Posts

Posted on

Whistleblower Case: First Federal Supreme Court Broad Reaching

Robert MacLean, a former air marshal, was fired because of his federal whistleblower actions. (Courtesy of House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform)

Robert MacLean didn’t realize that by trying to protect America’s flying public, his employer — his government — would treat him almost like a traitor.

Soon, the Supreme Court will have a chance to decide if MacLean, a whistleblower and former air marshal, was treated justly, or at least legally. It is the first case the high court will hear directly concerning a federal whistleblower.

The implications of the case go well beyond MacLean. If he loses, Uncle Sam will have greater power to bully whistleblowers. Fewer federal employees might be willing to disclose waste, fraud, abuse and dumb decisions.

Oral arguments are scheduled for Nov. 4. The Obama administration is appealing a lower court decision that MacLean’s disclosures were covered by the Whistleblower Protection Act. If the justices rule against MacLean, federal agencies could have broad power to weaken that law by using the government’s power to make secret more information than Congress intended.

Here is MacLean’s story:
In July 2003, air marshals, including MacLean, were summoned for mandatory training to prevent suicidal airline hijacking plots by al-Qaeda. Days later, the Transportation Security Administration sent an unsecured, unclassified text message to air marshals informing them that all long-distance assignments requiring an overnight stay would be canceled.

Knowing that could hamper efforts to thwart hijackers, MacLean said he complained about this shortsighted, money-saving plan to an agency supervisor and to the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general’s office. MacLean also leaked information to MSNBC, which he admitted to during a leak investigation two years later. He was placed on administrative leave in September 2005 and fired in April 2006.

This is the incredible part: It wasn’t until August 2006 that the government retroactively labeled as sensitive the information MacLean was fired for leaking — three years after the text message was sent.

The question before the court: Was MacLean’s disclosure “specifically prohibited by law?”

DHS and the Justice Department say it was
.
But noteworthy to MacLean’s defense is thata key bipartisan group of members of Congress say his disclosures are, or at least should have been, protected from agency reprisal by the whistleblower law.

They should know
.
The administration argues that “by law” includes statutes and “substantive regulations that have the force and effect of law.”

The lower court’s decision “is wrong, dangerous, and warrants reversal,” say the government’s lawyers. The earlier ruling “imperils public safety,” they added, “by dramatically reducing the effectiveness of Congress’s scheme for keeping sensitive security information from falling into the wrong hands.”

But members of Congress who were instrumental in passing the legislation say that’s not so. In fact, “Congress deliberately crafted” legislation “to exclude agency rules and regulations,” says a brief filed by Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), Blake Farenthold (R-Tex.) and Stephen F. Lynch (D-Mass).

“If agencies could decide which disclosures receive whistleblower protections, they would inevitably abuse that power,” the members said. “The result would be to deter whistleblowers and restrict the flow of information to Congress.”

Sadly, the message here is that agency officials can’t always be trusted to do the right thing. When employees expose bad policies, too often the reaction of their bosses is to cover managerial behinds. Whistleblowers should be congratulated, praised for serving the public. Instead, many are harassed, punished and pushed from government service.

“After all,” said a brief filed by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, “whistleblower protection laws exist because government officials do not always act in the nation’s best interests.”

Agencies can be creative in their reprisals, even belatedly declaring information sensitive, as TSA did, in order to better take revenge against whistleblowers.

“[I]n fear that such retroactive designations are possible, whistleblowers may refrain from alerting the public to dangers that could have been averted or mitigated,” said the brief by OSC, which works to protect whistleblowers. This is the first Supreme Court friend-of-the-court brief filed by OSC.

This wariness of the way agency managers treat whistleblowers is shared by the Republicans and Democrats who filed the congressional brief.

“Time and time again,” they said, “agencies have found ways to suppress inconvenient information.” An administration victory over MacLean, the elected officials warned, “will deter untold numbers of whistleblowers.”

If that happens, it’s not only MacLean who will lose. The American people will, too.

By Joe Davidson October 9, 2014

Posted on

Soccar Players Selected Based on Ethnicity

Coaches Sue Chivas USA Professional Soccer Organization, Allege Discrimination Against Non-Latinos

Two former members of the coaching staff of Chivas USA have filed a lawsuit against the Major League Soccer organization, saying they were fired “because they were neither Mexican nor Latino.”
The filing was announced by Gregory D. Helmer, of the Los Angeles law firm of Helmer Friedman, LLP, who represents the two coaches.

Daniel Calichman and Theothoros Chronopoulos, both of whom were former professional soccer players and members of the U.S.National Team before being hired by Chivas USA, are suing in Los Angeles Superior Court. The men, described in the complaint as “Caucasian, non-Latino Americans,” allege discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wrongful termination by Chivas USA based on national origin, ethnicity and race.

Mr. Chronopoulos and Mr. Calichman were employed as coaches in the Chivas USA Academy, which offers soccer programs for youngsters from approximately age seven through age 18.
Mr. Helmer noted that the Chivas USA team was formed in 2004 by a group that included Jorge Vergara Madrigal, a prominent Mexican businessman.

Two years earlier Mr. Vergara had acquired Chivas de Guadalajara. The Mexican team, popularly known as “Chivas,” has since 1908 had a stated policy of hiring only players who are Mexican-born or born of Mexican parents.

In 2012, Mr. Vergara acquired full ownership of Chivas USA and, according to the complaint, began to “implement a discriminatory policy similar to the ethnocentric ‘Mexican-only’ policy that exists at Chivas de Guadalajara.” This included “replacing players and staff who had no Mexican or Latino heritage,” and appointing Mexican nationals to the team’s top executive positions.

“While the hiring practices of Chivas de Guadalajara may be legal in Mexico,” Mr. Helmer said, “Chivas USA must follow California and federal laws prohibiting discrimination, including treatment based on race, national origin or ethnicity.”

On November 13, 2012, the complaint states, Mr. Vergara called all Chivas USA employees to a meeting and announced that non-Spanish speaking employees would be fired. It quotes Mr. Vergara as saying, “If you don’t speak Spanish, you can go work for the Galaxy, unless you speak Chinese, which is not even a language.” (The Los Angeles Galaxy soccer team hires players from diverse backgrounds, notably including David Beckham of England.)

In late November of 2012, the complaint states, Jose David, the team’s newly hired president and chief business officer, asked Mr. Chronopoulos to report which Academy players and coaches were Mexican or Mexican-American and which were not.

In late December Mr. David directed Mr. Chronopoulos to collect ethnic and national origin data on the youngsters enrolled in the Chivas Academy and their parents, according to the complaint, which states that  

“When the requests for this information were sent to the parents, many of them were offended and refused to provide it.”

On January 11, 2013, Mr. Calichman and Mr. Chronopoulos submitted written complaints of discrimination and harassment to the team’s Human Resources Manager, Cynthia Craig. At a meeting three days later, according to the court filing, “Ms. Craig assured Mr. Calichman that Chivas USA was going to conduct a ‘full investigation’” into the men’s complaint, but no investigation was made.

At that meeting Mr. David stated that he and Mr. Vergara “were taking the team ‘back to its Mexican roots,’” the complaint states, and indicated that Mr. Calichman and Mr. Chronopoulos would not be “part of the effort to take the team back to its Mexican roots.”

The two men subsequently “were informed that they were not being fired but, at the same time were told not to perform their job duties. They were, in effect, placed on suspension.”

The following day, the complaint states, Ms. Craig contacted both men proposing that they resign from their jobs in exchange for two weeks of severance. On January 18, Mr. Calichman responded by email, rejecting the proposal and asking Ms. Craig to verify that he was still employed.

In February, having received no response to their allegations of harassment and discrimination, the court filing states, the men filed complaints with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

On March 7, 2013, according to the court filing, both men received identical letters from Mr. David, notifying them that their employment was being terminated as of the following day. Their lawsuit notes that “the letter is conspicuously silent” as to whether the company had investigated their complaints of harassment and discrimination. “Moreover, in further retaliation for their complaints, Mr. David falsely and maliciously accused them of ‘demonstrat[ing] unprofessional conduct that created an unsafe work environment,’” without stating how they allegedly did so.

The lawsuit seeks general, special and punitive damages in amounts to be determined at trial, as well as any other relief the Court may deem proper.

Also named as defendants are Insperity, Inc. and Insperity Business Services, L.P. The complaint alleges that Insperity is a joint employer with Chivas USA and, in that capacity, is liable for any unlawful employment practices.

“A major professional soccer team should pick its players and coaches based on their abilities,” Mr. Helmer noted. “The behavior detailed in our complaint against Chivas USA is totally unacceptable for any American employer. It is also a disservice to young people of all ethnicities who might aspire to a career in professional soccer, or who look at these players as role models. It also short-changes fans by fielding a team whose players are selected because of their ethnicity rather than their skills.”

Helmer Friedman LLP provides legal representation and advice in a wide range of areas, including labor and employment, sports, and entertainment. The firm can be reached at 310-396-7714 or www.helmerfriedman.com.

Posted on

Gender Discrimination and Harassment Lawsuit Against CSC

April 18, 2012 : Today, a former employee of Computer Sciences Corporation (“CSC”) filed a gender discrimination and harassment lawsuit against CSC. The Complaint, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC482993), alleges that CSC, a multi-billion dollar company which provides information technology and business services to companies throughout the world, routinely paid women less than men and denied them higher-paying and more prestigious positions. According to the Complaint, CSC has a practice of retaliating against women who complain by demoting or removing them from their positions, withholding their pay, and/or firing them.

The plaintiff, Anne Roeser, was a high level executive at CSC, who, according to the Complaint, was subjected to pervasive gender discrimination and harassment by some of the Company’s Indian male executives who did not want to work with women and who openly stated that women should stay at home, take care of their husbands and raise their children. These Indian male executives, the Complaint alleges, were openly hostile to women, they made sexist and derogatory remarks about women (calling them “girl,” “blonde,” and “white woman”), they demeaned the jobs held by women (saying, for example, that one high-level female executive’s job was merely to take clients out to lunch and go shopping with them), they refused to communicate with women about substantive work-related issues, and they behaved toward women in an aggressive, condescending and intimidating manner.

According to the Complaint, when Ms. Roeser complained about the gender discrimination and harassment and the illegal conduct in which some of these executives were involved, she was demoted, denied earned wages, otherwise retaliated against, and told to stop complaining. When she continued to complain, she was fired. The Complaint alleges that among other illegal conduct, Ms. Roeser complained that the Company’s off-shore Indian employees engaged in over 6,000 instances of illegally accessing the private health and financial information of the patients of one of the Company’s largest health care clients in violation of HIPAA, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and the privacy rights of these patients.
Commenting about these allegations, Ms. Roeser’s attorney, Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer * Friedman, LLP, said, “Unfortunately, the glass ceiling really does exist at many companies. Hopefully, lawsuits like this one will shatter that ceiling and enable women to reach the same levels in corporate America occupied by men.”

Posted on

Andrew Friedman of Helmer Friedman LLP Discusses Racial Discrimination Lawsuit

‘Bachelor’ threatened with racial discrimination lawsuit, experts weigh in

BACHELOR-CAST

Image Credit: Craig Sjodin/ABC

News broke Tuesday that Nathaniel Claybrooks and Christopher Johnson, two African-American football players from Nashville, are holding a press conference Wednesday to discuss their decision to file a class action lawsuit against ABC’s The Bachelor on behalf of “all persons of color who have applied for the role of The Bachelor or Bachelorette but been denied the equal opportunity for selection on the basis of race.” The players say they plan to target ABC, Bachelor executive producer Mike Fleiss, and the show’s production companies (which include Warner Horizon Television, Next Entertainment, and NZK Productions).
The release announcing the conference noted that, “Over a combined total of 23 seasons, neither show has ever had a Bachelor or Bachelorette of color.”

EW reached out to entertainment lawyers who specialize in discrimination cases and are based in California (where The Bachelor is filmed) to provide some insight. The lawyers admitted this was an unprecedented case in many ways. “I’ve watched that [area of law] like a hawk, and I haven’t seen a case like this before,” said Jeffrey S. Kravitz of Fox Rothschild LLP. Though facts on the potential case are still uncertain (Claybrooks and Johnson plan to formally file their suit on Wednesday), this kind of case could be a game-changer.
For starters, neither man ostensibly has been a contestant on the show — a major stumbling block. Even if they had, though, “When you sign up on a reality TV show, you do not sign up as an employee — you sign up as an independent contractor,” said Kravitz.  “They’re likely going to sue for civil rights violations or perhaps claim that they’re de facto employees… [but] the case law is all over the board in terms of that across the country.”


Since Claybrooks, Johnson, and their lawyers are based in Tennessee, they have the option to file suit in either California or Tennessee, though Andrew H. Friedman of Helmer & Friedman LLP suggested they’d be better protected in California. That state has a provision called the Unruh Civil Rights Act. “They would definitely have much more legal protection in California than they would in Tennessee,” he said. This could include eligibility for emotional distress damages and “possibly punitive damages if the decision to exclude African-Americans were made at a high enough level of the production company.” That’s in addition to the potential economic damages that could be proved, for example, by looking at other Bachelor/Bachelorette contestants and seeing how they parlayed their fame into endorsements deals and further earnings.
So how might Claybrooks and Johnson prove their case? That’s where things get interesting. According to Friedman, the plaintiffs could depose former producers on The Bachelor and The Bachelorette and requisition everything from contestant applications to internal production memos during the discovery process. “The entertainment industry isn’t known for necessarily being politically correct in terms of their internal e-mails,” he noted, “so I wouldn’t be surprised — if in fact this was going on — for there to be e-mails” proving as much.

In the end, it could also be up to ABC, Next and the other defendants to prove they made a good faith effort to recruit contestants of color. “If the [production company] says, ‘We interviewed x number of minority candidates,’ they’re going to be in better standing than if they only interviewed one,” said Kravitz. “They’re going to be in better standing if they can show a history of enrollment of minority candidates than if they can’t. Beyond that, they don’t control who the Bachelor or Bachelorette picks.” Agreed Jay MacIntosh, “Circumstantial evidence will be important in a case like this.  It goes to pattern and practice as to racial profiling.” That said, the proof will be in the papers, which have yet to be filed. Until the specifics of the discrimination allegations come out, Kravitz warned, “These are just allegations at this point.”

Posted on

Employment Lawyer Discusses Bad Bosses

Posted on

Girls for Gender Equality

In New York City, Girls for Gender Equity (GGE) has been advocating for increased school safety – a decade-long campaign led by parents, teachers, and female and LGBTQ students. And if there is one thing the teen women of color organizers at Girls for Gender Equity want you to know, it is that Title IX of the Education Amendment does not only apply to college sports – the area most associated with Title IX enforcement.
“It is hard to envision a school without sexual harassment. However, if one existed, I imagine it would be a place where kids can excel as students instead of having to worry about what is going to be said or done to them the next time they go in the hallway,” says former GGE youth organizer Kai Walker.
In April 2010 and April 2011 the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the US Department of Education released two “Dear Colleague” letters to “provide guidance” and “examples of remedies and enforcement strategies” for reported sexual harassment infractions in public schools. While this public acknowledgement from the Obama Administration is a step in the right direction, the tactic ultimately lacks teeth. The letters simply restate what the law already requires. It politely requests officials to increase their efforts at enforcement, but does not take steps to ensure mandatory application of the federal law. For all practical purposes, the “Dear Colleague” letters do not go beyond lip service.

• Girls for Gender Equity organizers celebrating the launch of Hey, Shorty: A Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment and Violence in Schools and on the Streets. Photograph courtesy of the author. •
As a result, grassroots organizations like GGE rely on the strength of the members of their own communities to hold schools accountable for failing to keep students safe. Nearly forty years after Title IX’s passage, GGE’s youth-led research project on sexual harassment in the New York City public schools found that nearly 1 in 4 students are sexually harassed in school every single day – with behaviors that range from verbal (71 percent) to physical (63 percent) to criminal sexual assault (10 percent).
College student Kayla Andrews was a part of the research team. She says, “If given the golden opportunity to converse with President Obama regarding Title IX in public schools, I would first and foremost introduce him to a day in the life of students. I would tell him stories of how girls walk briskly to class out of fear of being harassed and boys who feel uncomfortable being their true selves because they fear ridicule and abuse.”
In Hey, Shorty: A Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment and Violence in Schools and on the Streets, GGE Community Organizer Nefertiti Martin recalls what it was like for her to be called homophobic slurs at school: “Before I even knew what gay was, somebody managed to find something to say about my limp wrists and effeminate lisp. Teachers and faculty tell me some lines about how sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. But words have always hurt me.”
Chiamaka Agbasionwe agrees and shares about a classmate who “made me feel disgusted with myself. He made me second-guess what I wore that day, how my hair looked, and just me as a woman. His ‘compliments’ were insults knowing the disrespectful connotations behind them. His looks were knives through my self-esteem.”
Kayla wants President Obama to know about the lack of support for students who are sexually harassed at school. “I would make the President aware of just how difficult it is to find someone within the school who actually knows what Title IX is, much less follows the procedures for recording sexual harassment offenses,” she says.
GGE found that a mere 3 percent of students made a report after being sexually harassed, and 22 percent say they were further traumatized by school staff after making the report.
 Over half say they did not know how students who sexually harassed others were dealt with at their school because there was no follow-up with them by school authorities. And less than 2 percent feel the perpetrator was dealt with appropriately.
“Enforcing Title IX alone cannot end sexual harassment, but it can mitigate it,” says GGE youth organizer Nkeya Peters. “The way it can be alleviated in public schools is by raising awareness and hiring social service workers to properly address the issue and its consequences.”
With Hey, Shorty!, Girls for Gender Equity seeks to broaden people’s understanding of Title IX and shine a light on the ineffectual nature of an unenforced federal law. As the group moves forward with its community-based work, Hey, Shorty! offers youth and adult allies nationwide an accessible guide to implement in their own schools and cities to combat unwanted sexual attention and LGBTQ bullying. The model they use shows that young women who are given adequate support can successfully mobilize to demand accountability in their schools. It demonstrates that safety does not have to be an impediment to an education.
“It takes living in the shoes of a sexually harassed student to know just how detrimental harassment can be to one’s education,” says Kayla. “If President Obama wants to address the issues in this country regarding education, he needs to start at the root of the problem, which includes the reasons why students avoid going to school in the first place.”

• A Public Service Announcement on Title IX created by Girls for Gender Equity and the Coalition for Gender Equity in Schools. •

About the Author:
Mandy Van Deven is the co-author of Hey, Shorty: A Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment and Violence in Schools and on the Streets, a book about Girls for Gender Equity’s nine years developing an effective organizing strategy to end gender-based violence in New York City’s public schools. Her writing can be found at www.mandyvandeven.com.
Posted on

2011 Southern California “Super Lawyers”

Helmer Friedman LLP is very pleased to announce that Law & Politics Magazine and the publishers of Los Angeles Magazine have selected Gregory D. Helmer and Andrew H. Friedman as 2011 Southern California “Super Lawyers” in the category of Labor and Employment Law.
Posted on

PATIENTS ALLEGE SANTA MONICA AREA PHYSICIAN ENGAGED IN INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT DURING BREAST EXAMS

PATIENTS ALLEGE SANTA MONICA AREA PHYSICIAN ENGAGED IN INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT DURING BREAST EXAMS

Two Former Patients of Dr. Lawrence H. Resnick Allege that Their HMO referred them to Dr. Resnick Despite Knowing of Alleged Propensity                                                 
June 8, 2011:  Today, two former patients of Dr. Lawrence H. Resnick filed a lawsuit against the Santa Monica-based physician and his clinic, the Woman’s Breast Center, alleging that he engaged in inappropriate, unprofessional and offensive conduct during breast examinations.  The patients, Angela Crickman and Lisa Grebe, also asserted claims against their HMO, Bay Area Community Medical Group (“Bay Area”), alleging that Bay Area referred them to Dr. Resnick despite knowing that he had a pattern, practice and/or history of engaging in such conduct.  Among other things, they allege that Bay Area had received complaints from other female patients and that Bay Area knew, or should have known, that Dr. Resnick had been sanctioned by the Medical Board of the State of California for engaging in unprofessional conduct during a breast examination.  See http://www.medbd.ca.gov/publications/hotsheet_2008_01.pdf   http://www.medbd.ca.gov/publications/hotsheet_2008_01.pdf).Ms. Crickman (but not Ms. Grebe) has also asserted a claim against her primary health care provider, Peak Medical Group, Inc. (“Peak Health”), for allegedly referring her to Dr. Resnick despite knowing of his propensity to engage in inappropriate conduct during breast examinations.  Bay Area has since been acquired by UCLA Health Systems.

In the Complaint, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC463109), Ms. Crickman alleges, among other things, that Dr. Resnick was flirtatious and suggestive, and made numerous inappropriate comments about her physical appearance, while he conducted an ultrasound examination of her breasts.  Ms. Grebe similarly alleges that Dr. Resnick engaged in sexually offensive, flirtations and suggestive conduct toward her while performing an examination.  She also alleges that he kissed her on the cheek.

In their Complaint, Ms. Crickman and Ms. Grebe assert claims for sexual harassment by a physician in violation of California Civil Code Sections 51.9 and 52, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.  They have also asserted claims (by Ms. Crickman against Bay Area and Peak Health; by Ms. Grebe against Bay Area) that defendants violated the California Unruh Act, alleging that the defendants failed to provide or apply the same level of scrutiny to physicians to whom they referred their female patients as they did to those to whom they referred their male patients.

Commenting about these allegations, plaintiffs’ attorney, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer • Friedman, LLP, said, “In the fight against breast cancer, it is well known that early detection and diagnosis is critically important.  While these are allegations at this point, it is obviously critical  that there be nothing – including the conduct of a physician – that might discourage patients from seeking  diagnostic examinations.”

For additional information or a PDF copy of the Complaint, contact:
            Gregory D. Helmer (ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com)
            Andrew H. Friedman (afriedman@helmerfriedman.com)
            Kenneth A. Helmer (khelmer@helmerfriedman.com) 
            Helmer • Friedman, LLP, (310) 396-7714                                         
            (www.helmerfriedman.com)

Copyright © 2011 Helmer Friedman, LLC. All rights reserved. Publication rights granted so long as article and byline are reprinted intact, with all links made live.

Posted on

PATIENTS ALLEGE SANTA MONICA AREA PHYSICIAN ENGAGED IN INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT DURING BREAST EXAMS

Two Former Patients of Dr. Lawrence H. Resnick Allege that Their HMO referred them to Dr. Resnick Despite Knowing of Alleged Propensity                                                 
June 8, 2011:  Today, two former patients of Dr. Lawrence H. Resnick filed a lawsuit against the Santa Monica-based physician and his clinic, the Woman’s Breast Center, alleging that he engaged in inappropriate, unprofessional and offensive conduct during breast examinations.  The patients, Angela Crickman and Lisa Grebe, also asserted claims against their HMO, Bay Area Community Medical Group (“Bay Area”), alleging that Bay Area referred them to Dr. Resnick despite knowing that he had a pattern, practice and/or history of engaging in such conduct.  Among other things, they allege that Bay Area had received complaints from other female patients and that Bay Area knew, or should have known, that Dr. Resnick had been sanctioned by the Medical Board of the State of California for engaging in unprofessional conduct during a breast examination.  See http://www.medbd.ca.gov/publications/hotsheet_2008_01.pdf   http://www.medbd.ca.gov/publications/hotsheet_2008_01.pdf).Ms. Crickman (but not Ms. Grebe) has also asserted a claim against her primary health care provider, Peak Medical Group, Inc. (“Peak Health”), for allegedly referring her to Dr. Resnick despite knowing of his propensity to engage in inappropriate conduct during breast examinations.  Bay Area has since been acquired by UCLA Health Systems.

In the Complaint, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC463109), Ms. Crickman alleges, among other things, that Dr. Resnick was flirtatious and suggestive, and made numerous inappropriate comments about her physical appearance, while he conducted an ultrasound examination of her breasts.  Ms. Grebe similarly alleges that Dr. Resnick engaged in sexually offensive, flirtations and suggestive conduct toward her while performing an examination.  She also alleges that he kissed her on the cheek.

In their Complaint, Ms. Crickman and Ms. Grebe assert claims for sexual harassment by a physician in violation of California Civil Code Sections 51.9 and 52, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence.  They have also asserted claims (by Ms. Crickman against Bay Area and Peak Health; by Ms. Grebe against Bay Area) that defendants violated the California Unruh Act, alleging that the defendants failed to provide or apply the same level of scrutiny to physicians to whom they referred their female patients as they did to those to whom they referred their male patients.

Commenting about these allegations, plaintiffs’ attorney, Gregory D. Helmer of Helmer • Friedman, LLP, said, “In the fight against breast cancer, it is well known that early detection and diagnosis is critically important.  While these are allegations at this point, it is obviously critical  that there be nothing – including the conduct of a physician – that might discourage patients from seeking diagnostic examinations.”

For additional information or a PDF copy of the Complaint, contact:
            Gregory D. Helmer (ghelmer@helmerfriedman.com)
            Andrew H. Friedman (afriedman@helmerfriedman.com)
            Kenneth A. Helmer (khelmer@helmerfriedman.com) 
            Helmer • Friedman, LLP, (310) 396-7714                                         
            (www.helmerfriedman.com)

Copyright © 2011 Helmer Friedman, LLC. All rights reserved. Publication rights granted so long as article and byline are reprinted intact, with all links made live.
Posted on

Board of Directors of Bet Tzedek Legal Services

Gregory D. Helmer selected to Board of Directors of Bet Tzedek Legal Services



October 20, 2010 – Helmer Friedman is pleased to announce that Gregory D. Helmer has been selected to serve on the Board of Directors of Bet Tzedek (House of Justice) Legal Services Foundation. One of the nation’s premier legal services organizations since 1974, Bet Tzedek provides free assistance to more than 10,000 people of every racial and religious background in the Los Angeles area. Recently, Bet Tzedek’s employment rights project won a significant human trafficking case in which the victim, an Indonesian woman, was brought to the United States and forced to work without pay and under inhumane living conditions. In addition, Bet Tzedek’s Holocaust Survivors Justice Network has assisted survivors of the holocaust in seeking and obtaining reparations from the German Government.