A closing argument for the former Desperate Housewives’ cast, Nicolette Sheridan’s wrongful termination lawsuit, is more likely to happen in the next hearing.
A surprising disclosure of a mystery man favoring Sheridan’s allegations against Marc Cherry and ABC has made a great twist in the actress’ wrongful termination lawsuit.
Allegedly, a mystery man affirmed that the Desperate Housewives show officials tried to cover up agreement related to Sheridan.
In the previous hearing, a jury ordered the man to appear in Court on Tuesday morning to determine if he will become one of the primary witnesses that judges will consider to hear during the final litigation.
The mystery man, who was identified as Michael Reinhart, left a message to Sheridan’s lawyer for wrongful termination last Sunday afternoon saying that he accidentally received an e-mail message suggesting to remove messages concerning Sheridan’s departure.
The man also noted in his message that he didn’t like to be involved in the case. However, Sheridan’s lawyer is anticipating that Reinhart would be their primary witness, while the opposite party just sees Reinhart as Sheridan’s last-ditch effort to save her lawsuits that have been once reduced by a jury during pre-litigation.
On Tuesday, if both parties will be able to present their final witnesses, a closing argument will possibly start.
Sheridan is fighting for her legal rights in her wrongful termination and battery lawsuit filed against Marc Cherry and the ABC network. In her lawsuit, she claims that she was hit by Cherry during a set and then kills off her character at the Desperate Housewives’ show upon showing her disapproval to Cherry’s misdeed.
In her lawsuit, Sheridan is seeking for a monetary relief of $6 million for damages.
Cherry and ABC denied Sheridan’s claims and presented numerous witnesses opposing Sheridan’s testimony. Therefore, Reinhart might be indeed Sheridan’s best shot for the case once Reinhart show up in court on Tuesday.
Unfortunately, in this modern society, employees are still in an uncertain situation. Despite the important role that employees play in the employment world, the benefits due them still do not correspond with their hard labor.
Experiencing wrongful termination is probably the worst part of an employee’s life. Nevertheless, there are still lawyers for wrongful termination that could guarantee employees with a settlement that would promote justice and assure due benefits in the end.
03/15/2012
03/08/2012
Montana’s Chief Federal Judge Making another Racial Discrimination Comment against President Obama
A Montana Chief Federal Judge was caught making racial discrimination comment against President Barack Obama.
US District Judge Richard Cebull has recently apologized for sending an e-mail containing a racially discriminating joke concerning President Obama. The said e-mail blatantly equated African-Americans with dogs, and raised questions about the President’s mixed racial ancestry.
Cebull said in his explanation that the offensive e-mail came from his brother. He affirmed that he just sent it to some of his old buddies and his main reason is that he is not a fan of President Obama and he is not actually racially discriminating.
In a news report, the LA Times said that they obtained a copy of Cebull’s e-mail message before he forwarded it to some of his contacts, apparently with a joke saying that the e-mail was a bit touching. Therefore, Cebull allegedly said, he was hoping that his colleagues would feel the same way, too.
The said e-mail features a little boy asking his mother why the mother is white and he is black. The mother replied to his little boy and said “Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember from the party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!”.
The e-mail was sent from the Judge’s official e-mail account at work, and the same immediately ignited controversy in Montana. Since then, there were calls on social media sites for his registration.
Although Cebull admitted his wrongdoing last Wednesday and has already apologized, a Montana Human Rights Advocate isn’t buying his explanation and instead said that it is quite hard to believe that a legitimate criticism of the president should involve distributing a joke that basically compares African-Americans with animals.
Cebull is definitely aware about the existing federal laws regarding racial discrimination in the workplace since he is one of the top judges in the state of Montana. He is a Republican. Therefore, everybody in his jurisdiction is expecting him to be the first person to impose equity and justice in his society. Moreover, he should also serve as a role model that does not discriminate anyone based on race, even though he is against a certain person.
03/01/2012
Tennessee Supermarket Faces Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
In a press release published in its official website, the EEOC announced that a Tennessee Supermarket is about to settle the employment discrimination lawsuit that the agency filed against the latter.
The Piggly Wiggly, which is owned and managed by MWR Enterprises Inc. II, is about to pay $40,000 to settle a race and gender discrimination lawsuit filed against it by the EEOC.
The lawsuit arose when the EEOC learned that the said supermarket violated the federal law concerning discrimination based on gender and race. Allegedly, two stores of Piggly Wiggly intentionally declined to hire African-Americans due to their race. The EEOC also found out that the said supermarket also failed to hire males for cashier positions at several locations.
The EEOC charged the Piggly Wiggly stores in Hartsville and Lafayette, Tennessee for maintaining a segregated work force and for establishing a practice of not hiring male employees for a certain position.
Using either race or gender as a basis for employment decisions or job assignments is a violation of the federal law under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
After attempting to reach a pre-litigation voluntary settlement through its conciliation process, the EEOC filed a race and gender discrimination lawsuit before the office of the US District Court for the Middle District of Tennesse, Nashville Division.
Aside from the monetary relief, the supermarket is also about to enter a four-year consent decree to establish a written policy stating that all job assignments will be made without consideration to an applicant’s gender or race. Also, the supermarket must create guidelines and procedures for processing job applications and provide training regarding employment discrimination to all its managers. Furthermore, Piggly Wiggly must keep records of similar complaints and post a notice about the lawsuit and settlement in all its store locations.
According to the EEOC’s Memphis District Office attorney, Faye Williams, the law stating that employers may not make any employment decisions on a race or gender basis is very clear. He further said that the agency will pursue in ensuring that such border to employment are removed.
Employers often forget that employment discrimination doesn’t only apply to current employees but also to job applicants. Discrimination on the basis of race or gender can be a disturbing experience. Therefore, an employee has all the right to file for an employment discrimination claim once they experienced such hostility.
02/23/2012
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.
02/16/2012
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.
02/09/2012
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.
02/02/2012
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.
01/26/2012
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.
01/19/2012
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.
01/12/2012
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.
Recent Comments