Tag: gender discrimination

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.