California Employment Lawyers Blog

In recent employment news that our Riverside Labor and Employment Attorneys have been following, a high-end New York fashion designer is suing her boss for egregious sexual harassment.

Maria Adamkiewiczm a designer at S. Rothschild & Co., the well known coat company, carrying labels such as Tommy Hilfiger and DKNY, filed a lawsuit yesterday in Manhattan, claiming that she had to resign from the company in 2008 because of enduring continual sexual harassment from her boss, Michael Kaufman.

According to the suit, Kaufman's harassment started in 2006, when he suggested that Adamkiewicz and a colleague buy sex toys to use with their boyfriends from a Hustler lingerie shop that he brought them to on a business trip in Los Angeles. In other allegations, Adamkiewicz claimed that Kaufman licked her hand during a meeting and asked jokingly if that constituted sexual harassment, and also dropped his pants on another occasion. In another instance Kaufman reportedly removed his belt in front of an employee and jokingly snapped the belt, claiming that he was going to whip her with it.

Adamkiewicz, who created design sketches and developed fabric designs for the company claimed to have filed a complaint with S. Rothschild & Company's president Mark Friedman about the sexual misconduct. Friedman reportedly admitted that he was aware of Kaufman's actions.

Continue reading "High-end New York Designer Files Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

As Santa Ana Labor and Employment Attorneys, we have been following the recent announcement that Oldcastle SW Group, Inc., operating as United Companies of Mesa County, has settled a sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit for nearly $500,000, that was filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of a former female employee.

According to the lawsuit, the female employee was hired in 1998 by Delta Sand and Gravel in Colorado (now part of Old Castle Group, and doing business as United Companies of Mesa County), to drive a truck, dispatch trucks, batch concrete, perform plant manager duties, and act as a quality control technician--the role in which she remained until she was allegedly wrongfully terminated.

The suit charges that the female worker spent a majority of her employment doing what is largely considered to be the "job of a man." The employee alleged that once she became a quality control technician, she started experiencing blatant sex-based discrimination, with workers and managers making harassing comments based on gender and engaging in sex based name-calling that interfered with her ability to perform her job duties.

Many of the employee's male co-workers reportedly witnessed the sex-based discrimination and offered to support her if she filed a complaint. After complaining to the management, and naming the male witnesses, the men confirmed her allegations, although admitted fear that they might be retaliated against for standing up for their female co-worker. According to the complaint filed by the EEOC, the men were subsequently subjected to serious retaliation, including name-calling, harassment, and threats to keep quiet. Over the course of the next seven months, the woman and two of the male employees who stood up for her rights were reportedly wrongfully terminated.

Continue reading "Gender-based Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Settlement-- Gravel Company to Pay Nearly $500K" »

In recent employment law news that our Long Beach Labor Attorneys have been following, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (EEOC) has filed a lawsuit against the family-owned amusement party company, Pinnacle Amusements, on behalf of black employees, who claimed to be subjected to a constant stream of racial harassment in the workplace.

According to the suit, over his six years of employment as a warehouse employee and driver, Benjamin Henderson as well as other black employees reportedly continually endured caustic racial harassment, reportedly leading to a hostile work environment. The EEOC stated that on a regular basis the employees were subjected to racial comments and slurs, such as the "n-word" in the workplace. Henderson reportedly complained about the constant harassment based on race, and the owner of the company dismissed his complaints, encouraging Henderson to be a "tough guy" and to "handle" the racial comments and that the racially derogatory comments were just "jokes." Henderson also complained about the discrimination to the company's co-owner, but with no relief from the racial harassment.

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it is against the law for an employer to harass employees based on race. According to the EEOC, it is the responsibility of the employer to take action when an employee complains of harassment in the workplace. This lawsuit seeks punitive and compensatory damages, as well as injunctive relief for Henderson and the other African American employees who work for the company.

The EEOC claims that the owners subjected Henderson and the other employees to a hostile work environment where racial comments and slurs were disguised as "jokes" and the working employees were made to endure a constant stream of racial harassment in order to keep their jobs. According to Tina Burnside, supervisory trial attorney in the EEOC district office in Charlotte, NC, "Discrimination is never a joke--it is a violation of federal law."

Continue reading "Amusement Party Company Sued for Racially Hostile Work Environment" »

As California Employment Lawyers, we have been following the recent news of a California appellate court reversal of the $6.2 million verdict against the city of Los Angeles--from the lawsuit filed by black lesbian firefighter Brenda Lee, who claimed discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination in the workplace.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the 2nd District Court of Appeal made its decision today in Lee's case, where she sued the city of Los Angeles for alleged fire department discrimination. The lawsuit accused the fire department of discrimination based on gender, race, and sexual orientation and for failing to transfer her after she filed a harassment complaint.

Lee claimed in the lawsuit that her superiors put her through difficult fire department drills that neglected proper health and safety requirements, and subjected her to derogatory and inappropriate comments and actions.

The 2007 jury decision was reportedly the largest in a line of case settlements involving discrimination and retaliation against minorities and women within the fire department in Los Angeles. The cases have allegedly cost Los Angeles taxpayers more than $15 million since 2005.

Continue reading "California Court Overturns Female Firefighter's Racial, Gender Discrimination Case" »

Our Anaheim, California-based attorneys at HOWARD | NASSIRI, PC have been reading about the recent wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Dr. Ivor van Heerden, recent deputy director of the Louisiana State University (LSU) Hurricane Center, where he is accusing LSU officials of retaliation, that led to his termination.

Dr. Igor van Heerden, a professor, disaster science specialist, author, and hurricane researcher, filed a whistleblower suit against the university and university officials last week, claiming that while he led the Louisiana team conducting a massive investigation into Hurricane Katrina, he suffered retaliation and harassment for years after making comments that criticized the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' failure to keep the New Orleans safe.

After Hurricane Katrina, Dr. van Heerden spearheaded a major investigation examining the cause of the hurricane with the Louisiana State Forensic Data Gathering Team, called "Team Louisiana." Dr. van Heerden stated in his research that the levee design engineered by the Army Corps of Engineers proved to be a failure, and testified in front of Congress that this action was inexcusable, as the residents deserved to have proper levees that were secure. He also wrote many articles and published a best-selling book entitled "The Storm," where he attributed around 90 percent Katrina's flooding to the design failure of the levees.

According to the suit, University officials made attempts to quiet Dr. van Heerden from his public criticism and accused him of jeopardizing LSU's relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers and the federal government--risking LSU's posibilities for federal funding. Soon after the Team Louisiana report was released in April 2007, van Heerden requested as an expert witness on a lawsuit against the Army Corps of Engineers and the federal government. Van Heerden asked for permission to testify, and was later told that his employment would be terminated if he proceeded to testify against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Continue reading "LSU Professor and Hurricane Katrina Expert Files Retaliation and Wrongful Termination Lawsuit" »

In California employment news today, our attorneys at HOWARD | NASSIRI, PC have been following the announcement that Big Lots has settled a race harassment and discrimination lawsuit for $400,000, brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of at least five employees and group of unidentified class action members.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC accused Big Lots of subjecting a black maintenance mechanic as well as other black workers in the California distribution center to race discrimination and harassment--violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, or national origin. According to the EEOC, the Hispanic supervisors and Big Lots co-workers harassed and discriminated against the black workers by consistently making derogatory comments, slurs and jokes based on race. The company allegedly did not take the necessary action to prevent harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

Along with the voluntary settlement of $400,000, Big Lots has also agreed to a two-year consent decree, to implement new policy, procedures, training, and court monitoring to protect employees from being subjected to workplace discrimination and harassment based on race in the future.

The EEOC reports that race-based charges have historically been one of the most frequent types of complaints in the offices throughout the nation. In fiscal year 2009, race-based discrimination accounted for nearly 36% of the EEOC's private sector caseload of 33,579 charges.

Continue reading "Big Lots to Pay Big in California Harassment Case" »

In Monday's blog, our California Employment Attorneys discussed a recent episode of the news program 20/20, that reported on a number of teenage sexual harassment lawsuits pending against fast food restaurants such as McDonald's and Taco Bell--where high school students have reported sexual advances from their bosses or supervisors.

In one case against the fast food giant McDonald's, 16 year old employee Kasey Ramirez was reportedly approached by her supervisor, and taken into a back room, where she was touched inappropriately. Ramirez stated that she was scared that he would rape her, so she ran out and reported the sexual harassment to another shift supervisor. The supervisor reportedly told Ramirez not to be so upset, because everyone knew that this particular supervisor was a "pervert."

McDonald's stated that they have a strict policy prohibiting any type of harassment in their restaurants. After the incident with Ramirez in 2007, McDonald's claimed to have responded swiftly to the sexual harassment charge and proved to have taken the necessary actions to resolve the case.

In another sexual harassment case in Memphis, Tennessee, a Taco Bell manager pleaded guilty to raping two of his high school workers who were both 16. One of these workers became pregnant from the rape. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) the first victim worked with the manager for nearly two months before she was raped. The second victim was attacked on her first day on the job. Although Taco Bell denied any wrongdoing, they agreed to pay the teens several thousand dollars, and signed on to train managers on how to appropriately deal with teenage employees.

Continue reading "Young Workers in the Fast Food Industry at Risk--Sexual Harassment in McDonald's and Taco Bell" »

In recent California employment law news, the San Gabriel Hilton, run by Landwin Management, Inc., has settled two lawsuits for national origin discrimination and sexual harassment for $500,000, and significant remedial relief.

According to the first suit, filed in 2007 by the U.S. Equal Employment Commission, (EEOC), Landwin Management, the company that runs the Hilton hotel in the middle of San Gabriel's Asian community, was accused of not rehiring Latino banquet servers after taking over the management of the Hilton hotel in 2005. The former servers claimed that because they were not Chinese, they were not hired back after the hotel turnover, and were replaced with Chinese employees who were less qualified.

In the second lawsuit, the EEOC claimed that the female workers in the Hilton endured a hostile work environment that was filled with verbal abuse by the supervisor of the housekeeping department, who reportedly referred to the women as prostitutes and whores. The female employees also claimed that the supervisor scolded the female workers if they talked to men. The lawsuit states that these harassment complaints were ignored by the management at Landwin.

Landwin Management will pay $500,000 to settle the two lawsuits, and will commit to a three-year consent decree that includes company policy changes, such as aiming to hire Hispanic workers, training employees in anti-discrimination, and hiring an EEOC consultant to monitor the progress of these goals.

Continue reading "California Hotel Pays $500,000 in Racial Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Settlements" »

In a blog from last week, our Anaheim-based Employment Attorneys discussed the topic of pregnancy discrimination--after the settlement of a case involving a female security guard who was allegedly subjected to unlawful pregnancy discrimination, termination and retaliation in the workplace.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) was passed by Congress in 1978, as an amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to protect pregnant women in the workplace from any aspect of discrimination when it comes to hiring, firing, pay, equal opportunity for job assignments, promotions, layoffs, fringe benefits, health insurance, or any other term or condition of employment.

Under Federal law, pregnant women, or women who have conditions related to pregnancy must receive the same fair treatment as other employees. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, medical conditions related to pregnancy, or childbirth constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.

According to the EEOC, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act:

• It is illegal for an employer to choose not to hire a woman who is pregnant due to her pregnancy or condition related to pregnancy, or based on any prejudice from co-workers, customers, or potential clients.

• An employer cannot determine the work capability of an employee based on conditions related to pregnancy. An employer does have rights, however, to request doctor's statements before giving sick leave, or sick benefits to an employee who is unable to work.

• Female employees who are unable to work temporarily due to pregnancy or conditions related to pregnancy must be treated in the same manner as other employees who are disabled temporarily.

• Employers must permit pregnant employees to do their job, for as long as the employees are capable of performing their job.

Continue reading "EEOC Facts about Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace" »

A recent episode of the television news program 20/20 covered the alarming number of teenage sexual harassment lawsuits pending against fast food restaurants in the state of California. This news story is also related to our last blog, discussing the epidemic of students in high school who are reporting sexual harassment from supervisors and bosses, as reported by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The program discussed specific cases that are pending, focusing on a suit that was filed against Starbucks, by a teenage female barista from Orange County, California who complained of sexual harassment and being taken advantage of sexually by her 24-year old store manager.

According to ABC News, months after she began working as a barista at Starbucks, 16-year old Kati Moore was approached by her adult supervisor with nearly daily demands for sexual intercourse. Moore claimed that she was embarrassed and felt like the manager had control over her job, so she agreed to the relationship. After Moore's family discovered the relationship, they pressed criminal charges against the Starbucks manager, Tim Horton, who claimed he was unaware that Moore was 16, and pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor--a felony charge that lead to a four month sentence in prison.

Moore's family is suing Starbucks for failing to protect Moore from sexual harassment and discrimination. Starbucks stated that it does have a strict policy against sexual harassment and managers dating baristas, but no specific policy about relationships with teenagers who are under the age of 18. Starbucks also stated that because the relationship was concealed from Starbucks, it was a direct violation of company policy. The coffee company is confident that this lawsuit will be resolved with Starbucks not being at fault.

Continue reading "20/20 Reports on Teenage Sexual Harassment in the Workplace" »

As Southern California Employment Attorneys, we have been following the recent settlement of an employment lawsuit--where U.S. Security Associates will pay $79,880 for subjecting a female security guard to pregnancy discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation.

According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Margaret Gibson was an employee at the Marietta, Georgia facility, working for U.S. Security as a security guard. After informing her manager that she was pregnant, she was allegedly mistreated, subjected to discipline that was unwarranted, and made to endure sexist comments about the manager's bias against pregnancy in the workplace, as well as sexist comments about how Gibson would look in the security guard uniform. After completing and turning in her application for maternity leave, Gibson's employment was terminated on the same day. The EEOC claimed that her husband, who was also employed with U.S. Security, was also terminated, after he failed to stop his wife from filing a pregnancy discrimination complaint.

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) that amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, pregnant women or women who are affected by conditions that are related to pregnancy must be treated like other employees or applicants with the same abilities in the workplace. Discrimination of the basis of pregnancy, medical conditions related to pregnancy, or childbirth constitutes unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII.

Continue reading "Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit Settled--U.S. Security Associates to Pay $80,000" »

In a recent blog, our California Employment Attorneys discussed the seriousness of teenage sexual harassment in the workplace, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) fight to keep young workers protected and educated as to their employment rights.

In 2007, according to an analysis of seven years of EEOC data, restaurants accounted for the majority of employers sued by the EEOC over alleged harassment of teenagers in the workplace. In the study, dating back to 1999, out of 127 EEOC complaints involving teenagers, 72 were against restaurant companies, and all but 11 of these were sexual harassment cases. Restaurants paid out more than $7.3 million to settle teenage harassment lawsuits.

According to the EEOC, an alarmingly high number of cases are now being reported by high school students who have experienced sexual harassment from their managers or supervisors. The EEOC claims that employers who choose to hire teenagers have a responsibility to protect them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Under law, it is illegal to harass or discriminate against teenage employees based on gender, race, color, sex (including pregnancy), national origin or age, in hiring, firing, training, wages, benefits and promotions.

The EEOC states that when workers complain to supervisors about harassment in the workplace, it is the responsibility of the employer to take action and end the unlawful discrimination. The commission also stated that cases involving the sexual harassment of teenage victims need to be taken seriously.

Continue reading "EEOC's 'Youth at Work' Protects Teenage Workers from Harassment" »

In a recent blog, our Southern California Labor and Employment Attorneys discussed the current San Bernardino County claim involving District Attorney Michael Ramos, and a former employee--who accused Ramos of sexual harassment and retaliation.

According to a San Bernardo County memo recently released, the District Attorney's Office did not retaliate against Cheryl Ristow, the former employee who claims to have had an affair with Ramos.

Cheryl Ristow worked as an investigative technician for the District Attorney's office for seven years and filed a claim last year against Ramos for sexual harassment. According to Ristow, after their affair of over seventeen months ended and the details of their affair were about to become public, she was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation by three top officials--by being accused of trivial violations by her supervisors that were unwarranted. Ristow took a disability leave of absence for stress in July of 2009, and recently filed a $1.5 million claim against the county.

After the county authorized a $140,000 investigation into the alleged misconduct, led by a Santa Monica law firm, the San Bernardino County's Department of Human Resources announced that Ramos did not harass or retaliate against the coworker after their consensual affair ended in February of 2005.

Continue reading "District Attorney Cleared of California Sexual Harassment and Retaliation Allegation" »

In recent California Employment Law news, an employee of San Bernardino County District Attorney's office has filed a claim against the county for $1.5 million, after filing a complaint against District Attorney Michael A. Ramos in August of last year, for sexual harassment and retaliation.

Cheryl Ristow worked for the District Attorney's office for seven years as an investigative technician, and claimed to have been involved in an affair with Ramos for over three years, that ended in 2005. Ristow later corrected this statement to the San Bernardino Sun Times, and stated that the relationship lasted for one and one half years--from September of 2003 until February of 2005.

Ristow alleges that after the relationship ended and news of the affair surfaced in a local newspaper, Ristow was rejected by Ramos, and made to endure workplace hostility.

Supervising Deputy District Attorney Michael Fermin and Michael Smith, Chief District Attorney Investigator, are also named in the suit. The suite alleges that Fermin acted as the main conduit between Ristow and Ramos--when the story of the alleged affair was about to become public.

Continue reading "California Worker Files $1.5 M Claim against District Attorney and County for Sexual Harassment" »

As Anaheim-based Labor and Employment Lawyers, we have been following the recent California discrimination case brought against Giumarra Vineyards Corporation, where the company is being accused of sexually harassing a young female farm worker, creating a hostile work environment, and retaliation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, and claimed that the teenage worker was forced to endure sexual comments and verbal harassment, as well as inappropriate sexual touching by a non-management Giumarra worker on a daily basis. After witnessing the sexual harassment, a group other farm workers stood by the victim and filed a complaint with Giumarra Vineyards, reportedly one of the largest table grape growers in the country.

According to the lawsuit, one day after reporting the harassment, the teenager and the class of farm workers were all fired in retaliation. All of the identified victims in the case are indigenous Indians from Mexico--a reported minority in the Mexican community of farm workers.

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is against the law to harass employees based on gender, and illegal to retaliate against a worker who files a complaint about discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC states that when workers complain to supervisors about harassment in the workplace, it is the responsibility of the employer to take action and end the unlawful discrimination. The commission also stated that cases involving the sexual harassment of teenage victims are taken seriously, as are aggressive acts of retaliation against workers who stand up for their rights, and the rights of their colleagues in the workplace.

Continue reading "California Vineyard Accused of Teenage Sexual Harassment " »