneys’ fees, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages. Additionally, Frank has requested reinstatement to his prior role and responsibilities.

The Crux of Frank’s Allegations

Frank’s allegations unravel troubling details about his experience at Lexington and Hightower. Some of his chief grievances include:

  • Role Reclassification

Frank claims his title was abruptly changed to “member emeritus,” eroding his client-facing responsibilities and authority.

  • Portrayed as Absent

According to the lawsuit, Hightower informed clients that Frank was frequently unavailable or vacationing, effectively discouraging interactions.

  • Shift of Clients to Junior Advisors

Clients were allegedly redirected to younger advisors without Frank’s knowledge, further marginalizing his position.

  • Retaliatory Investigation

After raising concerns about age discrimination internally, Frank was subjected to what he described as a retaliatory investigation. He was suspended and denied access to systems critical to his role before being reinstated under diminished duties.

Frank also contends that these actions were part of a broader plan to “phase out” older advisors and prioritize younger talent for the company’s long-term growth.

Hightower’s Response

When approached, a spokesperson for Hightower declined to comment, citing company policy to refrain from discussing pending litigation. Similarly, Frank’s legal team has chosen not to provide additional context beyond the contents of the legal filings.

Broader Legal Implications

This lawsuit carries significant legal and operational implications for the financial services industry. Here’s what it could mean for businesses and advisors:

  • Precedent for Post-Acquisition Treatment of Advisors

The case could set a precedent for how firms transitioning through acquisitions handle their older workforce, particularly advisors with long-standing client relationships.

  • Spotlight on Age Discrimination

By highlighting cases like Frank’s, the lawsuit underscores the growing need to address implicit and explicit age biases in the workplace. Older professionals bring immense value, and marginalizing them could be both ethically concerning and financially detrimental to firms.

  • Legal Risks for Firms

Companies may be prompted to review their employment policies, especially around transitions, reclassification of roles, and the handling of complaints, to avoid similar lawsuits.

  • Enforcement of Restrictive Agreements

The use of non-solicitation agreements in this case also raises questions about fairness, particularly for advisors who bring pre-existing client relationships into firms.

Could This Case Shape Future Policies?

Retaliation and discrimination claims, particularly involving high-profile firms like Hightower, serve as cautionary tales for organizations. If Frank’s allegations hold up in court, the verdict could pave the way for clearer, enforceable policies regarding role changes and how complaints should be handled. The case also emphasizes the importance of transparent communication between firms and their senior employees, as misunderstandings about role reassignments can quickly escalate into legal woes.

Looking Ahead at Compliance

For businesses, Frank’s lawsuit should inspire an audit of HR policies, particularly in areas concerning role transition during acquisitions and career longevity within firms. The financial industry must balance cultural and demographic shifts by fostering inclusivity, both for seasoned advisors and rising talents.

The legal battle between Glenn Frank and Hightower isn’t merely about one individual’s fight; it reflects systemic challenges within corporate cultures and industry practices. Whether this case concludes in settlement or courtroom victory, it highlights the urgency of addressing age discrimination in both policy and practice.

If you believe you have experienced age discrimination in your workplace, it is crucial to take action by consulting a highly qualified employment lawyer. These professionals specialize in navigating the complexities of employment law and can provide guidance on your rights, potential legal remedies, and the best course of action for your specific situation. Whether it involves providing advice, negotiating a resolution, or pursuing legal claims, an experienced attorney ensures that your case is approached with the expertise and sensitivity it requires.

Posted on

$40,000 Recouped in Retaliation Penalties for a Care Facility Worker

Employment laws - Wrongful termination and retaliation lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

The California Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO) has taken decisive action against Ali Baba Corp., recovering an impressive $40,460 due to serious workplace retaliation and labor law violations. This substantial recovery followed an intensive investigation uncovering the unlawful termination of a dedicated care facility worker who bravely reported hazardous working conditions and the failure to provide mandated meal breaks.

I spoke up because I believed the residents deserved better care and that all workers should be treated fairly.

California Labor Commissioner Lilia García-Brower emphasized the significance of the case, stating, “This case progressed swiftly because Ms. Delgado was well-informed about her rights, took immediate action, and courageously spoke out against unlawful working conditions. Retaliation is a grave violation of the law, and we are steadfast in our commitment to holding employers accountable while ensuring that workers receive the wages and penalties they rightfully deserve.”

Jessica Delgado, who had devoted nearly ten years to the mental health care facility, observed a troubling decline in working conditions following a management change. She witnessed bathrooms left in a state of neglect, a kitchen infested with roaches, and mounting safety concerns regarding resident welfare that were disregarded by the new leadership.

This outcome demonstrates that standing up for what is right truly matters and reinforces the legal protections available to workers.

Deeply concerned for the residents’ well-being, Delgado took the initiative to email management about the unsanitary conditions and alarming safety issues. Unfortunately, her calls for action went unanswered. After several attempts to address her concerns internally yielded no results, Delgado decided to inform her employer of her intention to report these violations to the LCO. In retaliation, Ali Baba Corp. suspended her and subsequently terminated her employment, wrongfully alleging that she had made threats against the company.

Believing her termination to be unjust and well aware of her rights under California labor law, Delgado promptly filed a retaliation complaint with the LCO and also reported the missed meal breaks that were a violation of her rights.

“I spoke up because I believed the residents deserved better care and that all workers should be treated fairly,” expressed Jessica Delgado. “This outcome demonstrates that standing up for what is right truly matters and reinforces the legal protections available to workers.”

In a landmark decision in November 2024, the LCO cited Ali Baba Corp. (operating as Riviera Living) and its owner, imposing a $40,000 penalty for the unlawful suspension and termination of Delgado. When the employer failed to appeal the citations within the designated timeframe, these citations became final judgments lodged by the superior court.

The LCO subsequently initiated bank levies and successfully recovered the full judgment amount of $40,460, complete with accrued interest, which was duly paid to Delgado.

Posted on

Racial & Disability Discrimination in McColl Police Department

Police departments plagued by race, disability, sex discrimination too. Seek representation by discrimination lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Discrimination Lawsuit Against McColl Police Department: A Story of Courage and Accountability

Allegations of discrimination, retaliation, and an abuse of power have emerged from the Town of McColl, igniting a significant federal lawsuit that promises to expose systemic issues within its police leadership. Xzavier Williams, the former Chief of Police, has bravely stepped forward to level grave charges of racial and disability discrimination, shedding light on the often-overlooked challenges faced by African American officers and individuals living with disabilities in law enforcement.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the pressing need for accountability within institutions, highlighting the importance of promoting a fair and inclusive workplace for all. Through an exploration of the lawsuit’s allegations, legal ramifications, and ethical considerations, this article aims to delve into the depths of this compelling narrative.

 

The Background of Xzavier Williams’ Lawsuit

Xzavier Williams, an African American law enforcement professional, held the position of Chief of Police in McColl from November 2022 until June 2023. Hired by the late Mayor George Garner and the McColl Town Council, Williams found himself ensnared in a whirlwind of harassment, excessive micromanagement, and ultimately, unjust termination. The lawsuit contends that Williams’ firing was not rooted in legitimate job performance concerns, but rather stemmed from racial bias, disability discrimination, and retaliation for refusing to engage in unethical practices demanded by the mayor.

 

Events Leading to Termination

The lawsuit details a troubling sequence of events during Williams’ tenure, illuminating the challenges he faced:

  • Micromanagement and Harassment:

    Despite his significant authority, Williams encountered a relentless onslaught of scrutiny that stifled his ability to lead effectively.

  • Disability Discrimination:

    Seeking to take an extended leave under the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for legitimate medical reasons, Williams was instead met with constant violations of his rights. The mayor’s blatant disregard for his medical leave, including harassing phone calls and unannounced visits from fellow employees, served only to intimidate him during a period of vulnerability.

  • Demotion and Dismissal:

    On June 5, 2023, Williams faced a shocking demotion from Chief of Police to Corporal, swiftly followed by his termination just a week later, devoid of any clear, non-discriminatory rationale.

 

Key Allegations Made in the Lawsuit

The federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Williams makes numerous startling allegations that reveal a pattern of discrimination within the department. Below is an overview of the central claims:

  1. Racial Discrimination:

    Williams contends that Mayor Garner and other officials exhibited a visible bias against him and fellow African American employees. The lawsuit asserts that these officers were subjected to heightened scrutiny and arbitrary terminations grounded in racial prejudice. Williams recalls instances of being pressured to extend favoritism to the friends and family members of Caucasian employees—a demand he strongly resisted, subsequently facing retaliation in the form of micromanagement and unwarranted criticism.

  2. Disability Discrimination:

    The lawsuit also charges McColl’s leadership with gross violations of the ADA, alleging that they refused to provide Williams with reasonable accommodations during his medical leave. Instead, he endured unwelcome intrusions intended to degrade and intimidate him during his recovery.

  3. Hostile Work Environment:

    Williams describes a toxic workplace permeated by bullying, unsafe practices, and coercive behavior. Documented examples from the lawsuit reveal how he was routinely assigned back-to-back shifts with insufficient support and blamed for departmental failings due to unrealistic demands beyond his job scope, including being coerced into making questionable disciplinary decisions.

  4. Retaliation:

    The lawsuit asserts that Williams’ principled objections to unlawful practices ignited a wave of retaliatory actions against him—manifesting in demotion, grueling work hours, and the loss of his position.

 

Evidence Supporting Williams’ Claims

The court documents meticulously outline behaviors and incidents that bolster Williams’ accusations, including:

  • Denial of Support:

    Williams was burdened with overseeing police operations without the necessary staffing or resources. In critical situations, he found himself the only certified officer on duty, a perilous reality during high-stakes calls, such as shootings.

  • Unjust Criticism:

    The lawsuit cites specific instances where Williams faced unjust reprimands for operational challenges attributed to the mayor’s flawed policies, such as chronic equipment failures and inefficient scheduling.

  • Unequal Standards:

    A stark contrast emerged when comparing the treatment of Williams and other African American officers with their white counterparts, who were not subjected to the same invasive scrutiny or arbitrary decisions.

  • Malice and Indifference:

    Williams’ allegations paint a picture of a leadership more concerned with maintaining control than fostering an equitable environment, showcasing a troubling disregard for the moral and ethical responsibilities owed to every officer within the department.

This ongoing lawsuit not only demands accountability from the McColl Police Department but also serves as a broader call to action for systemic change within law enforcement organizations nationwide.

Posted on

Walmart Pays Over $400k to settle Sexual harassment, Retaliation Lawsuit

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

In a distressing yet all too familiar case, Walmart has once again found itself under the spotlight for failing to adequately protect its employees from sexual harassment and retaliation. This time, the retail giant has agreed to pay $415,112 to settle a lawsuit involving severe sexual harassment and retaliation at its Lewisburg, West Virginia store. The case highlights a recurring issue within Walmart’s vast network of over 2.1 million employees, where allegations of misconduct by managers have not only been ignored but, in some instances, led to wrongful termination of those who dared to speak out.

The lawsuit brought to light appalling behavior by a former store manager who subjected female employees to unwelcome and offensive sexual behavior. This included crude sexual innuendos, requests for sexual acts in exchange for workplace favors, and an egregious demand that a female employee expose her breasts. Despite receiving multiple complaints, Walmart reportedly failed to act decisively, leading to a female employee being fired after she opposed the harassment and filed a formal complaint.

“Employers have a duty under federal law to take prompt, reasonable action to stop sexual harassment and prevent it from happening again,” said EEOC Philadelphia District Office Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence. “Diligent investigations – which include considering relevant past complaints against an alleged harasser, thoroughly interviewing coworkers and others who may know about the work environment, and not demanding supporting witnesses or an admission of wrongdoing as a general prerequisite for taking action – are essential to compliance with that legal duty.”

Such conduct is a clear violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which expressly safeguards employees from harassment and discrimination based on sex. Furthermore, it protects them from any form of retaliation for standing up against such inappropriate actions. This isn’t the first instance of Walmart employees resorting to legal action to enforce these rights, and unless large settlements significantly impact Walmart’s $648 billion revenue, it may not be the last.

The settlement agreement requires Walmart to pay monetary relief and adhere to several non-monetary measures aimed at preventing future harassment. This includes barring the rehiring of the implicated manager, mandating specialized training for conducting thorough harassment investigations, and ensuring that investigations are led by personnel with no conflicts of interest.

This case underscores the critical importance of not dismissing inappropriate managerial behavior in the workplace. Every time a perpetrator manages to evade consequences for their illegal actions, it only serves to embolden them, potentially leading to repeated offenses. If you find yourself in a similar situation, do not hesitate to contact a dedicated sexual harassment attorney to protect your rights and seek justice. No one should face such maltreatment in their place of work, and speaking up is a vital step towards making a change.

Posted on

Disguise of Age Discrimination and Wrongful Termination

Disguising age discrimination, wrongful termination using fake performance reviews.

When Linda received the termination letter, its sterile language citing “performance issues” felt like a slap in the face after 25 years of unwavering loyalty to her company. Bewilderment quickly morphed into disbelief as she recalled the countless annual reviews, each more glowing than the last. “I had been praised for my contributions year after year,” the 61-year-old former marketing manager reflected, her voice tinged with heartbreak. “Yet, in an instant, I was told I was no longer meeting expectations.” It wasn’t until she inadvertently overheard a department manager discussing plans to “bring in fresh, young talent” that the unnerving truth began to crystallize—her dismissal was not rooted in performance but rather in age.

Linda’s experience is far from isolated. In a troubling trend sweeping through industries, employers have increasingly turned to exculpatory documentation—a sophisticated means of obscuring acts of unlawful age discrimination or masking wrongful termination practices. This disturbing shift not only infringes on employee rights but also raises significant legal and ethical dilemmas that organizations must confront head-on.

What Is Exculpatory Documentation?

Exculpatory documentation encompasses an array of paperwork or records that employers fabricate to rationalize potentially unlawful employment actions, such as terminations, shielding themselves from legal repercussions. This subterfuge could involve retroactive performance reviews, concocted infractions, or meticulously drafted memos designed to cast employees in a disparaging light. While these documents may appear legitimate at first glance, their true purpose often serves to construct a defensive fortress against potential lawsuits related to age discrimination or wrongful termination, particularly under legislation like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

“The use of these tactics is deeply troubling,” says Greg Helmer, an employment law attorney specializing in wrongful termination cases. “Instead of fostering fair workplaces, companies are weaponizing documentation to insulate themselves while undermining employees’ legal protections against discrimination.”

How Employers Exploit Exculpatory Documentation to Target Older Employees

Despite the legal prohibitions against age discrimination, this insidious practice continues to thrive in workplaces across the nation. According to reports from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), complaints related to age account for over 20% of all discrimination claims filed annually. The challenge lies in gathering the evidence necessary to substantiate claims of age discrimination, especially when employers intentionally create misleading records to justify their actions.

Here’s how this disturbing narrative often unfolds:

  • Sudden Decline in Performance Ratings

    After years of consistent commendation, older employees may suddenly find themselves the recipients of unfavorable performance reviews. Employers can inflate minor missteps or fabricate issues entirely, knowing these reviews will later serve as “evidence” if the employee dares to contest their termination in court.

  • The “Documentation Trail”

    Employers frequently construct extensive paper trails detailing alleged infractions—instances of tardiness, miscommunication, or missed deadlines are documented with an alarming selectivity. These notes often exaggerate trivial mistakes or omit crucial context, painting older employees as incompetent or unqualified for their roles.

  • Silent Preferences for a Younger Workforce

    Behind closed doors, age discrimination often masquerades as “strategic shifts” meant to modernize or rejuvenate the company. However, what is often veiled as “progress” frequently acts as a thinly disguised campaign to target older employees through methods designed to slip beneath the radar of scrutiny.

How Exculpatory Practices Disguise Wrongful Termination

Rather than cultivating equitable workplaces, companies are weaponizing documentation to protect themselves while systematically undermining employees’ legal safeguards against discrimination.

Proving wrongful termination requires compelling evidence that a firing was unlawful. However, when exculpatory documentation is meticulously crafted, employers can manipulate the narrative to convince observers their decisions stand on solid ground. This calculated obfuscation undermines the allegations of age discrimination and shifts the burden of proof onto the terminated employee. “It complicates cases significantly because, in court, the burden often rests heavily on the employee’s shoulders,” explains employment lawyer Andrew H. Friedman.

 

The implications of such practices extend far beyond individual employees to the workplace at large:

  • Workplace Fear and Distrust

    Colleagues who witness unjust terminations may feel an overwhelming sense of fear, hesitant to speak out against systemic discriminatory practices, thus fostering an insidious culture of silence.

  • Erosion of Organizational Morale

    The chilling ramifications of wrongful terminations reverberate through the workforce, eroding morale and instilling feelings of vulnerability, particularly among older staff members who may fear for their own job security.

 

In this landscape, the battle against age discrimination remains perilous, necessitating vigilance and advocacy to protect the rights of those who have dedicated years to their professions.

It wasn’t until she inadvertently overheard a department manager discussing plans to “bring in fresh, young talent” that the unnerving truth began to crystallize—her dismissal was not rooted in performance but rather in age.

How Can Employees Protect Themselves?

Navigating the murky waters of exculpatory documentation is no easy feat, but there are steps employees can take to protect themselves.

  1. Request Written Records

    If you notice sudden changes to your performance reviews or shift assignments, request formal documentation outlining specific concerns and expectations. Often, companies will hesitate to put unfounded claims into writing.

  2. Keep Your Own Records

    Maintain personal files of performance reviews, emails, and written commendations. These documents can serve as vital evidence if discrepancies occur in the employer’s narrative during litigation.

  3. Challenge Unfair Documentation Immediately

    Address dubious claims head-on by discussing them with HR or your direct supervisor in writing. Document your objections and ensure you keep copies of all interactions.

  4. Seek Legal Counsel Early

    If you suspect age discrimination or retaliation, consulting with an employment lawyer experienced in handling wrongful termination claims is crucial. They can advise you on the strength of your case and guide you through the complexities of employment law.

Holding Employers Accountable

Organizations need to understand that subtle age discrimination and wrongful termination practices are not only unethical but often illegal under U.S. labor laws. Misusing documentation is a short-sighted solution that will ultimately harm businesses through potential lawsuits, reputational damage, and the loss of talent.

“As long as companies use exculpatory methods you’re going to see more lawsuits than they anticipate,” warns employment lawyer. “No document—fabricated or not—will gloss over the sheer unfairness of systemic workplace discrimination.”

Know Your Rights

Employees have the right to be treated fairly and judged solely on their performance—not their age or any demographic factors that reflect bias. Whether you’ve been subjected to suspicious performance reviews or suspect age discrimination in your firing, employment laws are in place to safeguard against these injustices.

Have questions about your rights or wrongful termination? Reach out for expert guidance to determine your next steps. You deserve to work in an environment that values your contributions regardless of your age.

Don’t allow exculpatory practices to rewrite your story. Stay informed, stand your ground, and, when in doubt, seek legal counsel to ensure justice is served.

Posted on

Republic First Bancorp Inc. Settles Sexual Harassment Case Amidst Bank’s Downfall

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

Last week, Republic First Bancorp Inc. concluded a tumultuous chapter by reaching a settlement in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a former employee. The case was dismissed with prejudice by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania following this agreement.

The lawsuit was brought by Jasmine Zuber, a former universal banker at Republic First, who alleged that she was wrongfully terminated due to a fabricated claim of a cash-drawer imbalance. According to Zuber, the true reason for her termination was retaliation for reporting sexual harassment by her supervisor.

Zuber and her supervisor, Hall, had initially engaged in a consensual sexual encounter at work. However, the situation deteriorated when Hall repeatedly sought further sexual interaction, leading to confrontational incidents. After receiving a text message from Zuber urging Hall to transfer or face repercussions from HR, branch manager Leitz and HR Director Zangrilli intervened. Although they assigned different shifts to Zuber and Hall after their discussions, Zuber’s position was soon jeopardized when her teller drawer was allegedly found to contain an overage of $1,000.

As events unfolded, the Bank relieved both Zuber and Hall of their duties, citing the cash-drawer discrepancy for Zuber and a violation of the Bank’s fraternization policy for Hall.

Sadly, the sexual harassment lawsuit was not the only challenge Republic First faced. In February 2024, the Pennsylvania Department of Banking and Securities seized the Bank amid rumors of a potential buyer. This occurred after the Bank was delisted from Nasdaq for failing to provide its fiscal year 2022 report, further damaging its credibility.

In its efforts to explain the absence of the report, the Bank blamed the shortcomings of its former executive team, which had failed to maintain adequate internal controls. Alarmingly, the Bank’s auditors had previously warned of “material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting.”

Fulton Bank subsequently took over the operations of Republic First’s 32 branches across Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey, promising to revitalize them under the Fulton Bank brand. The seizure of Republic First marked the fourth such case since 2023, sending a strong message about the dangers of inadequate internal controls and unethical workplace practices.

If you or someone you know has faced harassment at the workplace, know that there are paths to take. Contact an experienced employment attorney and hold corporations accountable for creating safe and fair work environments. Speaking up about harassment isn’t just about personal justice—it’s about ensuring that nobody else has to endure the same abuse.

Posted on

Overcoming Barriers: Racial Discrimination and Arbitration Agreements

Workplace violations, discrimination, whistleblower retaliation lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

In a recent incident that has sparked important conversations around racial discrimination in the workplace, Sureste Property Group, along with its divisions Sureste Property Services and Sureste Development, agreed to pay $75,000 in a race discrimination lawsuit. The lawsuit alleged that the real estate operating company unjustly terminated a black project development manager due to his race.

“This case underscores the sad reality that racism in the workplace still exists,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office.

The former manager, who had been the first and only black individual in his role at the company, was said to have been fired under the pretense of being “lazy” and not fitting in with the company’s “culture.” Despite performing well and handling more workload than his white colleagues, he was let go less than a year into his role. The company later tried to justify the termination, claiming that his role was no longer required, only to promote a less qualified white employee to his position within a month.

Such an act contravenes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that explicitly forbids all forms of discrimination on the basis of race. Moreover, it is essential to note that employees who have signed arbitration agreements are not devoid of rights. The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) continues to be fully accessible for employees to assert their EEO rights and have their cases investigated, regardless of any pre-existing arbitration agreements.

This assertion is based on two significant Supreme Court rulings. The first, Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., articulated that an arbitration agreement does not preclude an individual from filing a charge with the EEOC. The second, EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., maintained that the EEOC can pursue relief for a victim of discrimination, regardless of any enforceable arbitration agreement between the victim and their employer.

“When an individual is forced to arbitrate, they are giving up their fundamental constitutional right to a jury trial. As with all constitutional rights, we should analyze any waiver with an extremely high level of scrutiny.” Gregory D. Helmer, Helmer Friedman LLP, commented after a recent Court of Appeals victory involving mandatory arbitration.

With the conclusion of the Sureste Property Group lawsuit, a consent decree spanning three years has been approved by the federal court. The decree obliges the defendants, their subsidiaries, and successor companies to provide monetary relief, distribute anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies, and post notices about the settlement. The company must also administer specialized training to all supervisors, managers, and employees, alongside regular reports on race discrimination complaints during the decree’s term to the EEOC.

This lawsuit reinforces the need for employees experiencing racial discrimination to pursue all legal avenues, regardless of any arbitration agreements. Discrimination in any form is unacceptable and employees have the right and freedom to fight against any such injustices.

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on

Stories of Resilience: Overcoming Wrongful Termination After a Breast Cancer Diagnosis

Constitutional rights lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

Facing a breast cancer diagnosis is already an overwhelming experience, but the thought of losing your job because of it can add a significant emotional and financial burden. Many survivors worry about how their employers will react and whether they’ll be able to maintain their livelihoods. This blog aims to shed light on this challenging topic by discussing your rights, sharing personal stories, and providing actionable advice for those dealing with similar situations.

Understanding Your Rights

When diagnosed with breast cancer, it’s vital to understand your legal rights as an employee. Laws such as the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and various state disability laws are in place to protect you.

FMLA provides eligible employees with up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per year for serious health conditions, which includes cancer. This enables you to take necessary time off for treatment or recovery without the fear of losing your job.

ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, which can encompass cancer. It requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations, such as modified work schedules or time for medical appointments, unless doing so would cause significant hardship to the business.

Despite these protections, there have been instances where employers have cited false reasons for termination following an employee’s breast cancer diagnosis. Understanding your rights is crucial in safeguarding your employment and taking action if discrimination occurs.

Navigating the Conversation

Discussing a breast cancer diagnosis with your employer can be daunting. However, open communication is essential for ensuring you receive the necessary support and accommodations.

Before initiating the conversation, prepare yourself by understanding what accommodations you may need, such as flexible hours or remote work options. Document everything—emails, conversations, and any agreements reached.

During the conversation, emphasize your commitment to your role and desire to continue contributing to the team. Be clear and concise about your needs, and work collaboratively to find a solution that benefits both parties.

It’s important to remain informed about your company’s policies regarding medical leave and accommodations. By approaching the discussion professionally and proactively, you’re more likely to receive the support you need.

Financial Resources

The financial strain of breast cancer treatment can be overwhelming, especially if your employment is impacted. Fortunately, several resources are available to help alleviate this burden.

Disability Benefits can offer financial support if you’re unable to work due to your diagnosis. Both short-term and long-term options may be available through your employer or government programs like Social Security Disability Insurance.

Insurance Coverage should be reviewed to ensure you’re receiving all benefits to which you’re entitled. Some insurance plans offer coverage for specific treatments, support services, or even transportation to medical appointments.

Additionally, community resources such as nonprofit organizations and cancer support groups can provide financial assistance, counseling, and other essential services during this challenging time.

Personal Stories

Real-life experiences of breast cancer survivors highlight the challenges and triumphs faced when dealing with job loss due to a diagnosis.

Kara Jorud was a store manager at Michaels when she was fired after being diagnosed with breast cancer. Despite the company’s claims of policy violations, a jury found that her rights under FMLA, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and ADA were violated. Michaels was ordered to pay more than $8 million in damages for wrongful termination.

Imelda Tamayo faced a similar situation when she was terminated from Oakland Children’s Hospital after requesting extended medical leave for recovery. The hospital eventually settled for $300,000 and revised its policies to better accommodate employees with medical conditions.

Megan Rizzo-Canny shared her fight against wrongful termination during breast cancer treatment. After being laid off, she pursued legal action and was able to secure disability benefits and maintain her health insurance, proving that standing up for one’s rights can lead to positive outcomes.

Linda O’Brien, another survivor, won millions in a discrimination suit after being wrongfully fired. Her story is a powerful reminder of the importance of advocating for oneself and the impact of legal protections.

Conclusion

While losing a job after a breast cancer diagnosis is a difficult and emotional experience, understanding your rights and seeking the necessary support can make a significant difference. Remember that you’re not alone—many have successfully navigated this challenging path.

If you face discrimination or wrongful termination, consider contacting an experienced employment lawyer to protect your rights. Connecting with support groups and tapping into available resources can also provide invaluable assistance.

Ultimately, your health and well-being should remain a top priority. By staying informed and advocating for yourself, you can move forward with strength and resilience, knowing that brighter days lie ahead.

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.