Employment Lawyer Blog

Last Friday, Lois Martin won a $35,000 judgment against Mario Guevara, a former Dallas County Deputy Mario Guevara, pursuant to allegations that Guevara had harassed her and made explicit sexual advances towards her at work. The jury in the trial awarded Martin $25,000 in damages as well as $10,000 for pain and anguish. The jury further found that Dallas County itself was not liable for Guevara's actions. County representatives successfully argued that the government responded effectively after Martin reported the harassment.

Here's some detailed background on the case:

Lois Martin joined the constable office of Precinct 5 in 2002. In 2008, voters elected a new constable, Jaime Cortes, who transferred Martin to a new division to be tutored and trained by Deputy Guevara.

Martin initially looked at this opportunity as a dream job, but it quickly "turned into a nightmare," when Guevara purportedly made advances on her. According to an AP report: "He tried to touch her and told her she looked fine and had a nice butt... he wanted to give her a massage and made repeated suggestive remarks about her body and her smell."

Martin at first shied away from speaking to Cortes about what was going on, but then Guevara sent her an explicit and uncouth text message. She forwarded this message to human resources. Guevara immediately resigned. Martin feared that she would be retaliated against... and she claims she was. After the report, she was investigated for parking in a "no parking" area.

Although Martin lost her case against Dallas County, she and two other deputies succeeded in getting Cortes to resign from office in 2010, after leveling multiple allegations, ranging from incompetence to misuse of county property to criminal conduct.

After Cortes resigned, Beth Villarreal stepped into serve out the term as the new Precinct 5 constable.

As Martin's story suggests, dealing with sexual harassment, retaliation, and other employer misconduct can be a stressful and fraught process, even if the facts are on your side and if your Human Resources department offers compassionate and immediate assistance.

For peace of mind -- and to make sure that you are talking full advantage of the resources that the law provides you -- get in touch with a trained employment discrimination firm for a free consultation. Connect with lawyers at the law firm of Joseph & Kirschenbaum now at www.jhllp.com or 866-348-7394.

On January 14th, Miriam O'Reilly, a 51-year-old British television host, won an age discrimination case against the British Broadcast Service (BBC) in a widely-publicized London employment case. O'Reilly, who had hosted the BBC show Countryfile about rural happenings in England, was fired by BBC in early 2009.

Did age have anything to do with her firing? You be the judge. According to an AP article, "one colleague offered her hair dye," another told her "it's time for Botox," and a third said "her wrinkles could be a problem in this new era of high-definition TV." Furthermore, witnesses for O'Reilly "testified about television's relentless demand for 'refreshing faces' and 'spring chickens.'"

The Employment Tribunal, the British independent judicial organization which determines disputes between employers and employees, ruled that it was legitimate for the BBC to try to appeal to younger viewers but that it was not acceptable to choose "younger presenters" so as to "pander to the assumed prejudices of some younger viewers."

Although the BBC has since apologized, O'Reilly's case has stoked passionate interest not just from employment discrimination blogs but also from outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian, a large British paper.

Age discrimination has become an enormous issue over the past few years and it's not just because institutions like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have been calling more businesses to task. The Baby Boomer generation (anyone born between 1946 and 1964) has been getting older and this potentially implies a potential tectonic shift in the way aging and elderly workers will be treated in the United States and Western Europe. Given the Boomers' history of anti-authoritarianism, it's unlikely that the people in this generation (who constitute an enormous demographic block) will quietly accede to prejudice and discrimination.

If someone or you care about has suffered from age discrimination, sexual harassment, or other mistreatment at your workplace, you may have a significant recourse to demand restitution from your employer, better treatment, and perhaps even punitive damages.

The resources that laws like the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) afford for claimants like you may surprise you in their diversity and force. Get in touch with the law firm of Joseph & Kirschenbaum today at JHLLP or 866-348-7394 for a comprehensive, free and confidential consultation about your workplace problem.

Last week, the Manhattan City Commission (the Manhattan in Kansas that is) approved a local ordinance by a 3-to-2 vote that will make it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity. Although Kansas law offers protection from discrimination in terms of housing, accommodations, and employment based on disability, ancestry, national origin, age, religion, color, sex, and race, there is no law which offers blanket protection for either gender identity or sexual orientation.

Indeed, the controversial measure - which was supported by the Kansas Equality Commission - made Manhattan only the second city in Kansas to pass an ordinance to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation and the first in the state to make it illegal to discriminate based on gender identity. Joshua McGinn, a member of a Kansas Human Rights Board, acknowledged that many local residents had concerns about the ordinance. He sought to reassure these citizens with this statement: "I hope that Manhattan residents know that there is nothing in this ordinance to be afraid of - it's absolutely a statement of equal protection for all people."

That said, many community members have voiced concerns about the ordinance - and not just over the ethics of prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Loren Pepperd, a Manhattan commissioner, worried that the terms defined in the ordinance were unclear: "a lot of these terms that a lot of people in the ordinance didn't understand...that's why I am saying I think the ordinance as written is flawed and ambiguous."

During the debate over the ordinance, the Manhattan Commissioners vigorously argued how, specifically, to define "gender identity." They ultimately settled on the following definition: "A person's good faith and continuing presentation of that person's gender related identity, appearance, mannerisms or other gender related characteristics, which may or may not be consistent with the person's biological sex."

Such a case would normally be contained to local news outlets, but debates over gender identity and sexual orientation politics tend to act as lightning rods and inspire broader, vigorous discussions about the essence of human rights and equality in modern America. The Manhattan vote piqued analysis from pundits located as far away as the "Bigger Manhattan" in New York City.

Theoretical discussions aside... if you or a co-worker has been victimized by gender discrimination, sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation, or other employer mistreatment, you may have a surprising arsenal of resources at your disposal. Get in touch with the legal team at Joseph & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394 or www.jhllp.com to get a free and confidential case evaluation today.

A sexual harassment case from across the pond in London, England has galvanized pundits on both sides of the Atlantic. The matter concerns a 68-year-old woman, Bianca Revrenna, who stands accused of sexually harassing shop worker Konstantinos Kalomoiris by "slapping him on the bottom three times." According to the UK publication Metro Reporter, Revrenna "was savoring [tapping younger employees]" and told Konstantinos: "I do that to all the boys."

The harassment allegedly took place between late 2009 and early 2010 at the UK retail store John Lewis.

The story has piqued debate for two main reasons:

#1. It's a sexual harassment story involving an older woman harassing a younger man.

The majority of harassment cases that get attention in the popular press involve men harassing younger women.

#2. Kalomoiris' coworkers have declared him to be "hypersensitive."

According to Stewart Dawson, a personnel manager for John Lewis who investigated the allegations, "Kostas was easily upset. Staff had regular conversations with him about him being oversensitive. Some managers described him as hypersensitive...On one occasion [he] refused to sign a card for a senior partner because he said she had once been rude to him."

This counteraccusation - that the plaintiff had been "hypersensitive" to normal, friendly behavior -- sounds, in a way, like a variation of the "she was asking for it" (because she dressed provocatively or acted flirtatiously, etc) defense sometimes egregiously employed in sexual assault cases.

That said, even the most staunch victims' rights advocates will admit that there must be a line between "hypersensitivity" and "normal, appropriate sensitivity."

So where do you draw that line?

It's always hard to say. It's a judgment that must be made in context. On the one hand, it's clearly not okay if your boss persistently asks you out and gropes you and/or fires or demotes you because you won't engage in flirtatious play. But where do you cross the line from appropriate touching to inappropriate touching? If you give an employee a backslap for a job well done, is that inappropriate? It actually might be, depending on the relationship and the context in which the backslap was given.

Many pundits blame today's "overly litigious" environment for making workplace cultures too formal and too rigid. But for every clear case of "hypersensitivity," it's a fair bet that you can find several other cases of "over the line" behavior from bosses or fellow employees.

If you have personally experienced gender discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation at work, get a free consultation from a reputable employment rights law firm. Call 866-348-7394 now to schedule your consultation with Joseph & Kirschenbaum, or peruse www.jhllp.com for additional resources about sexual harassment and gender discrimination.

Last week, an Employment Standards Branch Division in Canada awarded $229,000 to 57 tree planters for wage and hour violations - including vacation pay and overtime owed.

The workers for Khaira Enterprises allegedly spent several months last year laboring under grueling conditions. They were grossly underpaid, forced to toil without being adequately fed, compelled to share dirty toilets and work up to 15 hours a day. In addition, employment discrimination and harassment may have occurred. According to a report in the Vancouver Sun: "one man said an employer threw a knife at him... they also complained of racial slurs."

Here are some ghastly highlights from the Vancouver Sun story (January 4, 2011) about the wage and hour violations at Khaira Enterprises:

• "The toilets were grossly inadequate to meet the needs of the number of workers."
• "The company... deducted $25 a day from paychecks for food and accommodation - even if [workers] brought their own food."
• Workers were not paid for holidays or time to travel between sites. Owners of the company were fined merely $3,500 for their mistreatment of the employees..
• Employees' accommodations were unventilated storage containers.
• The camp sites were "unhygienic and unacceptable."
• Employees were provided with unsanitary drinking water.
• Workers had a difficult time filing for unemployment and assistance because "the company recorded fewer hours than they had worked."

A spokesperson for the Federation of Labor for British Columbia called the fine against owners Khalid Bajwa and Hardilpreet Sidhu "a joke" given the deplorable conditions the employees suffered.

What's remarkable about the tree planters' case is that the workers might never have gotten help had outside advocates not stepped in. Even though Canada does not lack a vigorous regulatory system to enforce labor standards, these workers either didn't know about this system or didn't know how to leverage it on their behalf.

The above case illustrates a key problem. Employees forced to work under squalid or unfair conditions - or who are subjected to sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or retaliation for complaining about abuse - can wind up suffering a kind of "Stockholm syndrome." They may even make up excuses for their unfair employers. Indeed, often the hardest part of ending a wage and hour violation situation is that first call for help. The thought of having to go up against an employer who has tyrannized you and your coworkers can be intimidating and scary.

Fortunately, you don't have to fight your own battles. An experienced and powerful law firm, like Joseph & Kirschenbaum, can provide you with a confidential free case evaluation at 866-348-7394. You can also learn more about your rights and the law www.jhllp.com.