Archive for the ‘Wrongful Discharge’ Category
This blog frequently blogs about sexual harassment in the workplace and the remedies available to employee where they experience sexual harassment.
Well, the television show, “The Price Is Right” has now been accused of sexual harassment in the workplace. A former model on “The Price Is Right” game show filed a lawsuit Wednesday alleging wrongful termination and sexual harassment by producers who continually humiliated and berated her, according to court papers.
Lanisha Cole names the producers of the popular game show, Michael G. Richards and Adam Sandler as well as their production company, Fremantle Media North America.
Cole began working on “The Price Is Right” in 2003 but beginning in December 2009, the situation began to deteriorate when Richards suddenly and inexplicably stopped speaking to Cole and began showing favoritism to another model with whom he was having a relationship, the suit alleges.
According to the court papers, Richards used policies “which never before existed” to limit her modeling work on the show and engaged in abusive behavior.
While called into a meeting about alleged sexual harassment involving another model, Cole complained about her own treatment.
Months later, Cole informed management she had to miss a day of work because of a family commitment and was told she would not be able to work for that week, the lawsuit says.
When she returned, she was told she was “holding the show hostage” because of her complaint.
We will continue to keep you posted on any developments in this new lawsuit. In the meantime, if you have problems with sexual harassment in the workplace, go to Human Resources or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to make a Complaint. If that does not work or the problems become worse, speak to an employment lawyer that handles sexual harassment matters. Feel free to call Scott Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation.
I have previously blogged that alcoholism is considered a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act in many circumstances. Old Dominion Freight Line has now found that out based upon an EEOC lawsuit filed against it.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit this week arguing that Old Dominion Freight Line discriminated against Charles Grams by stripping him of his position and offering him a demotion even if he completed a substance abuse counseling program.
The EEOC says alcoholism is a recognized disability under the ADA and that the company violated the law with its policy that bans any driver who admits alcohol abuse from driving again. The EEOC wants the company to reinstate Grams and another affected driver to their previous positions and provide them with back pay, compensatory and punitive damages and compensation for lost benefits. The EEOC is also seeking to block the company’s alcohol-related policy.
According to the EEOC’s suit, Grams, who had been with Old Dominion for five years without incident, informed the company in June 2009 that he believed he had an alcohol problem. The company suspended him from his driving position, which paid him nearly $22 per hour, including benefits. In compliance with U.S. Transportation Department regulations, Grams met with a substance abuse professional who notified the company that Grams would participate in an outpatient treatment program and could return to work. But Old Dominion told Grams that he wouldn’t be allowed to drive again for the company and instead offered him a part-time position as a dock worker as soon as it became available. The position paid $12 per hour without benefits, the lawsuit alleges.
The EEOC contends that the company’s actions deprived Grams and other affected drivers of “equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, in violation of the ADA.”
“Grams is a qualified individual with a disability under ADA … who can perform the essential functions of a driving position,” the suit says, adding that Grams and other employees wouldn’t need treatment to perform non-driving duties.
If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination in the workplace or had your job terminated based upon a disability, including alcoholism or substance abuse, feel free to call Scott Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation about your legal rights.
Long time no blog, now that summer vacation is over its time to getting back to updating my readers on whats the latest and greatest in employment law issues. A fitness companies recent settlement with the EEOC, shows that sexual harassment of employees is bad and even worse is when you retaliate against them rather than attempt to remedy their complaints of discrimination and harassment.
Allstar Fitness, Seattle, has agreed to pay $150,000 to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
The agency claimed that a Latina janitorial worker who worked at two Allstar Fitness clubs in Seattle was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her immediate supervisor. The EEOC also said that the supervisor forced her to have sex with him on a regular basis and warned her to keep quiet about it.
When the worker told the supervisor not to harass her anymore, he fired her the next day, according to the EEOC investigation. After she reported the supervisor to the company’s upper management, the EEOC and the worker claim that Allstar Fitness failed to investigate the matter and expressed disbelief in her allegations.
The EEOC filed the lawsuit in July 2010 on behalf of the 38-year-old worker, a mother of three.
EEOC District Director Michael Baldonado said the settlement will ensure that Allstar Fitness implements employee training, written workplace policies and a complaint procedure “to help prevent this from happening again.”
“No one should be forced to choose between personal dignity and the paycheck that feeds your family,” Baldonado said.
If you believe you have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace report it to your Human Resources Department or the EEOC. If the situation does not get fixed or if you suffer retaliation as a result, speak with a lawyer that handles employment law matters. Feel free to consult with the Behren Law Firm and Scott Behren on these types of issues.
A recent jury verdict against Xerox for almost $800,000 shows the repercussions an employer, such as Xerox, may suffer for retaliating against an employee who complains of discrimination in the workplace. Remember that most state and federal laws prohibit not only the discrimination itself, but also retaliation against any complaints of discrimination.
Hope Bailey-Rhodeman, an African-American female, claimed she had suffered retaliation when she had made an internal complaint of race and gender discrimination. Since she filed the claim, she was demoted to a sales position, but at the time of her complaint, she was a sales manager for Xerox and had a successful career spanning nearly 20 years. She had been promoted to sales manager, leading a team of 10 sales representatives who specialized in selling equipment and services to customer in state and local government.
Bailey-Rhodeman was consistently the highest ranked sales manager in her section, and was frequently one of the most highly ranked sales managers for the country. But all this changed in the summer of 2006, when Bailey-Rhodeman made an internal complaint to Xerox Human Resources, complaining that other managers were bullying her because she was an African-American female.
Her immediate supervisor learned of the complaint, and told Bailey-Rhodeman that he was angry at her for making him look bad, telling her “now you did it.” He then launched a retaliatory investigation of Bailey-Rhodeman. Without being interviewed, or even being told the specifics of the accusations against her, Bailey-Rhodeman was suspended, being accused of committing an unspecified “policy violation.” Three weeks later she was told she was being fired, but Xerox offered to pay her 12 weeks severance, if she would agree to quit. She refused, and threatened to sue the company.
In response, Bailey-Rhodeman was told that she was being removed from her sales manager job, but could accept instead a reassignment to a sales position where she would be stripped of all supervisory responsibilities. Otherwise, she would be fired. The reassignment was a demotion, which would result in a significant loss in pay. Nonetheless, without any job prospects, Bailey-Rhodeman took the reassignment, but continued to challenge the demotion.
After being demoted to the sales position, Bailey-Rhodeman lost approximately $100,000 per year in sales commissions. Her territory was split between two white males. At trial, Bailey-Rhodeman challenged her demotion as being in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination. The jury found in Bailey-Rhodeman’s favor on her retaliation claim, and awarded Bailey-Rhodeman $488,088 in lost past income, and $316,126 in lost future income.
Should you believe you have been the subject of discrimination in the workplace or retaliation, feel free to call Scott Behren and the Behren Law Firm for a free consultation to discuss available legal options to you.
Many of you man know that if you your employer has at least 50 employees and you have been a full time employee of the employer for 12 months that you may be entitled to Family Medical Leave Act leave in the event of your serious health condition or that of one of your relatives. A new Federal Court opinion has indicated that an employee may not only take that FMLA leave, but should not be pestered about when they will return to work.
A U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas opinion dismissed Howard Memorial Hospital’s motion for summary judgment and concluded that a jury should be presented with the Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim made by a hospital employee who said she felt pressured to return to work during her medical leave.
In the case, Regina Terwilliger, a former Howard Memorial Hospital housekeeper, claims that her supervisor contacted her on a weekly basis to ask when she would return to work after undergoing back surgery. One pivotal phone conversation revolved around Terwilliger’s work status, with the housekeeper asking if she was at risk of losing her job while she was at home recovering. During that conversation, Terwilliger’s supervisor responded to her questions by saying that she should return to work “as soon as possible.” Terwilliger decided to cut her medical leave short and returned to work a week early. A few weeks after returning to work, the hospital fired Terwilliger, alleging she stole from another hospital employee. Terwilliger says she was fired for taking FMLA leave and asserts that the hospital deprived her of the act’s full benefits by pressuring her to return to work early.
“Interference includes discouraging an employee from using FMLA leave,” the district court wrote.
If you have questions about your rights under the Family Medical Leave Act or FMLA, call Scott Behren and the Behren Law Firm.
So there has been quite a bit of publicity in the news about the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, but many may be surprised to know that there are still few protections in the workplace against sexual orientation discrimination.
Sexual orientation discrimination includes being treated differently or harassed because of your real or perceived sexual orientation — whether gay, lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual.
Federal Law
Although federal laws, such as Title VII and the ADA protect people from workplace discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, and disability, there is no federal law that specifically outlaws workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. (Federal government workers are protected from such discrimination.) Attempts to pass federal legislation that would outlaw sexual orientation discrimination in private workplaces have been unsuccessful to date.
Read the rest of this entry »
An Orlando woman has teamed up with high-powered attorney Gloria Allred to sue her former employer for gender discrimination and retaliation, after she said she was sexually harassed by managers who commented on her breasts.
Amy-Erin Blakely filed the lawsuit in an Orange County, Florida court on Wednesday and said the harassment at The Devereux Foundation went on for about five years. Blakely managed 900 employees at the nonprofit behavioral health organization that also provides foster and adoptive assistance. Blakely says she worked for the organization in Orlando until she was fired last year after she accused managers of sexual harassment.
“It was very humiliating to know that senior members of our management team would focus on my breasts as opposed to my performance on the job,” said Blakely at a Los Angeles press conference Wednesday.
“She also alleges that someone in management talked about how large her breasts were and that she needed to ‘hide them,’” Allred told the station.
Blakely said she always dressed professionally, was an exemplary worker and had never before been reprimanded. In fact, she said she was promoted and given raises eight times in 13 years. The 43-year-old had risen to the position of Assistant Executive Director, but claims she couldn’t advance any further because her managers said she was “too sensual.”
As many readers of my blog are well aware, sexual harassment in the workplace is prohibited by Florida and Federal law. In addition, if you complain to your employer about sexual harassment in your workplace and are retaliated against or fired, that is simillarly a violation of Federal and Florida law.
If you believe you have been the victim of sexual harassment or retaliation in the workplace, feel free to contact the Behren Law Firm or another attorney experienced in employment law matters.
More and more in the news today, there is frequent coverage of sexual harassment lawsuits. In most cases, these involve an employee and one of their employer’s employees. However, recent cases indicate that employers may also be responsible for sexual harassment of third parties and/or customers if they are aware of the harassment but fail to remedy or address it.
On September 27, 2010, the EEOC filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Beacon Hill Investments Corp., which does business as Synergy Home Care, on behalf of a group of female employees assigned to care for one of the employer’s home bound male clients. The female employees’ duties included sleeping at the client’s home overnight. The client allegedly fondled the female employees, made suggestive comments to them, and accosted them in their sleep. The employees allegedly complained to several managers and requested to be transferred. The employer is accused of ignoring their complaints and failing to take any remedial action. The female workers then quit, allegedly because of the employer’s inaction.
The EEOC claims that, by failing to take prompt remedial action in response to the female employees’ complaints, Synergy Home Care subjected them to a sexually hostile work environment and constructively discharged them. The EEOC seeks permanent injunctions against Synergy Home Care to prevent future discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, and an order that Synergy Home Care institute policies and programs to provide equal employment opportunities for women which eradicate the effect of the alleged discrimination. The EEOC also seeks damages for the female employees, including: backpay; frontpay; out-of-pocket losses, such as job search expenses; pain and suffering; loss of enjoyment of life; and punitive damages.
Many employers and managers may not realize that, as the above-mentioned lawsuit urges, an employer may be “responsible for the acts of non-employees, with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the workplace.” 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(e). For an employer to be liable for non-employee harassment, the employee must show that: (i) he or she was subjected to unlawful harassment on the basis of his or her sex; (ii) the harassment was unwelcome; (iii) the harassment was severe or pervasive enough to affect a term, condition, or privilege of his or her employment, and (iv) the employer knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment by the third-party and failed to take prompt remedial action.
So in the event you, as an employee, are sexually harassed by your employer or third parties such as their customers, and the employer has knowledge of what is taking place, you may want to file a complaint with the EEOC or contact and experienced employment lawyer to address these issues.
I have blogged on many occasions about the Americans with Disabilities Act or ADA. This statute and the amendments to it prevent an employer from discriminating against an employee due to an actual or perceived disability. This act not only includes termination or demotions, but also requires that an employer provide accommodations to those with qualified disabilities. For many years, the scope of this act was severely limited due to several rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court, but due to recent amendents by Congress, the scope of this act has now been expanded to include many different kinds of disabilities.
It seems the most recent disability that will now be covered under the ADA is obesity. The EEOC has recently filed suit against Resources for Human Development (RHD), a national non-profit human services organization, claiming it fired a child-care worker because she was obese. The agency claims the firing violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The case involves Lisa Harrison, who worked with young children of mothers undergoing treatment for addiction in an RHD-run facility in suburban New Orleans.
The EEOC alleges that Harrison was fired because RHD perceived Harrison as being substantially limited in a number of major life activities, including walking, because of her weight, the EEOC claims. But the agency says Harrison was able to perform all of the essential functions of her position. Before the EEOC filed suit, Harrison died. Her private interests will be represented in the lawsuit by her estate.
Up to this point, many courts have ruled that obesity does not fall into the category of disability under the ADA.
But with the passage of the ADA Amendments Act, the definition of disability was substantially widened.
The lawsuit is EEOC v. Resources for Human Development, U.S. Dist. Crt., E.D. LA, No. 2:10-cv-03322.
If you believe you have been the victim of workplace discrimination due to obesity or the perception that you are obese, you should contact an employment lawyer to discuss your possible legal options.
Under unemployment laws, its is pretty clear that as a general rule if you quit your job, you can’t receive unemployment benefits. So what happens if you quit your job for a better paying job and than, thereafter, are terminated or laid off due to no fault of your own?
Well the Florida First District Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue in the case of Rachel Lakey v. Cracker Barrel and Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. In this case. Lakey worked for Cracker Barrel for about a month during the end of 2008. She then left to go work for the Peabody Hotel for a better paying job. Sometime thereafter, Lakey was laid off from the Peabody. Presumably the ducks did not like her. Its not clear from the opinion how long she worked for the Peabody. She then applied for unemployment and was told by the State of Florida that she could not receive unemployment since she quit her job with Cracker Barrel. This decisioin was then affirmed by the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission. So Lakey sought further appeal with the First District Court of Appeal pro se (without a lawyer). The Appeals Court reversed the decision of the State of Florida stating that “…nothing in the statute provides that leaving one job in order to take a better paying job disqualifies an employee later terminated without good cause from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.”
So Ms. Lakey gets her unemployment benefits. While in this case, Ms. Lakey was able to recover her benefits representing herself, I would not advise it. There are many different levels of appeal to contest a decision made about unemployment by the State. There are also many different deadlines and if you miss one, you will find yourself with no available remedy. So if you find yourself being denied your unemployment benefits, it would probably be a good idea to speak with an employment law attorney to help you out with your issues and discuss a course of action.