Employment Attorney Services' Blog

German Industrial Conglomerate Faces Racial Discrimination Raps

A huge German industrial conglomerate faces charges for allegedly creating a hostile work environment for one of their former employees in its Chicago office.

The former employee, identified as Montrelle Reese, filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against ThysseKrupp.

Reese, an African-American, was a sales representative at ThysseKrupp Elevator from November 2007 until January, 2012. Reese was assigned at the company’s Chicago office. He said he voluntarily resigned because he can no longer stand the hostile work environment created by his immediate supervisors and other co-workers.

In his lawsuit, Reese claims that his immediate supervisors are calling African-American employees with n-words and names and frequently have a black face routine at company meetings.

The Illinois Department of Human Rights found Reese’s harassment evidences as true and correct and with reasonable cause. The agency further added that the company’s wrongdoing created a hostile work environment which hinders the ability of the employees, including Reese’s, to perform their jobs effectively.

The employment law attorney representing Reese said that his client might be the only person making a complaint, but the company seems to carry on and accept the atmosphere.

A representative from ThysserKrupp denied the allegations, while Reese couldn’t be reached for comments, according to a news report.

It is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of race or national origin. Apart from the obvious discriminatory practices such as verbal insults and slurs, discrimination also includes employment decisions based on race, like promotions and benefits.

Once an employer shows any practice which can create a hostile work environment, an employee may file a racial discrimination claim.

When you feel like you’re being discriminated based on your race, do not hesitate to file for a discrimination claim whether you are with a group or alone. Don’t be afraid as long as you know you have strong grounds.

Understand Overtime Pay Under the California Labor Laws

Under the California Labor Laws, employers must ensure that employees working over 8 hours a day will receive an overtime pay. On the other hand, those who work 12 hours a day must receive twice the standard rate of pay.

If employees work on seven consecutive days, they must be paid 1.5 times the usual rate for the initial 8 hours worked on the seventh consecutive day and double time pay for any hours worked over 8 hours.

It is also noted that California employees are paid weekly; twice a month or monthly may be eligible for overtime pay.

Further, the owners should automatically provide meal breaks and rest breaks to their employees according to the California Labor Laws. Once the employer does not provide the said breaks, they shall be entitled to pay the employees with an additional one hour of the regular pay for every workday wherein the breaks is not provided.

A common misconception about overtime pay is that an employee on salary is automatically exempted from overtime disbursement. But in truth and in fact, all California employees paid in salary whether, weekly, bi-weekly or monthly basis may be eligible for the overtime pay.

A new state regulation comes out each year and a new state overtime pay law was established in 2004. Employers often accidentally or purposely misclassified workers as exempt employees to avoid paying costly overtime pay.

California is the only state with the most stringent overtime laws than any other states in the US. Failure to pay overtime pay is one of the most serious violations under the California Labor Laws.

In California, there are number of laws that protect workers and employees against unfair employment practices and labor law violations. Therefore, employees have nothing to worry in such events.

A Company Agrees to Pay Former Employee $120,000 to Settle Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

The DXP Enterprise Inc. or known as a DXP Safety Alliance Inc. in Albuquerque, New Mexico, has finally agreed to pay monetary relief to a former employee to settle a wrongful termination lawsuit.

The said company is about to pay $120,000 and other relief to Connie Brooks after the EEOC filed a wrongful termination lawsuit the firm from illegally firing Brooks. 

According to the allegations which the EEOC deemed valid, Brooks was fired from the DXP a few days after she was hired. EEOC investigations found out that Brooks was terminated from the company due to her back injury and age.

Apart from the monetary relief, DXP is also required to follow the EEOC’s usual protocol to settle the foregoing lawsuit. Reliefs include provision of trainings and changing of policies to avoid further discrimination practices, posting a notice about employees’ rights as stated under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and a letter reference for Brooks.

Every now and then, the EEOC is reminding employers that under the Title I of the ADA, it is illegal to discriminate employees based on disabilities. Furthermore, under ADEA, discrimination based on age (over 40 years of age) is prohibited. The DXP clearly violated said acts.

The EEOC’S Regional Attorney for Phoenix District Office in a press release has encouraged employers to be more vigilant in coming up with employment-related decisions. Additionally, decisions should not be based on myths, fears and stereotype regarding the applicants’ age or disability. 

Wrongful termination claims may be hard to prove but still, employees should not be discouraged from pursuing a claim especially if there are valid reasons for filing. Lawyers for wrongful termination can provide an advice and legal assistance on how to resolve an employee’s claim.

Jimmy Fallon and NBC Faces Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

A former employee recently filed a Gender Discrimination lawsuit against Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and NBC.

The lawsuit was filed by Paul Tarascio, a former stage manager at the Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Allegedly, Tarascio first filed a complaint before the office of the EEOC last July 2010 but he asserts that nothing happened until the agency issued him a “right to sue” which permits him to file for a proper lawsuit.

In his lawsuit, Tarascio claims that he was fired by the comedian Jimmy Fallon along with network officials after he expressed his displeasures for his demotion when a female staffer took his job. 

Allegedly, a female employee who was not qualified for the job took over Tarascio’s position as a first stage manager simply for the reason that Fallon felt more comfortable working with the female staffer chosen the replace him.

Tarascio further claimed that in his years in service, he never received any criticism or negative reviews about his job performance and as matter of fact, he only received appreciations while on the other hand, his female successor is a disaster and always rely on him. Tarascio added that his immediate supervisor implied that he would lose his job due to his gender.

Tarascio is seeking for a court judgment for his back pay and compensation damages in his lawsuit.

An employee experiencing gender discrimination in the workplace can seek protection under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). However, if they still feel like something is not going right, then victims approach an employment law attorney may have the right to file for a more comprehensive lawsuit.

US Insurance Company to Settle Disability Discrimination after Cancelling a Job Offer

The United Insurance Company of America is facing a two–year consent decree and is required to pay monetary relief to resolve its disability discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC in Aug. 2011 at the office of the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina after a due process.

In the said lawsuit, the EEOC claims that the insurance company cancelled its job offer to an applicant who was formerly a drug addict after learning about the applicant’s disability.

Craig Burns is a recovering drug addict and since 2004 has been enrolled in a methadone treatment program. In January 2010, the United Insurance offered Burns a job position in its office in Raleigh in the condition that Burns has to pass a drug test. However, Burns’ drug test results still showed a presence of methadone in his system. Burns submitted a letter of explanation to the United Insurance noting that he was participating in a supervised methadone treatment and is currently taking lawfully prescribed. The United Insurance just notified Burns that they are cancelling their job offer to Burns due to his non–eligibility.

Such conduct is considered as a violation to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Said act prohibits disability discrimination against employees and applicants.

In addition to the monetary relief amounting to $37,000, the United Insurance is required to conduct trainings regarding disability discrimination and to conduct an individualized assessment to determine if an employee or applicant is disabled under the provisions set by the ADA. Furthermore, like any other company who underwent settlements with the EEOC, the United Insurance Company is required to post a copy of its anti-discrimination policy at its head office in St. Louis, Missouri as a protocol.

People with disabilities should not be treated with discrimination, most particularly when it comes to hiring. Apart from the ADA, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also prohibits either private and government employers or agencies from discriminating employees based on their disabilities.

The different provisions regarding the disability law aim to protect applicant and employees with the defect against employer harassment. An employment law attorney could explain in detail each and every provisions set therein.

AirTran Airways Pilot Granted with $1 Million Wage and Hour Claim

A terminated pilot from AirTrans Airways was finally granted with more than $1 million interest for wage and hour claims as well as compensatory damages after the said airline subsidiary company terminated him for blowing the whistle. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration have required the AirTrans to reinstate the former employee to become a pilt again.

Allegedly, the pilot was removed from his flight status on August 23, 2007 for a pending investigation after he reported numerous mechanical concerns. On the internal investigation, which was conducted by the AirTrans on September 6 2007, the airline company said that the pilot was not able to satisfactorily answer a question regarding the Pilot’s Mechanical Malfunction Report (PIREPS). A week later, AirTran terminated the aforementioned employee

However, through the investigation done by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the pilot’s termination, the agency found out that the pilot did not refuse to answer any of the questions during the airline company’s internal investigation. Moreover, the pilot’s answers to the inquiries were right and appropriate. Such actions were considered as retaliatory.

Through comment, the agency’s Assistant Secretary, Dr. David Michaels said that retaliation of a pilot reporting mechanical malfunction is unusual for a company who values the safety of both employees and customers. He further added that Whistle Blowing Laws as well as the Department of Labor are created to the protect workers’ freedom of right to voice out safety concerns.

The agency found a reasonable cause to believe that the pilot’s wrongful termination was an act of retaliation in violation of the whistle blowing law of the Wendell II H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or the AIR21.

Employees ought to remember that if the act of retaliation involves termination, the employee could likely file a wrongful termination lawsuit under the whistle blowing laws. However, terminated employees may not fully understand their rights under the said law; therefore, workers would need the help of experts like the Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyers to help determine if they may file any wage and hour claim.

Matrix LLC. of Philadelphia Finally Settles Race Discrimination and Retaliation Charges

 

The racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Matrix LLC., of Philadelphia was finally settled.

The Matrix LLC., one of Philadelphia’s largest cleaning companies, agreed to pay the monetary relief of $450,000 to a class of its 15 former employees. In addition to their monetary fine, the company will also undergo the three year consent decree resolving their court case.

The employment discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC against the Matrix LLC, the issue of racial discrimination and retaliation stemmed when a Matrix high-ranking employee allegedly gave an order to one of their supervisors, Barbara Palemi, not to hire any more African-American cleaners. Palemi broke the official’s order and still continued to hire black cleaners amidst orders. Matrix fired her in retaliation for going against the company’s racial discrimination. 

Such discrimination qualified under the violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Said provision prohibits discrimination based on race and making it illegal for an employer to retaliate against any employee for going against the company’s instruction to make a hiring decision on a racial basis.

The said cleaning company is restricted from getting involved in any other racial discrimination and retaliation issues. They are also required to conduct trainings for their supervisors and managers about the prohibitions of racial discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. Furthermore, they must also submit a report to the EEOC regarding the discrimination complaints that the company will receive and post a notice of remedial. The consent decree must be duly approved by the US District Court for the District of Pennsylvania.

Same with other companies that have become a subject for litigations, the Matrix immediately cooperated with the EEOC to resolve the discrimination issue arising from their workplace. 

Knowing that the EEOC is always there to protect the employees and implement a fair labor act, everyone is guaranteed with a sure sense of security. However, there are some instances that abusive employers seem to be unreasonable enough not to perform righteousness, in this type of situation, you may ask for assistance from a Los Angeles labor attorney to resolve your concern.

Arizona Bank Sued for Age and Gender Discrimination

Obviously, companies still remain unthreatened after the EEOC’s thorough surveillance against existing companies that do not abide with the equal employment laws.

According to the latest news gathered from the official website of EEOC, the agency is suing the Bank of Albuquerque in Phoenix, Arizona for age and gender discrimination.

Bank of Albuquerque is a BOK financial corporation duly organized and existing under the federal government of Arizona, USA.

Recently, the EEOC found out that the said bank illegally discharged two managers, Elizabeth Morantes and Yolanda Fernandez for being above 40 years of age. Apart from the two managers, another employee was also disciplined by the bank’s management for her sex and age.

The EEOC initially tried to reach a voluntary pre–litigation settlement before filing the age and gender discrimination lawsuit at the US Court District for New Mexico in Albuquerque.

The lawsuit is claiming for a monetary relief for the three victims of employment discrimination and order prohibits the bank from being involved in any further discrimination in the workplace. The agency affirms that the two managers discharged were long time employees of the bank while the other one was unreasonably disciplined on a gender basis.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC claims that the bank violated the law imposed by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits age and gender discrimination. The same also provides protection to all employees.

Long time employees deserve to be honored and commended for all the efforts they have exerted in helping a company succeed through the years. Age and gender should not become an issue in the workplace, as nobody deserves to be discriminated.

Being treated unfairly or discriminated in the workplace on the basis of age and gender can be a disturbing experience to any employee. However, employees may seek justice from discrimination attorneys for the discrimination they suffered. In that way, their anguish and emotional stress may somehow be reduced.

FEHA Claim Filed by a Teacher Against a Former Employer Dismissed

A FEHA claim that was filed by a preschool teacher against Henry V. Red Hill Evangelical Luthera Church of Tustin, a school church in California, was recently dismissed by the federal trial court.

In her lawsuit, the teacher claimed that she was wrongfully terminated for her marital status. When the teacher applied for the position at the said school church, she was married and later on filed for divorce. She then met what would be her new boyfriend. They have been living together and soon had a child out of wedlock.

The said teacher has been employed at the school church since August 2002 until May, 2009 as a pre-school teacher and soon became the pre-school director. In reciprocation with her sworn position, every year, she is to sign a document setting forward the professional expectations for teachers. Under the school church directive, teachers are expected to serve as a “Christian role model” for the students as well as with the parents. As a part of the school church’s curriculum, the teacher taught religion and other related issues to the preschool students. She is further required to attend chapel with her class once a week.

Initially, the school church administration wasn’t aware about the teacher’s marital status. But when the parents discovered her living situation, the parents expressed their disapproval to the principal of the school church. The administration immediately responded to the complaints of the parents by terminating the said teacher.

The teacher filed a FEHA claim but unfortunately, her complaint wasn’t heard due to the fact that the church is a religious institution and that the teacher was fired because of violation of the church’s directive.

To further clarify the reason behind the dismissal of the teacher’s FEHA claim, based on the provision of California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), non-profit religious organizations are not included from their definition of an employer.

The teacher affirmed that the school church is not an exemption to the rule; however, the court stands still on its decision by stressing that the school church did not have any independent legal status aside from the church.

Furthermore, the trial court analyzed that the church’s decision of firing the teacher was based on religious matter and not upon her marital status. Therefore, no public policy has been violated. 

The teacher actually has a strong point here in filing for FEHA claim for her wrongful termination if she was filing the same against an existing employer under the FEHA. Sad to say, the school church where she has been employed was not operating and abiding under the laws of FEHA.

American Apparel to Settle the Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Them

A clothing manufacturer in the United States that houses thousands of employees is about to pay $60,000 and provide other reliefs in order to settle the discrimination lawsuit filed against them by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 

The lawsuit that was filed before the US District Court for the Central District of California which held the American Apparel Inc. liable for violating the federal law. The lawsuit claims that the said clothing manufacturer fired a garment worker while on leave due to his disability. The clothing maker clearly failed to accommodate disability in their workplace. In other words, they violated the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)

After learning about the lawsuit filed against them, the American Apparel immediately coordinated with the EEOC to settle the case. The company has adopted a comprehensive ADA policy, a wide-ranging civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability in the workplace. The American Apparel has agreed to provide training to its managers and supervisors about the ADA. They further agreed to educate employees about their rights in accordance with the ADA as well as how to seek accommodation under it. The American Apparel will designate a specific ADA coordinator to inspect if the policy is being implemented at the company. Apart from that, they are required to pay the terminated employee with $40,000.

Furthermore, the clothing manufacturer will spend one third (1/3) of the $60,000 settlement amount to sponsor in connection with the non – profit organization, a couple of seminars on the rights of workers and responsibilities of employers under the ADA.

Under the Title I of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to employees or qualified applicants with disabilities.

Due to the company’s failure to accommodate disabilities, they will be facing some sort of penalties. Apparently, aside from the amount due to them, they are further required to attend and conduct seminars regarding the accommodation of disabilities. At least now, they have learned their lesson that their committed violation is not that simple. 

The EEOC is enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. They are encouraging employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities since they believe that these people would at times surpass average workers. They are not hindered by their limitations but rather inspired to achieve more. The accommodations cost is often minimal and yet its benefits to both the workforce and employers.