Tag: constructive discharge

Posted on

No Woman Should Have to Endure Sexual Harassment to Earn a Living

Pay discrimination, Forced arbitration clauses challenge consumers, employees. Helmer Friedman LLP aggressively protect your rights.

No Woman Should Have to Endure Sexual Harassment to Earn a Living: Lessons from the $900,000  Settlement with California Produce Company

In a powerful affirmation of women’s rights in the workplace, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) settled a sexual harassment lawsuit against Fresh Venture Foods, LLC, based in California, and agreed to pay $900,000 to women who suffered harassment and to adopt strict measures to prevent such abuse in the future.

A Story Too Common, Yet Too Often Unheard

The lawsuit revealed that female workers experienced repeated sexual advances, inappropriate touching, and lewd comments from male supervisors—treatment no one should ever be forced to tolerate. Even more distressing, some women who spoke out faced retaliation, such as reduced hours or losing their jobs entirely. These actions did not just violate the law—they violated basic human dignity.

For many women in agriculture and other low-wage industries, reporting harassment can mean risking their livelihood and their family’s well-being. Cultural barriers, fear of not being believed, and the threat of retaliation can silence even the most egregious abuses. This reality is unacceptable in any society that values justice and equality.

A Step Toward Justice

The EEOC’s intervention resulted in more than just financial compensation. The settlement requires the companies to implement robust anti-harassment policies, train all employees and managers, and be monitored for compliance for three years. These changes are designed to create a safer, more respectful workplace.

But the real victory is in the message this case sends: No woman should have to choose between keeping her job and preserving her dignity. Sexual harassment is not the price of employment. It is a violation of fundamental rights.

Standing Up and Speaking Out

This case is a call to action for all employers to create environments where everyone—regardless of gender or background—is safe, valued, and heard. It’s also a reminder to those suffering in silence that they are not alone, and that help is available.

Conclusion

As a community, we must support those who come forward, hold offenders accountable, and demand change from those in power. Every worker deserves to earn a living free from fear of harassment or retaliation.

The EEOC’s settlement with Fresh Venture Foods, LLC is a step forward, but the fight for safe workplaces continues. Let us stand together to ensure that no woman—no person—has to endure harassment just to put food on the table. Dignity at work is not negotiable. It is a right.

Posted on

Hostile Work Environment Lawsuit: Sac State DEI Case

Women of Color in leadership face discrimination at alarming rates.

When DEI Leaders Face Discrimination: The Sac State Lawsuit

She was hired to champion equity. Now she’s suing the institution that hired her for the very discrimination she was brought in to fight.

Mia Settles-Tidwell spent 32 years building a career around inclusion and fairness. In November 2021, Sacramento State recruited her as Chief Diversity Officer and Vice President for Inclusive Excellence. She arrived with a clear mandate: lead the campus’s diversity efforts, implement an antiracism plan, and strengthen the school’s response to sexual harassment cases. By most measures, she delivered.

Yet today, Settles-Tidwell has filed a lawsuit against Sacramento State, naming President Luke Wood and the California State University Board of Trustees as defendants. Her claims? Age, race, and gender discrimination, along with allegations of a hostile work environment that ultimately forced her out.

This post breaks down what happened: the details of the lawsuit, the alleged discriminatory treatment, how it fits into a troubling pattern of discrimination claims across the CSU system, the protections California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) offers employees, and what you can do if you find yourself facing something similar.

A Promising Start That Took a Dark Turn

Settles-Tidwell’s early record at Sac State speaks for itself. She hired the school’s first Universal Access and Inclusion director. She led the CSU-wide Juneteenth Symposium in 2024. She created taskforces to confront both antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus. By any reasonable standard, she was doing the job she was hired to do—and doing it well.

“It was a campaign of harassment and retaliation against my client and we’re hoping to be vindicated in court.” Mainak D’Attaray

Her working relationship with President Luke Wood, who stepped into his role in July 2023, started on solid ground. In fact, in November 2023, Wood wrote her an unsolicited letter of recommendation. That detail matters. It paints a picture of a leader who, at least on paper, valued her contributions.

Then things changed. By early 2024, that relationship had soured dramatically. What had looked like mutual respect gave way to a series of actions that, according to the lawsuit, created an increasingly hostile work environment. The speed of that shift forms the backbone of her case.

The Alleged Discriminatory Treatment

The lawsuit lays out specific allegations that, taken together, describe a pattern of mistreatment:

  • Exclusion. Settles-Tidwell was removed from the Black Honors College leadership team—despite having written the original proposal herself. She was also shut out of budget planning processes central to her role.
  • Pay discrimination. She received a 1.5% merit pay raise. Her peers received a minimum of 2.5%. That gap, the lawsuit argues, reflects pay discrimination tied to her protected characteristics.
  • Public humiliation. In a March 2024 email, President Wood told her that her leadership was “perceived as not effective.” According to the complaint, he berated her in front of cabinet-level colleagues.
  • Stripping of responsibilities. Her authority to hire staff and direct divisional programming was restricted, undercutting her ability to do the job she was recruited to lead.

Her attorney, Mainak D’Attaray, put it plainly: “It was a campaign of harassment and retaliation against my client and we’re hoping to be vindicated in court.”

When Settles-Tidwell raised concerns, the situation reportedly worsened. She requested a meeting with Wood to discuss his March email. She received no response.

Constructive Dismissal: When Resignation Is Not Really a Choice

Sometimes an employee resigns—but the resignation isn’t truly voluntary. The law calls this constructive dismissal. It happens when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel they have no choice but to quit. In the eyes of the law, that kind of forced resignation can be treated much like a wrongful termination.

On April 11, 2024, Settles-Tidwell resigned. She cited “continuous, disparate and adverse actions that created a hostile working environment.”

What followed was striking. The same day she resigned, Wood publicly announced her departure. He asked her, via a group text, not to attend cabinet meetings. And yet, in public, he praised her as a “strategic thinker.” That contradiction—private exclusion paired with public praise—is exactly the kind of mixed signal that often surfaces in constructive dismissal claims.

Settles-Tidwell didn’t stay silent. She wrote a farewell letter to the student newspaper, The State Hornet. She later published a book, Unscathed: A Harm Reduction Strategy for Women of Color in the Workplace, framing her experience as part of a broader pattern of institutional harm.

A Pattern of Discrimination at CSU

Settles-Tidwell’s case does not stand alone. It fits into a wider series of discrimination claims against the California State University system—the largest public university system in the country.

Earlier this year, CSU paid a $12 million settlement to former Cal State San Bernardino administrators Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers. Both alleged they were fired or pushed out after reporting gender inequities, harassment, and discrimination. Dr. Rogers alone received a $6 million jury award for non-economic damages tied to gender-based hostile work environment claims—believed to be among the largest employment discrimination settlements ever against the system.

The irony is hard to ignore. These cases are unfolding inside an institution that publicly markets itself as a leader in diversity, equity, and inclusion. The gap between that public message and these private allegations is precisely what makes the pattern so concerning.

Understanding Your Rights: FEHA and Hostile Work Environments

If you work in California, you have powerful legal protection through the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In several key ways, FEHA goes further than federal law—making it especially important for employees facing a hostile work environment, sexual discrimination, or pay discrimination.

Here’s what sets FEHA apart:

  • Severe or pervasive. Under FEHA, a hostile work environment can be established if the conduct is either severe or pervasive. Federal law typically requires both. This lower threshold makes it easier for employees to bring valid claims.
  • Personal liability for supervisors. Individual supervisors—not just the employer—can be held personally liable for harassment.
  • Broad coverage. FEHA applies to employers with as few as five employees.
  • Prevention requirements. Employers must provide regular anti-harassment training and maintain clear, written anti-harassment policies.

So what actually counts as a hostile work environment? Not every difficult or unpleasant job qualifies. The law draws a line: conduct becomes legally actionable when it targets you because of a protected class—such as race, gender, or age—and is either severe or pervasive enough to alter your working conditions.

Pay discrimination follows similar logic. When pay disparities are tied to protected characteristics like race and gender, they can violate both FEHA and federal law. And the gap doesn’t have to be dramatic. Even a difference as small as the roughly 1% alleged in Settles-Tidwell’s case—1.5% versus 2.5%—can be the basis for a valid claim.

The Broader Implications for Women of Color in Leadership

Settles-Tidwell’s experience reflects a systemic challenge facing women of color in leadership roles, particularly within academic institutions. They are often hired to drive institutional change—then subjected to the very discrimination they were brought in to address. It’s a position that demands enormous resilience while offering little protection.

Women of color experience race discrimination and harassment.

The stakes can be devastating. Settles-Tidwell herself pointed to the tragic story of Antoinette Candia-Bailey, a Black vice president at Lincoln University who died by suicide in January 2024. Settles-Tidwell cited that loss as a catalyst for writing her book and speaking publicly about what she endured.

Women of color in DEI leadership face a particular kind of vulnerability. They carry the responsibility of reshaping institutions, yet they frequently lack the support, authority, and protection that role requires. When the same institutions that recruited them turn hostile, the consequences—professional, financial, and personal—can be profound.

Where the Case Stands Now

Settles-Tidwell filed her lawsuit on May 5, 2025, in Los Angeles County Superior Court at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The case has been assigned to Hon. Gail Killefer in Department 37.

Several legal milestones lie ahead. The court has scheduled a Case Management Conference, along with a September 8 hearing on CSU’s motion to transfer the case to Sacramento County Superior Court. Settles-Tidwell opposes the transfer, citing concerns about potential jury pool bias in Sacramento.

For its part, CSU denies all of the allegations. The university has stated it is “prepared to vigorously defend against these claims.” As with any lawsuit, these remain allegations until proven in court.

If This Sounds Familiar, You May Have Legal Options

Settles-Tidwell’s case carries a clear lesson: discrimination can happen at any level, in any organization—even one that publicly champions equity. Hostile work environments, pay discrimination, and sexual discrimination don’t disappear simply because an institution says the right things about inclusion.

If you work in California, FEHA gives you real, enforceable protections. You do not have to endure discriminatory treatment in silence, and you do not have to navigate it alone.

If any part of this story resonates with your own experience, the most important step you can take is to speak with an experienced employment attorney—ideally before taking any other action, including resigning. Early legal guidance can protect your rights and strengthen your position.

At Helmer Friedman LLP, we’ve spent more than 20 years advocating for employees facing discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. We offer personalized attention, a proven track record of results, and complete confidentiality.

Contact Helmer Friedman LLP today for a free, confidential consultation to discuss your case. Your advocate in justice is just one conversation away.

Frequently Asked Questions

What qualifies as a hostile work environment in California?
Under California’s FEHA, a hostile work environment exists when you face conduct that targets you because of a protected characteristic—such as race, gender, age, or sexual orientation—and that conduct is either severe or pervasive enough to affect your working conditions. Unlike federal law, FEHA only requires one of those two factors, not both. A genuinely difficult boss isn’t automatically illegal; the conduct must be tied to a protected class to be actionable.

Can I sue for pay discrimination in California?
Yes. If you’re paid less than colleagues doing similar work, and that difference is connected to a protected characteristic like race or gender, you may have a valid pay discrimination claim under both FEHA and federal law. Importantly, even small gaps can be actionable. A consultation with an employment attorney can help you determine whether your situation qualifies.

This article includes information from the reporting of Tarini Mehta.

Posted on

Combating Workplace Sexual Harassment: Your Legal Rights

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

Breaking the Silence: Combating Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The statistics are alarming, but the stories behind them are even more harrowing. According to recent data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sexual harassment complaints are surging. In 2024 alone, complainants filed 35,774 claims, representing a staggering 32% increase since 2022. This sharp rise indicates that despite increased awareness, workplaces across the country remain dangerous environments for thousands of employees.

Sexual harassment is not merely an uncomfortable social interaction; it is an unlawful violation of civil rights that can derail careers and shatter mental health. Whether it manifests as subtle, derogatory comments or overt physical assault, the impact on the victim is profound. For those navigating this difficult terrain, understanding the legal landscape is the first step toward justice. It is crucial to recognize what constitutes harassment, how the law protects employees, and the specific recourse available for those forced to endure a hostile work environment.

Understanding the Legal Definitions

To combat harassment, one must first define it. Both federal and state laws provide clear frameworks for what constitutes illegal conduct. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), harassment based on sex is broadly defined. It includes not only sexual harassment but also gender harassment, gender expression harassment, and harassment based on pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

The EEOC creates a distinction between isolated incidents and a pervasive culture of abuse. While the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing or offhand comments, conduct becomes illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment. This occurs when a reasonable person would find the workplace intimidating, hostile, or offensive.

Furthermore, the victim does not have to be the person directly harassed; they can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct. The harasser can be a supervisor, a co-worker, or even a non-employee like a client or independent contractor. Crucially, the victim and the harasser can be of any gender, and unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to the victim.

Case Study: The Midwest Farms Settlement

Legal definitions often feel abstract until they are applied to real-world scenarios. A recent case involving a Colorado agribusiness, Midwest Farms, LLC, illustrates the grim reality of unchecked workplace harassment and the consequences for employers who fail to protect their staff.

In February 2026, the EEOC announced a $334,500 settlement with Midwest Farms after an investigation revealed a pattern of routine sexual abuse. The investigation began when a former employee, hired as a swine production trainee, filed a complaint. Her role involved transporting hogs and cleaning buildings, a job that required her to “shower in” at the start of her shift.

The details of the case paint a disturbing picture of power abuse. On at least three occasions, the woman’s manager barged into the women’s dressing room without knocking while she was undressing. In one instance, he watched her shower. In another humiliating power play, he forced her to work a shift in a man’s jumpsuit without undergarments.

When the employee attempted to report this behavior to the production manager, she was told to “work things out” on her own. This failure to act is a common theme in harassment cases. The company not only ignored the complaints but also allegedly retaliated against the women who spoke up. The settlement provided financial restitution to the victim and two others, serving as a reminder that employers are liable for their supervisors’ conduct.

Recognizing the Spectrum of Harassment

Harassment rarely looks the same in every case. It exists on a spectrum, ranging from verbal slurs to physical assault. The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing categorizes these behaviors into three distinct types:

Visual Conduct

This includes leering, making sexual gestures, or displaying suggestive objects, pictures, cartoons, or posters. In the digital age, this also extends to sending explicit images or emails. If a workspace is decorated with materials that objectify a specific gender, it contributes to a hostile environment.

Verbal Conduct

This is often the most pervasive form of harassment. It includes making or using derogatory comments, epithets, slurs, and jokes. It also encompasses verbal sexual advances, propositions, and graphic commentaries about an individual’s body. Even “compliments” can be harassment if they are unwanted, sexual in nature, and pervasive.

Physical Conduct

This includes touching, assault, or impeding and blocking movements. As seen in the Midwest Farms case, physical harassment can also involve invasion of privacy, such as intruding on an employee while they are changing or showering.

The Trap of “Constructive Discharge”

A common misconception is that an employee cannot sue for wrongful termination if they quit their job. This is legally incorrect due to the concept of constructive discharge.

Constructive discharge occurs when an employee resigns because the working conditions have become so intolerable that a reasonable person in their position would have felt compelled to leave. In the eyes of the law, this is treated as a firing.

In the Midwest Farms case, the victim resigned in November 2018, less than two months after her employment began. She did not leave because she wanted to; she left because the environment was unsafe. If an employer allows a hostile work environment to persist, they may be held responsible for the resignation as if they had terminated the employee themselves.

Employer Liability and Federal Protections

Federal law, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits sexual harassment. This applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments, labor organizations, and employment agencies.

Employers have a legal duty to prevent harassment and to take immediate and appropriate corrective action when it is reported. When an employer fails to do so—or worse, retaliates against the victim—they expose themselves to significant liability.

Retaliation is a critical component of many harassment lawsuits. It is illegal for an employer to fire, demote, or deny benefits to an employee because they refused sexual favors or complained about harassment. Even if the underlying harassment charge is not proven, a company can still be found liable for retaliation.

Taking Action: Steps for Victims

If you suspect you are being subjected to a hostile work environment, taking the right steps early can significantly impact the outcome of a potential legal case.

  1. Document Everything: Keep a detailed record of every incident. Note the date, time, location, witnesses, and exactly what was said or done. Save emails, text messages, and any other physical evidence.
  2. Report the Behavior: Follow your company’s policy for reporting harassment. If possible, do this in writing so there is a paper trail. As seen in the Midwest Farms case, verbal complaints can be dismissed or ignored.
  3. Do Not Use Artificial Intelligence (AI): To Conduct Research About Your Situation. The reason for this recommendation is that your AI conversations are not protected from discovery by the other side. Unlike your communications with attorneys, which are protected by the attorney–client privilege, any conversations that you have with AI platforms are completely discoverable by the opposing party.
  4. Consult an Attorney: Before you do anything, immediately seek legal representation. Because sexual harassment cases can be complex and fact-specific, it is very important to bring on board an experienced retaliation attorney who can help evaluate the merits of your claim and guide you through the legal process. The attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP can help determine if the conduct meets the legal standard for a hostile work environment or constructive discharge.
  5. File a Complaint: You may need to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or a state agency like the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing before filing a lawsuit.

Cultivating a Culture of Safety

The rise in harassment claims suggests that corporate culture still has a long way to go. No employee should have to choose between their dignity and their paycheck. While settlements like the one in Colorado provide some measure of justice, the ultimate goal is prevention.

By understanding your rights and recognizing the signs of a hostile work environment, you empower yourself to take action. Whether it is documenting abuse, filing a claim, or seeking legal counsel, silence is no longer the only option.

Posted on

TNT Cranes Discrimination Case: $525K Settlement Explained

Haitian welder experienced extreme racial harassment at work.

TNT Cranes Case: A $525K Settlement in Racial Harassment

A workplace should be a sanctuary of safety and professionalism, yet for some employees at TNT Crane & Rigging, Inc., it sadly turned into a distressing environment marked by racial intimidation. The recent lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has brought forth troubling allegations, resulting in a significant settlement and court-mandated reforms. This case serves as a poignant reminder that racial discrimination has no place in any industry and highlights the importance of seeking justice through legal accountability.

The legal action against one of North America’s largest crane service providers conveys a powerful message: allowing a hostile work environment can have serious consequences. For both employers and employees, this case illustrates vital lessons about the importance of reporting incidents, understanding legal protections against retaliation, and committing to the efforts required to foster a truly respectful and inclusive workplace. By learning from these experiences, we can all work towards ensuring that every employee feels safe and valued in their work environment.

Allegations of a Hostile Work Environment

The EEOC lawsuit painted a grim picture of the work conditions at a TNT Crane & Rigging facility in Texas. According to the complaint, four Black employees were systematically subjected to severe and pervasive racial harassment by both coworkers and supervisors. The allegations were not minor infractions but involved symbols and language rooted in a history of racial violence.

The complaint detailed the frequent use of derogatory racial slurs, including the n-word, by managers and other staff. Beyond verbal abuse, the workplace was allegedly contaminated with powerful symbols of hate. These included the open display of nooses and white supremacist symbols, such as lightning bolt stickers associated with such groups, on company equipment. One manager reportedly told a Black crane operator, “N—–, if you are going to bitch about it, you can turn that truck around and take your ass home,” when he asked for assistance.

This environment of intimidation was not only directed at Black employees. The EEOC also charged that the company retaliated against a white employee who spoke out against the harassment. After witnessing the conduct and reporting it to HR and management—including the presence of a noose—the white employee allegedly faced retaliation. These distressing incidents took place at the company’s Fort Worth plant. Shockingly, shortly after he reported the harassment, this employee had his tires flattened while parked at work and was confronted by a coworker who physically shoved him and hurled slurs at him. It is deeply concerning that such behavior could occur in a workplace, and it’s essential that these experiences be heard and addressed. Instead of addressing the harassment, his work hours were cut, he was ostracized by coworkers, and he was ultimately forced to resign due to the intolerable conditions created by his efforts to do the right thing.

The EEOC Lawsuit and Legal Action

The EEOC took up the case after its initial attempts to resolve the matter through conciliation failed. The agency filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging that TNT Crane & Rigging violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This foundational federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race and protects employees who report or oppose such discriminatory practices from retaliation.

The EEOC’s complaint outlined two primary violations:

  1. Race-Based Hostile Work Environment: The company allegedly created or tolerated an environment so filled with racist conduct that it altered the conditions of employment for its Black workers.
  2. Illegal Retaliation: The company was accused of punishing an employee for engaging in protected activity—namely, reporting racial harassment.

EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows connected the allegations to a broader pattern of misconduct, particularly within the construction industry. She noted that such harassment creates barriers that prevent workers from accessing and keeping good jobs. The lawsuit sought not only monetary damages for the affected employees but also significant changes to the company’s policies and practices to prevent future violations.

A Settlement for Accountability

Before the case could proceed to a full trial, the parties reached an agreement. TNT Crane & Rigging agreed to a $525,000 settlement to be paid to the five employees who suffered from the harassment and retaliation. While the company did not admit liability as part of the settlement, the resolution includes a three-year consent decree, which is a court-enforced order outlining extensive remedial measures.

The monetary relief was allocated among the victims to compensate for the damages they endured. However, the impact of the consent decree extends far beyond financial compensation. It imposes a series of strict requirements on TNT Crane & Rigging to foster systemic change and ensure future compliance with anti-discrimination laws. This settlement underscores that even without a trial verdict, the EEOC’s legal pressure can compel companies to enact sweeping and meaningful reforms.

Mandated Reforms and the Path Forward

The consent decree approved by the federal court is more than a settlement; it is a roadmap for corporate accountability. The mandated reforms are comprehensive and designed to address the root causes of the hostile environment.

Key components of the decree include:

  • Prohibition of Future Discrimination: The company is legally prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination, tolerating a racially hostile work environment, or retaliating against employees.
  • New Anti-Harassment Policies: TNT Crane must develop and implement robust anti-harassment and anti-retaliation policies. These must clearly define prohibited conduct, outline complaint procedures, and state that violators will face disciplinary action, up to and including termination.
  • Mandatory Training: All Texas-based employees will receive training on Title VII and the new company policies. Furthermore, managers and personnel involved in investigations will receive specialized, intensive training on conducting fair and thorough investigations into harassment claims.
  • Improved Complaint Procedures: The company must establish multiple avenues for reporting complaints, ensuring employees can raise concerns without unreasonable burdens. This includes an employee hotline that goes directly to the Vice President of Human Resources.
  • EEOC Reporting: For three years, TNT Crane must report all new complaints of racial harassment, discrimination, or retaliation directly to the EEOC, detailing how each complaint was handled.

These measures place the onus on management to proactively monitor the workplace and act swiftly to correct any issues. Failure to do so can result in disciplinary action against the managers themselves.

Broader Implications for Workplace Justice

The TNT Crane & Rigging case stands as a stark example of how the law can be wielded to protect employee rights and catalyze meaningful change across industries. Courts and regulatory bodies—in this case, the EEOC—play an indispensable role in holding employers accountable for maintaining fair and respectful workplaces. But the root issues at the heart of this lawsuit—racial harassment and hostile work environments—are far from isolated incidents.

Racial harassment often manifests in more than just isolated comments. It can be embedded in daily workplace culture through slurs, offensive imagery, jokes, and the open display of hate symbols. The consequences are profound, stretching from psychological distress to missed professional opportunities. At its worst, unchecked harassment breeds a climate where victims and witnesses alike feel powerless, discouraged from coming forward for fear of retaliation—a reality made clear in the TNT Crane case.

To counteract this, robust anti-discrimination policies are not just a legal formality; they are a frontline defense against workplace injustice. As outlined by Helmer Friedman LLP, prevention remains the best, most cost-effective tool for eliminating racial discrimination at work. This means employers must implement comprehensive written policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. They must also ensure these policies are not static documents gathering dust but are actively reinforced through regular, mandatory training sessions on racial sensitivity, diversity, and the applicable employment laws.

Effective complaint procedures are another critical safeguard. Employees should have clear, accessible paths to report harassment or discrimination—without undue burden, delay, or the risk of reprisal. Policies must specifically protect those who step forward, including both direct victims and bystander witnesses, from retaliation. When complaints are made, management must act swiftly and impartially, conduct thorough investigations, and implement corrective action when warranted.

For companies, the consequences of ignoring these obligations are illustrated not just in monetary settlements like the $525,000 paid by TNT Crane & Rigging, but in more serious reputational damage and organizational disruption. As state and federal law—including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—make clear, employers can be held fully liable for failing to prevent or address racial discrimination and harassment.

This case is a reminder to every employer: a culture of tolerance for discrimination will ultimately collide with the force of the law. Regular training, enforced policies, transparent procedures, and leadership committed to true equity are not optional—they are the pillars of both legal compliance and workplace dignity.

If you have experienced racial discrimination, harassment, or retaliation at your job, know that you have significant rights under state and federal law. Consultations with experienced employment attorneys, like those at Helmer Friedman LLP, can provide clarity, protection, and a path toward resolution. Standing up against discrimination is not only your right; it is a catalyst for wider change. Your voice matters.

Posted on

“Take this Job and Shove it” – Supreme Court Considers When The Clock Starts to Run on Constructive Discharge Claims

Status of limitation - time is running out - the clock is ticking away.

In Green v. Brennan, 2016 WL 2945236 (U.S. May 23, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court considered when the clock starts to run on a constructive discharge claim. Before discussing the Supreme Court’s decision, a little background information is in order.

Generally, employees only have limited amounts of time to bring their employment-related claims against their employers. How much time is determined by various laws called “statutes of limitation.” For example, in California, employees have one year to file a complaint of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). Then, employees have an additional year from the date of the DFEH’s Right-To-Sue Letter to file a lawsuit in court.

Under California state law, the statutes of limitation on a wrongful termination claim begin to run on actual termination date, rather than the date when employer informs the employee that discharge was inevitable. Romano v. Rockwell Internat., Inc., 14 Cal. 4th 479 (1996). Under federal law, the statutes of limitation begin to run when the employer notifies the employee that his or her employment will be ending. Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 259, 101 S. Ct. 498, 504 (1980).

But, when does the clock begin to run on a constructive discharge claim (a claim that the employer forced the employee to resign)? Say that on November 1st the employee gives her employer two weeks notice that she will be resigning on November 15th. Do the statutes of limitations begin to run on November 1st or November 15th?  In Green v. Brennan, 2016 WL 2945236 (U.S. May 23, 2016), the U.S. Supreme Court examined this very issue. The Supreme Court concluded that the statutes begin to run on the date the employee gives notice of his or her intent to resign (rather than his or her last day of employment).

Green v. Brennan involved a former U.S. Postal Service Employee, Marvin Green, who claimed that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race (African-American).  Green worked for the Postal Service for nearly 35 years. Green complained that he was denied a promotion because of his race. Not surprisingly, following his complaint, his relations with his supervisors crumbled. Relations hit a nadir on December 11, 2009, when two of Green’s supervisors accused him of intentionally delaying the mail—a criminal offense. On December 16, 2009, Green and the Postal Service signed an agreement whereby the Postal Service promised not to pursue criminal charges in exchange for Green’s promise to leave his post. The agreement gave Green a choice: effective March 31, 2010, he could either retire or report for duty in another location at a considerably lower salary. Green chose to retire. He submitted his resignation to the Postal Service on February 9, 2010, effective March 31.

Eventually, Green contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) counselor to report an unlawful constructive discharge. He contended that his supervisors had threatened criminal charges and negotiated the resulting agreement in retaliation for his original complaint. He alleged that the choice he had been given effectively forced his resignation in violation of Title VII.

Subsequently, Green filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging, inter alia, that the Postal Service constructively discharged him. The Postal Service moved for summary judgment, arguing that Green had failed to make timely contact with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the “matter alleged to be discriminatory,” as required by 29 CFR § 1614.105(a)(1). The District Court granted the Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment. The Tenth Circuit affirmed holding that Green’s claim was time-barred because the date Green signed the settlement agreement was the Postal Service’s last discriminatory act triggering the filing deadline that Green failed to meet.

In a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court held the time period for filing a constructive discharge claim “begins running only after the employee resigns.”  The Court explained that this means the clock begins to run when the employee gives definite “notice” of his or her resignation, not the date the resignation is effective. In other words, if an employee gives two weeks notice, the clock starts to run on the date of the notice, not two weeks later on the employee’s last day of work.

Employees considering resignation due to intolerable working conditions should consult with employment counsel before submitting their resignation.  The courts have made it very difficult for employees to successfully bring a constructive discharge claim. Employment counsel can help employees properly place their employers on notice as to the intolerable working conditions.