Employment Lawyer Blog

An ABC employee named Chelsea Stone filed suit in L.A. District Court on April 24th, 2009, claiming that Henry Ian Cusick, a charismatic lead actor on ABC's smash-hit drama "Lost," sexually harassed her; and that when she complained to her superiors at the network, she was fired in retaliation.

Due to the substance of the case and the high profile of the defendant, this harassment case has been getting a tremendous amount of attention from both the tabloids and the mainstream entertainment news media.

The lawsuit concerns events that transpired on October 16th, 2007.  Stone claims that, while working as an ABC employee, Cusick harassed, groped, kissed, and otherwise fondled her while she was working on the set of "Lost."  The plaintiff also claims the defendant touched and rubbed her back, grabbed her buttocks, and made sexual noises at her.  

Distressed by the ordeal, Stone complained to her superiors at ABC, where she had been working for over a decade (since 1997). But instead of responding to her complaints with sympathy and concern, so the suit alleges, the plaintiff's bosses actually fired her for complaining--just 12 days after the alleged incident took place!  If true, this act on the part of the network would constitute gross and illegal retaliation.

Stone's suit also alleges that due to her "severe mental and emotional distress," she suffered a miscarriage of her pregnancy.

She seeks damages pursuant to laws against sexual harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.  To date, the actor's representatives, ABC, and the production company in charge of "Lost" (Grass Skirt Entertainment) have all refused public comment.

If Stone's allegations hold up in court, it will not be the first time that gross sexual harassment and discrimination have reared their heads in the entertainment industry.  Hollywood's major talent agencies, in particular, are well-known as hotbeds of workplace abuse, sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.  

To wit, many entertainment industry insiders point to the 1994 movie, Swimming With Sharks (Kevin Spacey)--which depicts a Hollywood executive cartoonishly belittling and abusing his young assistant--as a relatively realistic portrayal of behavior that actually goes on inside many Hollywood workplaces, particularly the talent agencies.

If you've been subjected to sexual harassment or retaliation at work, stand up for your rights by contacting our attorneys here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum for a free consultation.

On Monday, April 20th, 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on behalf of a disabled job applicant, alleging that a United States Steel Corporation (USCC) plant in Gary, Indiana rescinded a job contract because of his disability. This alleged act, if proven true, would be in direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

No Settlement Out of Court

Initial attempts to reach a voluntary settlement arrangement outside of court were not successful. As the case of EEOC vs. U.S. Steel heads to District Court in Northern Indiana, legal experts across the country will tune in to gauge whether the matter will hold implications for other disability discrimination cases.

Hired... Then Not

The suit alleges that the applicant had sailed through the hiring process and had in fact been offered a position, when medical test results revealed his disability.  Abruptly following this revelation, U.S. Steel rescinded its offer without explanation.

Punitive Damages Sought

The plaintiff is seeking punitive damages as well as damages to compensate for loss of current and potential income.  In addition, the EEOC is going after an injunction to prevent the USCC from engaging in the future in discriminatory tactics against people with disabilities.

Case Part of a Trend?

This legal action is just the latest in a series of blows against U.S. Steel and other mid-Atlantic industrial companies, which have been savaged both by competition from global competitors and by the current mega-recession.

USSC One of Many on EEOC's Hit List

U.S. Steel Corp. has not been the only company on the EEOC's target list this week. As part of a wide-ranging push against job discrimination and retaliation across the country, the commission has, within just the last eight days:

•    Filed a pregnancy discrimination suit against an Arkansas based management firm;
•    Published a primer detailing best practices for employers who wish to avoid promoting a "culture of discrimination" within the workplace;
•    Pressured a North Carolina firm to settle a high profile sexual harassment and discrimination matter for five figures.

The attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum boast tremendous experience litigating similar disability discrimination matters. If you'd like help with your case, we offer free consultations. Contact us today through our hotline or website to find out more.

A chain of nursing homes will pay up to $450,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging that it punished Hispanic employees for speaking Spanish in the workplace. According to an April 16 article in the Los Angeles Times, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit said Skilled Healthcare Group Inc. enforced its English-only rule with Spanish-speakers but not with those who spoke other languages. This created different terms and conditions of employment for employees of Hispanic origin, a form of illegal national origin employment discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act.

The lead plaintiff, Jose Zazueta, was fired after he warned a co-worker in Spanish to be careful on wet floors he had just mopped. Zazueta, a janitor, speaks only Spanish and could not promise a supervisor that he would speak English at work. Other Spanish-speaking employees complained that they were punished or threatened with punishment for speaking Spanish to Spanish-speaking residents of the homes, or for speaking Spanish in the parking lot during breaks. Employees who spoke Tagalog and other languages were not punished. An attorney for the firm denies that it had an English-only rule and said managers encouraged employees to speak any language residents preferred.

Skilled Healthcare Group Inc. reached a settlement with the EEOC that includes a consent decree. Under the terms of the decree, the firm will pay at least $180,000 to 53 current and former employees, provide English classes, conduct annual anti-discrimination training and designate someone to monitor future discrimination complaints.

Unlike employment discrimination based on race, rules about which languages an employee may speak on the job are not always illegal. However, those rules must serve a business purpose, and they must apply equally to all employees. From the description of Skilled Healthcare's conduct in the article, the alleged English-only rule served neither. If nursing home residents feel most comfortable in Spanish, it only makes sense to allow employees to speak with them in that language. And by allegedly singling out Spanish-speakers above other groups that spoke different languages, the firm raised disturbing questions about its motivations.

The Los Angeles Times reported that complaints about national origin discrimination on the job are on the rise, with EEOC filings up 13% between 2007 and 2008. Complaints about English-only rules were only a small part of the national origin discrimination complaints, but still rose about 60% between 2006 and 2008. At Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, we specialize in fighting all types of discrimination and other mistreatment of employees. If you believe you or a loved one may be a victim, please contact us to learn more about how we can help.

The Cracker Barrel chain of restaurants and "old country stores" has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Nashville Tennessean reported April 9. The claim, which was brought by the EEOC, alleged that seven female employees at a Cedar Bluff, Tenn. store were repeatedly subjected to unwanted jokes and sexual remarks by their colleagues as well as the store's managers and general manager. The women complained to supervisors and to a toll-free complaint number, the article said, but the company took no action. According to an EEOC press release, management also retaliated against two of the women who complained by moving them to a part of the restaurant where tips were lower.

The settlement includes several court orders as well as $255,000 in compensation. The settlement agreement also requires the restaurant chain to:

• stop sexual harassment and retaliation, and change its policies for dealing with that behavior;
• conduct anti-sexual harassment training for all employees at the restaurant for three years;
• maintain and report sexual harassment complaints for at least three years;
• post notices about the settlement, its anti-sexual harassment policies, the number of its toll-free complaint hotline and a statement that anonymous complaints will be investigated.

The Tennessean reported that training had already begun.

Unfortunately, this is another in a long line of employment discrimination lawsuits against the Cracker Barrel. The company gained national notoriety in the 1990s and early 2000s after allegations surfaced that employees -- including managers -- discriminated against African American and mixed-race customers and employees. In 1991, it became a boycott target for the gay and lesbian community after it fired employees for being gay and instituted a policy requiring "normal heterosexual values." (This policy was rescinded in 2002.) And in 2006, it settled a sexual harassment and racial discrimination suit for $2 million. That settlement also included a consent decree forbidding retaliation and requiring employee training.

Clearly, not all Cracker Barrel employees have learned something from these experiences. Even if they do not value a workplace free of discrimination and harassment, it is surprising that Cracker Barrel management isn't thinking about its bottom line. Racial discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation are also illegal -- and after nearly two decades of lawsuits and millions of dollars in settlements, the company must realize that it's just not worth the cost.

Money can't undo the emotional and social harms of discrimination, but for many of the victims we represent at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, it's a way to defray the financial effects of discrimination and retaliation -- and, perhaps, to make employers think twice the next time.

The case of Kimberlie Webb -- the Philadelphia Police officer whose department superiors disciplined her for wearing a hijab (a Moslem headscarf) while on duty -- took a new twist on April 12, when the Third Circuit Court rejected her last ditch appeal.

Background

Ms. Webb's case has stirred debate among religious discrimination scholars and ideological advocates alike. The situation began when she refused to remove her headscarf while on patrol; this act violated Philadelphia's City Police Directive #78, which prohibits on-duty officers from wearing religious symbols. Ms. Webb's supervisors reprimanded her in accordance with the regulation. To protest this response, she brought her complaint to the Philadelphia Police Commissioner. But although the Commissioner was himself a Moslem, he refused to exculpate her and instead ordered her suspended for two weeks.

Lawsuit and Appeal

Ms. Webb then filed a religious discrimination claim against the city, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in her legal argument. (Some case commentators who specialize in workplace discrimination theory objected to this strategy as imprecise. They argued that Ms. Webb should have filed a claim pursuant to the First Amendment.) In any event, the case was rejected. Ms. Webb then appealed to the Third Circuit Court, which upheld the decision of the lower court that the disciplinary actions taken against her were indeed legal and Constitutional.

Implications

The main reason Ms. Webb's seemingly reasonable request to wear religious garb on the job was denied has to do with a concept called religious neutrality. Basically, police officers are supposed to act as neutral enforcers of the law -- they cannot be seen as endorsing a certain religion by advertising its symbols (e.g. Moslem hijab, Christian cross, Jewish yarmulke). In other words, a law enforcement agent must play the role of a religiously neutral official, even if her personal convictions are strongly religious.

Indeed, even though Ms. Webb lost her religious discrimination suit, the fact that the Court denied her request can, in a sense, be seen as good news for advocates of freedom of expression, in that the Court explicitly valued this principle of religious neutrality as profoundly important.