Tag: gender discrimination

Posted on

Ephraim McDowell Health Settles Sex Discrimination Lawsuit

Constitutional rights, discrimination lawyers of Helmer Friedman LLP.

A Hospital’s $335K Lesson in Sex Discrimination

In a case that underscores the ongoing fight for workplace equality, a Kentucky-based healthcare system, Ephraim McDowell Health, Inc. (EMH), has agreed to a significant settlement following a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The case centered on allegations of blatant sex discrimination and subsequent retaliation against a female employee who was denied a promotion based on her gender. This incident serves as a stark reminder that discriminatory practices, no matter how subtly or overtly expressed, have no place in the modern workplace and carry severe legal and financial consequences.

The resolution of this case, which includes a $335,000 payment and mandatory policy changes, highlights the critical role of federal protections in safeguarding employee rights. For workers who face similar injustices, it demonstrates that there are legal avenues for recourse. It also sends a clear message to employers across all industries: promotion decisions must be based on qualifications and merit, not on outdated and illegal gender stereotypes.

Background of the Case

Ephraim McDowell Health, a healthcare system headquartered in Danville, Kentucky, found itself under scrutiny after a female employee, Shannon Long, was passed over for a promotion. The case was brought to the forefront by the EEOC, the federal agency responsible for enforcing laws against workplace discrimination.

The EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office, which has jurisdiction over Kentucky, initiated legal action after its attempts to resolve the matter through a pre-litigation settlement process, known as conciliation, were unsuccessful. The subsequent lawsuit detailed a clear violation of federal law, bringing the hospital’s hiring practices into the public and legal spotlight.

The Allegations: Sex Discrimination and Retaliation

The core of the EEOC’s lawsuit, filed on March 27, 2024, rested on a series of damning allegations against Ephraim McDowell Health and its leadership.

A Blatant Denial of Opportunity

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Shannon Long, a qualified female employee, sought a promotion to an administrator position at EMH’s Fort Logan Hospital in Stanford, Kentucky. She met all the necessary qualifications, including the educational requirements for the role.

However, she was allegedly told directly by the company’s CEO that she would not be selected for the position because of her sex. The lawsuit stated the CEO held a belief that “men work better with men and that it was best to have a male in that position.” Consequently, the promotion was given to a male employee who, according to the EEOC, did not meet the position’s existing education requirements. Long was instead placed in a lower-paying role that reported directly to the man who had been promoted over her.

Retaliation for Speaking Out

After being denied the promotion, Long filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC, exercising her right to report unlawful employment practices. The lawsuit charged that instead of addressing the issue, EMH retaliated against her. The retaliation culminated in her termination in December 2022, compounding the initial act of discrimination with a punitive and illegal response.

Legal Framework: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

The actions alleged in the lawsuit are direct violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This landmark federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It specifically outlaws:

  • Sex-Based Discrimination: Making employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, and promotions, based on an individual’s gender. The CEO’s alleged statements are a textbook example of this prohibited practice.
  • Retaliation: Taking adverse action against an employee for engaging in a legally protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC. Firing an employee after they have reported discrimination is one of the most severe forms of retaliation.

The EEOC’s lawsuit sought to hold Ephraim McDowell Health accountable for these violations and to secure justice for the affected employee.

The Settlement and Its Terms

On November 21, 2025, the EEOC announced that Ephraim McDowell Health had agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement demonstrates the gravity of the charges and the strength of the evidence against the healthcare system. Under the terms of the two-year consent decree, EMH agreed to:

  • Pay $335,000: This monetary relief will be paid to Shannon Long to compensate for the discrimination and retaliation she endured.
  • Provide Mandatory Training: The company is required to conduct equal employment opportunity training for its staff to prevent future incidents.
  • Report to the EEOC: EMH must provide annual reports to the EEOC to ensure compliance with the terms of the decree.
  • Post Employee Rights Notices: The hospital must display a notice informing employees of their rights under federal anti-discrimination law.

Kenneth Bird, the EEOC’s Indianapolis Regional Attorney, commented on the resolution, stating, “We appreciate Ephraim McDowell for working with us to resolve this litigation and agreeing to implement changes to prevent future hiring violations. These steps demonstrate a commitment to achieving a workplace free from discrimination and retaliation.”

A Firm Stance Against Workplace Injustice

This case is a powerful example of the EEOC’s unwavering commitment to its mission. When the lawsuit was initially filed, EEOC Indianapolis District Director Michelle Eisele affirmed, “The EEOC is firmly committed to ensuring that all workers have an equal opportunity for advancement.”

The timing of the lawsuit’s filing during Women’s History Month was not lost on the agency. Attorney Kenneth L. Bird noted its significance, stating, “Employers who use an employee’s gender as the basis for promotion decisions are clearly practicing unlawful discrimination… This lawsuit seeks to ensure that qualified female applicants will be judged by their education, experience, and other qualifications, and not passed over because of their gender.”

The settlement reinforces this message, demonstrating that the agency will vigorously pursue justice for victims of discrimination and hold employers accountable for their unlawful actions.

Protecting Your Rights in the Workplace

The Ephraim McDowell Health case is a critical reminder that sex discrimination remains a persistent issue. It also shows that legal protections are in place to fight back against such injustice. If you have experienced sex discrimination or have knowledge of unfair practices in your workplace, it is crucial to consult a reputable attorney with proven expertise in employment law.

Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP offer skilled legal advocacy to help address these injustices. With over 20 years of experience, a strong history of case victories, and a commitment to personalized client support, Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through the legal process and work to secure the justice and compensation you deserve. Don’t hesitate to reach out for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation.

Posted on

Nike’s Age & Gender Discrimination Allegations Explained

Laws protect against age, gender, race discrimination. Helmer Friedman LLP represents discrimination victims.

Nike’s Pattern of Age and Gender Discrimination

Nike is a global titan, a brand synonymous with athletic achievement and inspirational slogans. Its “Just Do It” mantra has motivated millions. Yet, beneath this polished public image, a troubling pattern of alleged age and gender discrimination has emerged, raising serious questions about the company’s internal culture. Recent lawsuits paint a picture of a workplace where female and older employees are systematically devalued, creating a hostile work environment that stands in stark contrast to the brand’s progressive marketing.

This post will examine the serious allegations of age discrimination, gender bias, and wrongful termination that have been leveled against Nike. By exploring the details of these legal actions, we will shed light on the experiences of employees who claim they were pushed out, sidelined, and denied opportunities due to their age and gender. These cases serve as a critical reminder that even the most powerful corporations are not above the law and must be held accountable for fostering fair and equitable workplaces.

Legal Disclaimer: While Helmer Friedman LLP did not represent the parties in these cases, it offers crucial insights for both employers and workers facing similar situations.

A Culture in Question

For decades, Nike has cultivated an image as a champion of diversity and inclusion. Its advertising campaigns frequently feature a diverse array of athletes, and the company has publicly committed to creating a more equitable workforce. However, a series of high-profile legal battles suggests a significant disconnect between Nike’s public-facing values and its internal practices.

This isn’t the first time the sportswear giant has faced scrutiny over its workplace culture. In 2018, a class-action lawsuit was filed by four women alleging systemic issues of unequal pay and sexual harassment. Unsealed court documents from that case detailed numerous complaints of misconduct by executives, revealing a workplace culture that some described as toxic for women. These past controversies provide a troubling backdrop to the more recent allegations, suggesting that problems of discrimination may be more deeply entrenched than the company has acknowledged.

A 25-Year Career Ends in Wrongful Termination

The most recent lawsuit, filed in the District of Oregon, stems from a woman who spent 25 years of her career at Nike. Starting as a store manager in 1998, she steadily climbed the corporate ladder, earning nine promotions before becoming a senior director of stores. Her long tenure is a testament to her commitment and capability.

However, her career trajectory took a sharp downturn in 2021 after she began reporting to a new supervisor. According to the lawsuit, as the sole woman on the leadership team, she was treated differently from her younger, male colleagues. The complaint details a pattern of exclusionary behavior, alleging she was frequently left out of important meetings and that critical information was withheld from her. This created a challenging and isolating work environment.

The alleged harassment intensified over the next two years. The lawsuit claims she was subjected to intense micromanagement and was required to provide written summaries of conversations, a demand not made of her male peers. In one particularly demeaning incident, she was publicly reprimanded for organizing a celebration for a long-serving employee, even though she had received prior approval and paid for it herself. When she reported this hostile work environment to Human Resources, her complaints were allegedly ignored.

Her situation worsened after she was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease, a condition related to aging. After informing her supervisor and requesting minor accommodations—one day off and one day of remote work—she was fired a month later over a video call. The reason given was a vague “failure to demonstrate leadership capability.” To add insult to injury, she was denied severance pay. The complaint notes that other women terminated around the same time were also denied severance. At the same time, their male counterparts who were let go did receive it, highlighting a clear instance of potential gender-based discrimination.

The Legal and Ethical Framework

The allegations against Nike touch upon fundamental legal protections designed to prevent workplace discrimination. Federal law, specifically the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) of 1967, protects individuals aged 40 and older from discrimination in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, promotion, and compensation. It is unlawful for an employer to make decisions based on age-related stereotypes or biases. The lawsuit filed by the former senior director clearly invokes these protections, citing her age as a factor in the discriminatory treatment and her eventual wrongful termination.

Similarly, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on gender. The claims that she was excluded from meetings, micromanaged differently from her male peers, and denied severance that was offered to men all point to potential violations of this crucial law.

Beyond the legal violations, the ethical implications are profound. A company that builds its brand on empowerment and equality has a moral obligation to uphold those values within its own walls. Creating a hostile work environment not only harms the individuals targeted but also erodes overall employee morale, stifles productivity, and damages the company’s integrity. When an employee’s loyalty and decades of service are met with discrimination and disrespect, it sends a chilling message to the entire workforce.

Nike’s Response and the Broader Impact

In response to these serious allegations, Nike has remained largely silent, a common corporate strategy in the face of litigation. This lack of a public response leaves customers, investors, and employees to draw their own conclusions.

This case is not an isolated incident. In 2024, another former Nike senior director sued the company for gender discrimination, claiming she was repeatedly passed over for promotions in favor of less qualified men. These recurring lawsuits suggest a systemic problem that cannot be dismissed as the actions of a few individuals.

The implications of these cases extend far beyond Nike’s corporate headquarters. They highlight a persistent challenge within the corporate world, where stated commitments to diversity and inclusion often fail to translate into meaningful change. For the sportswear industry and beyond, these lawsuits serve as a powerful call for greater accountability. They underscore the importance of transparent internal investigations, robust anti-discrimination policies, and a corporate culture where all employees feel safe, respected, and valued.

Upholding Workplace Justice

The allegations of age and gender discrimination at Nike are a stark reminder that no company is immune to legal and ethical scrutiny. The stories of dedicated employees facing harassment, exclusion, and wrongful termination are not just legal complaints; they are powerful accounts of personal and professional betrayal. They reveal the human cost of a hostile work environment and the critical importance of holding powerful corporations accountable for their actions.

As consumers and citizens, we have a role to play in demanding better. Supporting fair employment practices and advocating for transparency can help create a world where a company’s actions align with its proclaimed values. If you have experienced or witnessed discrimination in your workplace, know that you have rights and that resources are available to help you.

Have you faced age discrimination, harassment, or wrongful termination? Report your experience confidentially to our team of experienced employment lawyers. Your voice matters, and together, we can work towards a more just and equitable workplace for everyone.

Some information for this article is based on reporting by Matthew Kish. 

 

Case Info:  Coleman v. Nike Retail Services, Inc. # 3:25-cv-02059  Reps: Jackson Spencer Law and Buchanan Angeli Altschul & Sullivan

Posted on

Combating Gender Pay Discrimination: Your Legal Rights and Remedies

Gender pay gap, unfair pay practices are discrimination addressed by discrimination attorneys - Helmer Friedman LLP.

Breaking the Barriers: A Guide to Fighting Pay Discrimination

The gender pay gap persists as one of the most entrenched forms of workplace inequality in America. Despite more than six decades since the Equal Pay Act became law, women continue earning less than men for substantially similar work across virtually every industry and job level. This discrimination doesn’t just harm individual workers—it undermines families, weakens economic growth, and perpetuates systemic inequality that affects generations.

Understanding your legal rights and the available remedies represents the first step toward achieving workplace equality. The legal framework exists to combat sex discrimination in pay, but it requires informed advocacy and persistent action to create meaningful change. Recent high-profile settlements demonstrate that violations carry real consequences, while successful enforcement creates precedents that benefit all workers.

Whether you’re experiencing pay disparities, witnessing workplace discrimination, or seeking to understand your legal options, this comprehensive guide provides the essential information needed to navigate the complex landscape of gender pay discrimination law.

The Historical Foundation of Equal Pay Laws

The struggle for equal pay has deep roots in American labor history. Before 1963, employers could openly pay women less than men for identical work, often justifying these disparities with outdated social attitudes about women’s roles in the workforce. Women were systematically excluded from higher-paying positions or channeled into “women’s work” that commanded lower wages regardless of skill requirements.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 emerged from years of advocacy by labor unions, women’s rights organizations, and progressive legislators who recognized that wage discrimination harmed not only individual workers but the broader economy. The law established the fundamental principle that employers must pay equal wages to employees of opposite sexes for equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions.

This groundbreaking legislation was later strengthened by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. Together, these laws created a comprehensive framework for addressing workplace discrimination, though enforcement and interpretation have evolved significantly over the decades.

The historical context reveals that gender pay discrimination has never been merely about individual cases of unfair treatment. It represents a systematic undervaluation of women’s work that has persisted across generations, creating economic disadvantages that compound over time and affect entire families and communities.

Understanding Today’s Legal Framework

The current legal landscape for addressing gender pay discrimination involves multiple federal laws and enforcement mechanisms that work together to protect workers’ rights. The Equal Pay Act requires employers to provide equal pay for equal work, with limited exceptions for seniority systems, merit systems, systems measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or differentials based on factors other than sex.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides broader protection against sex discrimination in employment, covering not only pay but also hiring, promotion, and other terms and conditions of employment. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces both laws, investigating complaints and pursuing litigation when necessary to protect workers’ rights.

The legal framework has evolved through decades of court decisions and EEOC enforcement actions that have clarified employers’ obligations and workers’ rights. Courts have recognized that equal pay violations can occur through various mechanisms, from direct wage disparities to more subtle practices that systematically undervalue women’s contributions.

Recent EEOC cases demonstrate the continued relevance and strength of these legal protections. These enforcement actions show that discrimination persists across industries and job levels, but also that the legal system provides meaningful remedies when violations occur.

Recognizing Common Forms of Pay Discrimination

Gender pay discrimination manifests in various forms, some more obvious than others. Direct wage disparities for identical positions represent the most straightforward violations, but discrimination often operates through more subtle mechanisms that can be equally harmful to workers’ economic interests.

Job segregation remains a significant issue, where employers steer women and men into different positions with artificially created distinctions that justify pay differences. This practice violates equal pay principles when the positions require substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibility, regardless of different job titles or superficial distinctions.

Pay transparency restrictions create another barrier to identifying discrimination. When employers prohibit employees from discussing compensation, workers cannot easily determine whether pay disparities exist. The EEOC has successfully challenged such policies as potential retaliation against protected activity, recognizing that transparency helps uncover discrimination.

Workplace discrimination also includes denying advancement opportunities that would lead to higher compensation, providing inferior benefits packages, and subjecting women to different performance standards or evaluation criteria that affect pay outcomes. These practices can be just as damaging as direct wage disparities and may be easier to conceal from affected workers.

The use of prior salary history to set new employee compensation perpetuates historical discrimination by carrying forward the effects of previous pay disparities. Many states have now banned this practice, recognizing that it systematically disadvantages women who have faced discrimination in previous positions.

The Far-Reaching Impact of Pay Discrimination

The consequences of gender pay discrimination extend far beyond immediate wage losses, creating ripple effects that compound over time and affect multiple aspects of workers’ lives. For individual workers, lower pay accumulates throughout their careers, affecting retirement savings, Social Security benefits, and overall lifetime earnings potential.

Research demonstrates that pay disparities early in careers create widening gaps that persist throughout a worker’s professional life. A woman who starts her career earning less than her male colleagues may never fully close that gap, even with subsequent raises and promotions that maintain the percentage differential.

Families suffer when wage discrimination reduces household income, limiting opportunities for education, healthcare, and economic security. These effects are particularly pronounced for single-parent households, where one person’s earnings support the entire family unit. The economic impact extends to children’s opportunities and life outcomes.

The psychological impact cannot be overlooked. Workers who discover they earn less than colleagues for equal work often experience decreased job satisfaction, reduced motivation, and stress that affects both work performance and personal well-being. This emotional toll represents another form of harm that legal remedies must address.

From an organizational perspective, pay discrimination creates legal liability, damages employee morale, and may result in talent loss as skilled workers seek fairer compensation elsewhere. Companies that fail to address these issues face increased turnover costs, potential reputational damage, and the risk of costly litigation.

Legislative and Policy Solutions

Strengthening existing legal protections requires both enhanced enforcement of current laws and new legislative approaches that address emerging challenges in the modern workplace. Pay transparency laws, already enacted in several states, require employers to disclose salary ranges in job postings and prohibit retaliation against employees who discuss compensation.

The Paycheck Fairness Act, introduced in multiple Congressional sessions, would strengthen the Equal Pay Act by limiting the defenses employers can use to justify pay disparities and allowing class action lawsuits for equal pay violations. While not yet enacted at the federal level, similar measures in various states demonstrate growing momentum for stronger protections.

Enhanced penalties for violations could improve compliance rates significantly. Currently, many employers view potential Equal Pay Act penalties as manageable business costs rather than meaningful deterrents. Increasing financial consequences and expanding available remedies would encourage proactive compliance rather than reactive responses to complaints.

State-level initiatives continue to drive innovation in pay equity enforcement. Some states have implemented mandatory pay audits, public reporting requirements, or enhanced penalties that go beyond federal minimums. These varied approaches provide laboratories for testing different policy solutions.

Employer Best Practices and Legal Obligations

Proactive employers can implement comprehensive pay equity programs that go beyond minimum legal requirements and create competitive advantages in talent recruitment and retention. Regular compensation audits help identify and correct disparities before they become legal violations or employee relations problems.

Establishing clear, objective criteria for compensation decisions reduces the likelihood of unconscious bias affecting pay outcomes. Job evaluation systems that consistently assess positions based on skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions provide defensible foundations for compensation structures.

Training managers and HR professionals on equal pay requirements ensures that compensation decisions comply with legal standards while promoting fairness and consistency. This education should cover both obvious discrimination and subtle practices that may create disparities over time.

Pay transparency initiatives, even where not legally required, can demonstrate commitment to fair compensation and help identify potential problems early. When employees understand how pay decisions are made, they are more likely to trust the process and less likely to suspect discrimination.

Regular review of compensation practices helps employers stay ahead of legal requirements and industry best practices. This includes examining promotion patterns, performance evaluation systems, and benefits allocation to ensure gender neutrality in all aspects of compensation.

Successful Enforcement Examples and High-Profile Settlements

Recent enforcement actions and settlements demonstrate both the prevalence of gender pay discrimination and the effectiveness of legal remedies in addressing violations. These cases provide important precedents and show the real-world impact of successful advocacy.

Google’s $28 Million Settlement: The tech giant settled a California equal pay lawsuit after a leaked internal spreadsheet revealed systematic pay disparities affecting Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and Alaska Native employees. The settlement required comprehensive pay equity reviews and policy changes beyond the monetary relief.

Activision Blizzard’s $54.8 Million Resolution: The gaming company agreed to pay approximately $54.8 million to resolve claims of unequal pay and sex-based discrimination affecting female employees in California. The settlement included requirements for independent consultants to review compensation policies and ongoing diversity efforts.

Disney’s $43.25 Million Agreement: The entertainment company reached a settlement in a gender pay discrimination class action, committing to conduct pay equity analyses and retain consultants for training. The case highlighted how enterprise-wide compensation policies can perpetuate historical discrimination.

U.S. Soccer Federation’s $24 Million Commitment: Following years of litigation, the USSF settled with the United States Women’s National Team for $24 million, committing to equal pay for both men’s and women’s national teams going forward.

Mastercard’s $26 Million Settlement: The financial services company agreed to pay $26 million in a proposed class action while committing to conduct annual pay equity audits and evaluate its career ecosystem for bias.

These settlements share common elements: clear evidence of systematic pay disparities, employer commitments to ongoing monitoring and improvement, and comprehensive remedies that address both individual harm and systemic problems. They demonstrate that violations carry real financial consequences while creating precedents that benefit broader groups of workers.

The Intersectional Nature of Pay Discrimination

Gender pay discrimination intersects with other forms of bias, creating compounded disadvantages for women of color, older women, women with disabilities, and other groups facing multiple forms of discrimination. These intersectional effects require sophisticated legal strategies that address all contributing factors to achieve meaningful remedies.

Research consistently shows that Black women, Latina women, Native American women, and women from other minority groups face larger pay gaps than white women. These disparities reflect both gender discrimination and racial discrimination, requiring legal approaches that address both sources of bias simultaneously.

Age discrimination combines with sex discrimination to create particular challenges for older women workers.

If you have experienced pay discrimination or have knowledge of unfair pay practices in your workplace, it is crucial to consult a reputable attorney with proven expertise in employment law. Firms like Helmer Friedman LLP offer skilled legal advocacy to help address these injustices. With over 20 years of experience, a strong history of case victories, and a commitment to personalized client support, Helmer Friedman LLP can guide you through the legal process and work to secure the justice and compensation you deserve. Don’t hesitate to reach out for a confidential consultation to discuss your situation.

Posted on

Accountability at CSU Is Long Overdue

Workplace discrimination and harassment hinder organizations in every way.

Accountability at California State University Is Long Overdue

Discrimination thrives in silence, and at California State University (CSU), that silence has been deafening. Despite its crucial role as an educational institution meant to foster growth and innovation, CSU has become increasingly synonymous with systemic discrimination, gender inequities, harassment, and a culture of retaliation that stifles its victims. If CSU truly wishes to uphold its mission of inclusivity and integrity, accountability must begin now.

A Dismal Pattern of Discrimination and Retaliation at CSU

The lawsuit filed by Dr. Clare Weber and Dr. Anissa Rogers against the CSU Board of Trustees is not only troubling but also revealing of a deep-seated culture of inequality. Allegations range from gender-based pay disparities to harassment, retaliation, and even coercive tactics to silence employees.

Dr. Weber, once the Vice Provost at CSU San Bernardino, raised concerns about unjust pay disparities between female and male vice provosts. Instead of addressing her complaints with the seriousness they deserved, Weber alleges that she was fired, with CSU offering conflicting (and untruthful) explanations for her dismissal.

Similarly, Dr. Rogers reported a toxic workplace where male employees harassed female staff without consequence. As punishment for speaking up, she alleges that she was instructed to “train the men” and later pressured into resigning under threat of termination.

These are not isolated incidents. A whistleblower has described President Tomás Morales’ alleged hostility toward female employees, contributing to what they termed a pervasive “culture of fear.” Meanwhile, CSU Chancellor Jolene Koester is accused of advising women to endure harassment rather than taking decisive action against it.

Even third-party investigations intended to uphold fairness appear tainted by conflicts of interest, further eroding transparency at CSU.

Corroborating Evidence Validates Patterns of Harassment

Dr. Weber and Dr. Rogers’s cases are not alone. A 2022 study by the California State University Employees Union reported that pay disparities within CSU disproportionately affect women and people of color, with women of color earning nearly 7% less than white male colleagues. The university seems content with allowing these inequities to fester without implementing systemic solutions.

Adding to this damning evidence is the case of Terence Pitre, a Black dean at Stanislaus State, who endured relentless racial discrimination during his time with CSU. Pitre reported racial slurs, targeted harassment, and even social media ridicule by colleagues. Despite filing formal complaints, the university took no meaningful action to protect him. Such dismissive responses not only demean victims but also signal that speaking out comes at an enormous personal cost.

Addressing Counterarguments

CSU might cite internal policies or vague commitments to diversity as evidence of their efforts toward inclusion. However, policies do not equal outcomes. Victims continue to highlight failures in enforcement and implementation, undermining any claims of genuine progress. Others may argue that individual cases do not represent the institution as a whole. But, as we’ve seen, documented patterns of harassment and discrimination across campuses reveal otherwise.

Legal Frameworks Exist, but Action Must Follow

The law is clear. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, employees are entitled to workplaces free from discrimination and retaliation. Likewise, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act highlights protections beyond federal provisions, particularly for issues like gender and racial discrimination. However, good policies are meaningless without consistent enforcement.

Employers, especially publicly funded institutions like CSU, have a responsibility to create and maintain workplace environments free from prejudice and abuse. CSU’s repeated failures call into question its ability to meet even these basic compliance standards, much less excel as a model employer.

Why This Must Stop

This is bigger than individual lawsuits. This is about transforming CSU’s culture into one where equality, transparency, and accountability take precedence. Without this transformation, CSU risks not only tarnishing its reputation but also failing the students, faculty, and taxpayers who depend on it to uphold the ideals of inclusion and justice.

Call to Action

Accountability must be non-negotiable at CSU. We demand the following measures immediately:

  • Independent Oversight: Appoint impartial third-party investigators to review discrimination and harassment complaints.
  • Policy Overhaul: Create enforceable processes to address pay equity, gender discrimination, and workplace harassment at an institutional level.
  • Support Mechanisms for Victims: Establish robust, confidential support systems for those impacted by discrimination or retaliation.
  • Mandatory Training Programs: Provide anti-discrimination training for all employees, with emphasis on leadership roles.
  • Transparent Reporting: Release annual diversity, equity, and inclusion audits to track progress and hold leadership accountable.

Students, staff, faculty, and broader California residents must lend their voices to this growing demand for justice. If CSU is to remain a pillar of higher education, it must prove that it values fairness and integrity—not just as platitudes, but as actionable commitments.

Step up, California State University. Equality can’t wait any longer.

Posted on

Discriminatory Scheduling Policy Gender Equality Settlement

Women firefighters also fight for equality. Workplace discrimination and harassment lawyers Helmer Friedman LLP.

Exciting news from Dallas County! This week, the commissioners approved a significant settlement of $1.65 million benefiting nine brave current and former female detention officers. These women took a stand against a gender-based scheduling policy that a federal appeals court deemed discriminatory, highlighting a critical issue of fairness in the workplace.

Some of our clients worked for Dallas County for over 20 years and truly believed they were entitled to full weekends off. It’s disheartening to realize that personal circumstances beyond one’s control could upend what should be a guaranteed benefit.

Back in 2019, the Dallas County Jail made a troubling shift in how weekend shifts for detention officers were assigned. Instead of being allocated based on seniority, the decision was made according to gender, with only male officers allowed to enjoy full weekends off. This sparked rightful concern and ultimately led the officers to take legal action against the sheriff’s department.

The settlement, approved on Tuesday after mediation following the appeals court ruling, marks a turning point. After deducting attorney fees and related expenses, plaintiffs Debbie Stoxstell and Felesia Hamilton received $176,789 each, the largest amounts among the group—a well-deserved reward for their courage and persistence.

A pivotal ruling in 2023 has changed the landscape for discrimination claims in the United States Fifth Circuit, which spans Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. As David Henderson, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, pointed out, this new direction aligns the Fifth Circuit with a broader, more favorable national approach to addressing employment discrimination.

Henderson shared the impact of this case: “Some of our clients worked for Dallas County for over 20 years and truly believed they were entitled to full weekends off. It’s disheartening to realize that personal circumstances beyond one’s control could upend what should be a guaranteed benefit.”

Adding to the conversation, Senior Sergeant Christopher J. Dyer of the Dallas County Sheriff’s Association, which champions fair treatment for sheriff’s department employees, clarified how the policy came to be. He noted that since the majority of their employees are female, and due to a shortage of male detention officers, a separate seniority system was created. Unfortunately, this led to a scenario where senior female officers could lose their weekend time off. A sergeant even mentioned that they believed it was safer for male officers to have weekends off compared to weekdays—an assertion that the affected women challenged, feeling their voices were overlooked as they raised concerns with management.

Consequently, the officers pursued legal action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on various protected traits, including gender. Although the district attorney’s office admitted in court filings that the policy was still in effect, they denied any claims of discrimination. The county argued that the scheduling changes were temporary and that assigning male guards was essential for certain roles involving male inmates, citing safety and privacy interests.

However, Dyer passionately argued that the rationale behind the policy simply didn’t hold water. “These ladies are working in housing, not in processing. The tasks they perform don’t significantly correlate with roles that require a male presence, such as those involved in intake or release.”

Race, Gender discrimination lawyer Helmer Friedman LLP.

Originally, a lower court dismissed the case in 2020 based on earlier legal precedents, with Judge David Godbey indicating the women had not experienced adverse employment actions. Initially, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals supported that view, but after a thorough en banc hearing, they revisited the case. In a groundbreaking decision, they ruled in 2023 that the policy was indeed a violation of the Civil Rights Act. The judges concluded that their previous definition of what constitutes an “adverse employment action” was too narrow, paving the way for broader interpretations that recognize discrimination based on altered terms and conditions of employment.

Dyer elaborated on the significant changes within the department, noting that leadership responsible for implementing the controversial time-off policy has since changed. He emphasized the importance of fair scheduling: “Whether or not someone has weekends off can greatly impact job satisfaction. Ultimately, no one’s work conditions should hinge on their gender.”

Very encouragingly, the recent settlement and official rulings will remain intact despite any changes in federal policy regarding workplace discrimination. This development not only compensates these courageous women for the challenges they faced but also sends a powerful message throughout industries everywhere. It encourages organizations to reassess potentially outdated policies and practices to foster a more equitable working environment.

This case serves as a vital reminder of the ongoing journey toward gender equality in the workplace. It highlights the necessity for continuous vigilance and advocacy for fairness, ensuring that future generations of employees thrive in an environment free from discrimination. With each progressive step, we get closer to a workplace where everyone is treated with the respect and dignity they deserve. Let’s keep the momentum going!

If you’ve experienced unfair treatment in your workplace due to discriminatory schedules, consult the attorneys at Helmer Friedman LLP for a confidential consultation. With over 20 years of representation in employment law, we’re here to advocate for justice and ensure a better future for employees everywhere.

This post is based on reporting by Toluwani Osibamowo.