Employment Lawyer Blog

If you or a close family member has contemplated "blowing the whistle" on your company or organization, you may simultaneously experience a number of conflicting emotions:

Fear

You might worry about your safety, your family's safety, your employability, the company's reputation, your ability to provide for your family, and more.

Excitement

Whistleblowers often wait months, if not years, to "do something" about abuses, environmental malfeasance, corporate rule breaking, etc. When they finally make the decision to call management out on their misdeeds, that decision can feel tremendously empowering. It takes great courage to rise up and speak your mind, especially if you face a "David vs. Goliath" situation.

Uncertainty/confusion

What are your rights as a whistleblower? What compensation can you expect if, for instance, your case is a Qui Tam case? What are the right steps and processes for you to take to protect your legal rights, protect your job (if possible), and protect your reputation? Whom can you trust to guide you to proper resolution and answer your questions along the way.

Anger/disappointment

As you initiate the whistleblowing process, you may experience waves of anger, disappointment, resentment, and sadness as you discover that once close friends and associates either turn their back on you, fail to offer effective support, or even side with "the enemy."

Renewed hope

On the flip side, you might be surprised by the gracious and generous behaviors, gestures, and attitudes of people in your company - and elsewhere - who look after you, protect your reputation, and even join you in your fight for justice.

A Whistleblower Case May be Different Than What You're Picturing In Your Mind

Whistleblowers, as typically depicted in movies and television, are often physically threatened. Maybe an angry boss or co-conspirator throws a rock through the window or commits nefarious and highly personal attacks. But these kinds of behaviors are far rarer than you might think.

On the flip side, you might not be prepared for the extent of the "shunning" you could experience as a whistleblower. Friends at work might feel intense social pressure to distance themselves from you and even to side with management against you. The social/emotional consequences of being shunned can be hard to take, even if you prepare in advance.

Moreover, studies by groups like the Ethics Resource Center suggest that retaliation against whistleblowers may be increasing. In 2007, the ERC found that whistleblowers were retaliated against 12% of the time; in 2011, whistleblowers were retaliated against 22% of the time.

For help preparing yourself and your family for a whistleblower case, or to respond effectively to retaliation, discrimination, or harassment, connect with the team here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Call the firm at 866-348-7394, or learn more about our services at www.jhllp.com.

Last October, an anonymous actress launched an age discrimination lawsuit against Amazon and its subsidiary, the Internet Movie Database (IMDB). For months, Tinsel Town has been abuzz with speculation about who the actress might be. The anonymous woman claimed that Amazon extracted her personal information from a credit card and used it to date her as a "40-year-old woman" on the IMDB service. She claimed that this information subsequently cost her work. In the words of the filing, it led to a "substantial decrease in acting credits, employment opportunities and earnings."

This Hollywood age discrimination suit struck a chord, even with many who considered the idea of suing Amazon to be excessive. After all, Screen Actors Guild statistics suggest that women over the age of 40 account for just 12% of film and TV roles. Meanwhile, in the general US population, women over 40 make up nearly a quarter of the population.

In December, a Seattle judge dismissed the woman's lawsuit on the grounds that she could not pursue the complaint anonymously. This led to the big revelation: her name. Drumroll please. It is...

Huong Hoang of Texas.

Hadn't her of heard? You're not alone. Turns out, the actress has appeared only so far in small budget films and minor TV roles. Her credits include Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver and Hoodrats 2: Hoodrat Warriors. (Huong's bio suggests that she can play character ages 26 to 33.)

Will the revelation lead to legal justice for the actress? Will all of the publicity surrounding her case lead to her being hired for a larger television or film project? Stranger things have happened.

On a more serious note, age discrimination in Hollywood and beyond is a silent but pernicious problem. Often, victims feel embarrassed, disempowered, and unclear about their rights. So they don't end up investigating in their legal options. Instead, they suffer poor treatment - even hiring or firing injustices - in silence. If you or someone you care about has been a victim of age discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, or other workplace mistreatment, the team here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can help you. Connect with the office today at 866-348-7394 or www.jhllp.com.

The U.S Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division has announced a major coup, after a federal crackdown on illegal practices at Italian restaurants on Long Island.

Investigators found wage and hour violations galore and managed to recover $2.3 million in back wages owed to nearly 600 workers at 46 Italian restaurants and pizzerias. The Department of Labor also leveled more than $200,000 in civil penalties against the employers for repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Employers apparently skirted overtime requirements, falsified payroll, and tried to escape from tax liabilities.

The Director of the U.S. DOL's Long Island District Office, Irv Miljoner, said that investigators found not only violations of minimum wage law and overtime rules, but also a massive number of employees being paid off the books. Some restaurateurs countered that the improper pay structure was necessary for them to compete - they argued that if their restaurants paid fairly, they would have to raise prices, and thus they would lose business to competitors.

This defense seems, at first glance, to make sense. However, once you really consider the logic, it reveals itself as absurd. It's like saying, "I beat my wife because she won't listen to me otherwise." If you can't make a relationship work - whether personal or business - within a legal or moral frame, you probably shouldn't be in that relationship.

The Department of Labor is now turning its laser-like focus on diners in Suffolk and Nassau counties, searching for wage and hour violations. Miljoner issued a statement about that investigation: "We're already finding what we thought we would find."

The attorneys here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum have led the charge against New York City restaurant wage and hour violations. Attorney Maimon Kirschenbaum has won fame (or infamy, depending on your point of view) for taking on the largest, most venerated restaurants in the Big Apple and punishing them for mistreating and underpaying their workers.

If you or someone you love or care about has been mistreated, harassed, underpaid, or discriminated against at a restaurant or other establishment, our team can help. Learn more about our commitment to justice at www.jhllp.com, or get a free, confidential, compassionate consultation by reaching out to us at 866-348-7394.

As the Herman Cain sexual harassment story recedes from the headlines, a different flavor of jaw-dropping sexual harassment charge has taken its place and sparked fevered reaction in the media and blogosphere. According to a Boston Globe report, 7-year-old Mark Curran is being investigated for sexual harassment for kicking another boy.

News reports suggest that Mark and another child got into a fight on a school bus on November 22. The other child choked Mark, who responded by kicking or punching him in the groin. Tasha Lynch, the boy's mother, allegedly encountered a lot of resistance from school officials as she sought to understand what happened during and after the fight.

Lynch reported that Leslie Gant, Mark's interim school principal, sent home a letter that threatened to put Mark on suspension or transfer him out of the school for endangering the safety of a student and for sexual harassment. Lynch was understandably apoplectic. She voiced her outrage to the Globe: "[Gant] said 'Mark hit [the other boy] in the testicles. That's assault. That's sexual assault.' I said: 'The kid choked my son first, and that's called attempted murder. [Mark] said he couldn't breathe.'"

The story touched off a sea of chatter in the blogosphere. The Huffington Post reported that this sexual harassment charge came on the heels of another similar case, in which a 9-year-old child from North Carolina was suspended for school for two days for "sexually harassing" a substitute teacher by calling him "cute."

Although it's almost never a good idea to prejudge cases without hearing all the evidence, it seem clear that some folks are testing the elasticity of "sexual harassment" (and "attempted murder", for that matter), especially when and by applying the allegations to children. It's frustrating because stories like these provide cannon fodder for critics of sexual harassment laws. These critics can highlight stories of a 7-year-old getting tarred with sexual harassment allegations and use them to make broad-brushed critiques of sexual harassment laws in general. In truth, thousands of women and men benefit tremendously from having these laws in place to protect them against unfair and often times scary co-worker and employer misbehavior.

But just as it is important to have laws against certain specific behaviors and public awareness of such practices and their due consequences, it is also important to be accurate when describing and drawing attention to unwanted behavior. Bullying and schoolyard fights, when they are just that, should be called just that.

If you or someone who you care about has been harassed or mistreated at work, get professional and seasoned assistance in properly classifying the unwanted behavior so that you can know your legal options with regards to stopping and/or enacting consequences for the perpetrator. Connect with the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at www.jhllp.com or 866-348-7394.

Herman Cain, the former Head of the National Restaurant Association and current GOP Presidential hopeful, once sexually harassed two female employees, according to game-changing allegations published in a October 31st article on the website, Politico.

Here is the latest on this politically explosive story.

Allegations

According to the Politico article, the two women "complained that sexually suggestive behavior by Cain made them angry and uncomfortable... they [ultimately] signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures."

The Politico reporters pieced together what happened, based on stories from various sources. Politico claims that "both women received separation packages that were in the five figure range." Problematic incidents included: "conversations allegedly filled with innuendo... and personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the association's offices."

Cain's Camp's Reaction

After interviewing on "Face the Nation" on Sunday the October 30th, Cain was peppered with questions about the allegations of sexual harassment. At first, Cain refused to directly comment on the Politico story, even after a reporter asked him point blank: "have you ever been accused, sir, in your life of harassment?"

Here is Cain's response, again per the Politico story, "he [Cain] breathed audibly, glared at the reporter and stayed silent for several seconds. After the question was repeated three times, he responded by asking the reporter, "have you ever been accused of sexual harassment?""

Days after the story broke, Cain continues to strike a defiant stance. In an interview with conservative commentator Sean Hannity, according to a CNN report, Cain said: "The American people are starting to see through this stuff, and they are sick of gutter politics... this will not deter me."

The Ramifications

While Cain's response superficially sounds defensive -- like something a grader schooler might say when caught red-handed -- without a full review of the facts, one cannot fairly condemn (or exonerate) Cain. Even if the harassment story turns out to have "legs," the story seems relatively benign, at least when you compare it with other political scandals that have grabbed headlines of late - scandals such as John Edward's alleged misappropriation of campaign funds to pay for his secret mistress, which he apparently did all while his wife was stricken with fatal cancer. Yet, Cain's relatively benign issue could conceivably alter his potential rise to US presidency.

Lessons We Can Learn?

We don't yet know the facts in the Cain matter, but the possibilities of what may have occurred and are occurring can still teach lessons.

1. Is it better to avoid issues that come to light that you thought were buried forever, own up to them (again) or at least acknowledge them and say that details are sealed by mutual agreement?

2. Even if someone settles with a plaintiff, including a gag order, the facts may anyway come out sufficiently to continue punishment. Exercising self-control is always the best defense. If you lose your temper or bearing and utter words that can be construed to be harassment, you may face long term, dynamic problems. In addition to possibly breaking the law and hurting another person, you never know where, when and what it will cost you down the road.


Sexual harassment cases - and cases of employment discrimination, wage and hour violations, retaliation, etc - can dog both perpetrators and victims for years after the fact. The best way for a victim to find peace, justice, compensation and a better and safer work environment is to connect with experienced,professional, legal resources which will fight to have things resolved in your best interest.

The team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester and Kirschenbaum can help you understand your rights and explore mechanisms for getting compensation and for coming to closure about what happened. Learn more at www.jhllp.com, or call the team now for a free case evaluation at 866-348-7394.

October 2011 marks the 20 year anniversary of the highest profile sexual harassment story in American history (arguably). In late 1991, Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas endured a blistering battle at his confirmation hearing, after a 35-year old law professor, Anita Hill, accused her ex-boss of harassing her on numerous occasions - while Thomas was working as the Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), no less!

An article published on the NPR website last week, "Thomas confirmation hearings had ripple effect," summarized the sharp and caustic atmosphere of confirmation hearings: "Hill described how her one-time boss pressured her to go out with him and how he subjected her to sexually explicit conversations when the two were alone in the office. "He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals, and films showing group sex or rape scenes," Hill testified. Porn films with names like Long Dong Silver were for the first time the fare of a confirmation hearing. In one of the iconic moments of the hearing, Hill described how Thomas had looked at a Coke can from which he was drinking and asked, "who has put pubic hair on my Coke?""

After Hill testified, Thomas responded with characteristic fury, categorically denying Hill's account and even accusing the (all-white) committee of engaging in a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."

All told, the hearings lasted over three days. They were parodied by shows like Saturday Night Live. Thomas survived the contentious battle to get confirmed by a margin of 52 to 48 - the narrowest margin in 100 years.

Many who followed the case believed that Thomas got away with something he certainly shouldn't have gotten away with. But advocates of victims of sexual harassment in some ways "got the last laugh." The enormous publicity generated by the confirmation hearings brought the issue of workplace harassment into public focus. Here is an astounding statistic from the NPR article: "in the year after the hearings, the number of sexual harassment claims filed with the EEOC nearly doubled, then tripled by 1997 and kept growing until 2001."

Other statistics show similar spikes in female employment gains. For instance, 20 years ago, the U.S. had only two female senators. Following the Thomas-Hill hearings, 5 more women were elected - out of nearly a dozen who secured nominations from major parties for Senate runs.

Did the change in attitude - and the increase in female empowerment - simply coincide with the Thomas-Hill hearings? Or did the hearings themselves serve as a kind of pivot point for our national consciousness? Historians will have to delve deep and judge. But the legacy of that bitter but powerful battle certainly remains with us.

And although workplace harassment, wage and hour violations, employment discrimination, and retaliation still cause trouble and heartache for workers across the nation, attitudes have undoubtedly shifted for the better.

If you or someone you care about needs help with an issue - be it sexual harassment or any other workplace issue - connect with the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394 or www.jhllp.com.

Lanisha Cole has filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against the producers of the popular game show, The Price Is Right. Cole, one of the longest tenured models in The Price Is Right's history, has accused the producers of humiliating her, berating her, sexually harassing her, and ultimately wrongfully terminating her, according to a 20 page civil complaint that her lawyers filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Cole started working on the game show back in 2003 (during the Bob Barker era). She enjoyed a normal, fun environment at work for more than six years. However, in late 2009, she allegedly began having difficulties with two of the show's producers, Adam Sandler and Michael Richards (neither man is related to the comedians of the same names). Richards apparently started having a sexual relationship with a different model and began offering her preferential treatment. Richards enacted policies "which never before existed" to curtail Cole's modeling work.

In a separate incident, the following September, the other producer, Sandler, allegedly burst into Cole's dressing room despite a "Knock Before Entering" sign and castigated her failing to wear microphone... "Sandler deliberately humiliated Ms. Cole in front of her peers. [She was wearing nothing but] a very sheer thong bikini underwear bottom... [and] all the women in the dressing room, included Ms. Cole, were frozen in shock until Sandler finished his tirade and stormed out of the women's dressing room."

Ms. Cole complained to higher-ups about what was happening to her. Shortly thereafter, she was terminated - allegedly, the producers accused of her "holding the show hostage" because of her sexual harassment complaints.

This story illustrates three relevant lessons:

Lesson #1: Sexual harassment can happen in any workplace.

Just because you work on a game show - ostensibly a fun, frivolous environment - does not inoculate you from potential mistreatment, mean bosses, and unfair working conditions.

Lesson #2: Bad behavior can start months or even years after you get hired.

In this case, Ms. Cole allegedly spent six plus very good years working on the show with no problems whatsoever. Her situation degraded only after one of the producers began to have an affair with her co-worker. So there aren't always warning signs.

Lesson #3: Harassment and abuse can "accrete" and get worse over time.

Certainly, you can find incidences where a single catastrophically unwise act (a boss trying to grope an underling on a company retreat, for instance) has merited legal action. But many cases are similar to Ms. Cole's case - abuse, harassment, discrimination, and other bad treatment occuring in small, chronic, poisonous doses -- often escalating -- before the victim takes action.

For help with your case, connect with an experienced New York sexual harassment, discrimination, wage and hour violation law firm. Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can help you understand how to protect yourself, get abusers to stop, and possibly even seek significant compensation. Call us now at 866-348-7394 or connect with us at www.jhllp.com.

In a recent post on how workers can deal with sexual harassment, we discussed how people typically react to insensitive, inappropriate, and sometimes outright malevolent workplace comments. We also talked about a school of thought known as nonviolent communication, which emphasizes constructive problem-solving by getting the parties involved to focus on fundamental universal human feelings and needs at the core of conflicts.

In this follow-up post, we will apply Dr. Marshall Rosenberg's conflict resolution theories to a typical workplace harassment problem.

Say your boss makes a comment to the effect of "Those jeans looks so hot on you, I just want to squeeze you all over," and that makes you feel disgusted. According to Rosenberg, you can use two paths here. First, you can express your own feelings and needs by using a four-part system.

Step 1: Observation (done without judgment - just stating the facts): "When you just said to me 'You look hot in my jeans, I want to squeeze them'..."

Step 2: State your feelings, taking responsibility for them: "I felt humiliated and angry..."

Step 3: Discuss your need that was or was not met: "Because my need for respect and professionalism at work was not met..."

Step 4: Make a concrete request: "Will you avoid making remarks like that in the future?"

Notice that, in this approach, you take complete responsibility for your feelings and needs. (No one can "make you feel" anything, according to Marshall Rosenberg's paradigm.)

The second approach involves focusing attentively on the other person's feelings and needs. Often, when you empathize with another person, that person will then open up and listen to your needs and feelings. The process is the same.

Step 1: Begin with an observation: "When you said 'you look sexy in your jeans'..."

Step 2: Guess about the other person's feelings (you can never really know, so you must guess): "Were you feeling aggressive..."

Step 3: Guess at his needs: "Because you wanted to test boundaries?"

Step 4: Make a definitive, actionable request: "Please refrain from making similar comments to me in the future."

Again, when you go this route, you avoid judging, condemning, or evaluating the other person. You are focusing on feelings and needs. You open the door to dialogue instead of immediately putting the other person on the defensive. Focusing on the offender's needs may not diffuse the situation, in which case, you might need to go to a higher authority to get the behavior to stop. But you might be able -- by practicing empathy in this way -- to get the offender to open up to your request (i.e. to stop doing the offensive behavior and/or apologize.)

This is only the tip of the iceberg of the nonviolent communication methodology, but it might be a useful paradigm to explore, particularly if you have chronic workplace problems. You can learn more about nonviolent communication at the official NVC website. If you need help understanding your rights and legal resources, connect with the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394, or explore additional resources at www.jhllp.com.

According to the New York Advocate, 23-year-old Priscilla Agosto has sued People's Choice Realty in Brooklyn for subjecting her to sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and even death threats. Agosto worked for the real estate office for 14 months, during which time she allegedly encountered truly sickening types of abuse. Mickey Berlianshik, a co-owner of a company, allegedly offered to pay her $60 for oral sex "because all Puerto Rican girls are good at it." Richard Berlianshik, another co-owner, supposedly groped her and "and exposed himself and urinated in front of her as she was cleaning a bathroom in the office. He would also show her photos of naked women, asking her to kiss the photographs."

A third man at the company offered to pay Agosto $500 to watch him have sex with his girlfriend. Another employee scared her with a death threat, allegedly, saying that "He would get rid of anyone threatening the company, adding that he didn't have a problem killing anyone."

Not every case of New York City sexual harassment is as replete with graphic and scary allegations. But you might be surprised by how many heartrending stories are out there involving innocent young workers being subjected to horrific mistreatment, including discrimination, harassment, and wage and hour violations.

One question that readers might have is: if Agosto was so horribly mistreated, why didn't she leave the firm earlier or seek help earlier?

This is a natural question to ask.

If human beings operated by a strictly rational calculus, Agosto's behavior (staying at an office where she was being so horribly mistreated) wouldn't make sense. But human beings are naturally socially conservative, in the sense that they try to avoid "making waves." We seek to fit in whenever possible.

Victims also can grow inured to harassment and abuse. Had Agosto, on her first day of work, been groped or solicited for sex, chances are she would have run away screaming. But after she acclimated to the office, maybe it was more difficult for her to get help and escape the situation.

Fortunately, good resources abound, and you don't have to fight this battle on your own. The compassionate, aggressive, very experienced team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum will help you and provide a free and confidential consultation. Explore more firm resources at www.jhllp.com, or call us any time at 866-348-7394 to schedule a time to speak with us.

Deshon Marman, a football player for the University of New Mexico, recently boarded a U.S. Airways flight out of San Francisco, probably expecting a mundane trip. But a surprising series of turns placed Marman at the center of a provocative racial discrimination case...

According to an Associated Press report, Marman had been wearing "saggy pants." Airline officials asked him to pull up his pants, since he allegedly was "exposing a body part." Marman refused, repeatedly. Ultimately, the U.S. Airways captain ordered Marman to leave the flight. He refused. The airline called the authorities. Marman was arrested and charged with "trespassing, battery of a police officer and obstruction." Prosecutors later dropped the charges.

That could easily have been the end of the story, in which case we probably would not be blogging about it. However, Marman wanted revenge. His lawyers have now accused U.S. Airways of racial discrimination: an accusation that's stirred up fire and brimstone in the blogosphere. Consider these anonymous reader comments from www.wowt.com:

• "Debbie" wrote: "there should be a law enforcing these little thugs to pull up their pants. I am sick of the indecent exposure when out with my family."

• "Andy" said: "there is plenty of white thug wannabes running around wearing saggy pants. No racial discrimination there."

• "I Am Black, Too" wrote: "anything to get a few bucks from the airlines!!!"

It may be possible to find supportive comments (from Marman's perspective) online. But the general point here is that, when we read stories about racial discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and workplace mistreatment, we tend to have very visceral reactions. We "know in our guts" what's just and what's not. We also enjoy freely dispensing this wisdom.

Our impressions about the case might be right. Or they might not be. And this can lead us into dangerous territory. If we guess "right" about a situation, no harm done.

But if we guess wrong -- leap to the wrong judgment and become deaf and blind to evidence to the contrary -- the consequences can be surprisingly unpleasant.

Here's an example of how this kind of "I already know the truth, so don't confuse me with facts" thinking can create problems. Let's say your boss harasses you. You complain. But the boss cleverly responds by concocting a story that makes you sound like a whiner, embellisher, or even flat out liar. The facts don't support this, obviously. But if someone in H.R. buys into the boss's argument and then refuses to hear your counterargument ("I already know the truth, so don't confuse me with facts!"), you may hesitate to seek a quick and just resolution to your problem and have trouble getting the behavior to stop.

All of this is to say that you need to protect yourself by getting smart, ethical representation as quickly as possible to preserve your rights, reputation, and peace of mind. Set up a free consultation with the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum by visiting www.jhllp.com or by calling us at 866-348-7394.

A once seemingly compelling sexual harassment and assault case against former International Monetary Fund (IMF) head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, fell apart last week when the 32-year-old Guinean maid who claimed that the 62-year-old scion assaulted her, lost credibility as a witness. Apparently, the validity of many of the statements she made about what happened after the alleged attack (among other issues) is highly questionable. In the wake of the maid's damaged credibility, the prosecution's case crumbled. Mr. Strauss-Kahn was released from house arrest, and pundits are currently unsure about how (or even if) legal action will now be pursued.

As if the unexpected "flameout" wasn't story enough, Strauss-Kahn's accuser is now suing the New York Post and five reporters for libel for insinuating that she had worked as a prostitute. The maid filed the suit on Tuesday at a state Supreme Court in the Bronx. She claims that Post reporters "falsely, maliciously and with reckless regard for the truth stated as a fact that the plaintiff is a 'prostitute' 'hooker' 'working girl' and/or 'routinely traded sex for money with male guests' of the Sofitel Hotel located in Manhattan."

A Post spokesperson responded to the suit, saying that the paper stood by its reporting. The Post claims that insiders from Strauss-Kahn's defense team revealed that the maid had received "extraordinary tips" from male patrons of the hotel and had received expenses "paid for by men not related to her." So far, prosecutors and police have not found evidence to support allegations that the maid engaged in prostitution.

And so, the sordid tale continues. We can learn two lessons from all of this:

1. Seemingly simple (if newsworthy) cases of racial discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour violations, etc. can evolve into labyrinthine complications as the result of thorough research and analysis.

2. Witnesses, defendants and victims often find themselves under intense pressure and can make horrific judgments that can compound the problems and lead to vast legal (and other) trouble.

The moral is that, if you or someone you care about has been subjected to sexual harassment, workplace mistreatment, or retaliation, the sooner you contact a reputable New York employment law firm (such as Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum), the faster you will be able to understand your options and chart a course to get the respect you deserve, the compensation you need, and the stability in your life you crave, under guidance from seasoned professionals.

Connect with the JHLLP team by calling 866-348-7394, or learn more about the firm's background, history, and philosophy at www.jhllp.com.

Bravo's Real Housewives of New York City is a crucible of un-pretty human emotions and interactions. And now one of the stars of the cast, Cindy Barshop, has been hit with a racial discrimination lawsuit. Barshop is an entrepreneur who owns Completely Bare spas. Altovise Collier, one of her employees (and also a costar on Real Housewives), has leveled accusations that "she was tormented [at work] and then wrongfully terminated because she is black."

Reality TV Magazine summarized the situation this way: "Collier says that Barshop underpaid her, only giving her half the $700 a week salary and paying her in cash. Without a paystub, Altovise claims that she was unable to lease or rent an apartment, leaving her to rely on friends who let her sleep on their couches." Collier also claimed that the employees at Completely Bare joked that she had been hired simply to "inject some color" into the staff and was essentially hazed "like I was in some sort of sorority." Collier approached Barshop about the alleged mistreatment; one week later, she was fired. The mom of two has so far denied Ms. Collier's claims and insists that she fired the aesthetician "because of the quality of her work."

As is often the case in heated battles over allegations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, wage and hour violations, and retaliation, this debate boils down to a "he said, she said" type argument. If you or a coworker or a family member has been mistreated at work - whether you work at a fancy restaurant, beauty parlor, or machining shop - the more evidence you can collect and protect, the better.

For instance, say someone sent you a harassing email: print out that email and store it in a safe place - like your home safe deposit box. Or, say a coworker made harassing comments to you: write down exactly what that person said, including the context, location, etc. The longer you wait to record eyewitness testimony or your own recollections of an event, the more difficult it may be to use that evidence to leverage compensation and justice.

It may also behoove you to connect with an experienced employment lawyer. The team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum, LLP can provide a free and confidential case evaluation. Call the firm toll free at 866-348-7394, or learn more about your potential options at www.jhllp.com.

Last Monday, Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer, Wal-Mart, escaped the possibility of having to face a nationwide class action lawsuit regarding gender discrimination, thanks to a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision. The case had been percolating through the courts since 2001

Thanks to the ruling, 1.5 million current and former female workers at the United States' largest private employer will now be forced to seek redress through smaller lawsuits. Pundits suggest that Wal-Mart may have won something of a pyrrhic victory, in that the company may soon be besieged with thousands of tiny gender discrimination lawsuits. In other words, had the retailer taken on the 1.5 million women in a class action, Wal-Mart may have had to pay out a multi-billion dollar settlement. But at least this would have resolved the legal battle in one fell swoop.

Now, at least according to some analysts, the fractured class of plaintiffs may reconstitute into smaller groups and create a long-term, complicated struggle over whether companywide policies favored male employees over female ones.

Had the Supreme Court allowed the plaintiffs to get certified as a class, the mass tort would have been the biggest case of its kind in U.S. history.

Attorneys, interest groups, and pundits spent the week feverishly debating the ramifications of this SCOTUS decision. Does the decision reveal that the Supreme Court is somehow biased against workplace victims? And, if so, will this bias trickle down to other critical matters? Or does this thinking constitute a case of "reading too much into the tea leaves"? Or, perhaps, is there actually such a thing as too big a class and that justice is better served for groups only up till a certain number of participants?

Given the recentness of the decision, it's probably impossible to draw too many conclusions at this point. Yes, this was a high profile case and a victory for a powerful employer. But the Supreme Court was not looking at whether or not women workers at Wal-Mart had been wronged; rather, the Court made a decision about whether 1.5 million women could be certified as a class in a class action suit - a much narrow and more specific point.

All this is to say that, if you have been struggling with an issue at work - such as a boss harassing you, a manager withholding your pay illegally, or a coworker making racially insensitive comments - you still have ample rights and resources at your disposal.

Learn more about your potential to take decisive legal action by connecting with Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394. Or learn more about our firm and its philosophy on the web at www.jhllp.com.

Earlier this week, Specialist Adam Jarrell filed a racial discrimination complaint against the New Mexico Army National Guard. Specialist Jarrell's story is more than a little scary and disturbing. The 23-year-old served the National Guard since 2006. He was recently deployed to Afghanistan, where he was the only African-American among 216 soldiers in his unit.

According to a Reuters news report: "The alleged harassment began after Jarrell reported the physical abuse of two subordinate soldiers by an officer in Afghanistan in 2009... after that, Jarrell said he was subjected to increasing torment, including threats of physical violence and racial slurs. The abuse culminated in a noose hanging outside his barracks door."

When Jarrell reported what had been happening to his commanding officers, "they ignored the issue and wrote him up for jumping the chain of command, even though harassment claims were not subject to those rules." A spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico summarized the blunt argument: "No one should suffer the kind of racial hatred Specialist Jarrell experienced, least of all someone who is on the frontlines of battle."

Although the modern American military is a far more integrated and tolerant institution than the military of a generation or two ago, Jarrell's complaints suggest that problems like sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation, and general mistreatment have not been excised entirely from the military system.

There are various ways to contextualize Jarrell's story. One can make this argument: hey, we're making progress. Sure, we have a long way to go, but we are heading in the right direction, in terms of stamping out bad behavior, harassment, discrimination, etc.

On the other hand, another argument may be equally viable: Intolerance, fear, and hatred can never be excised entirely from an institution like the military - or indeed, any institution, corporation, or social structure. These problems -- and the targets of abuse -- can only shift form. Whereas in past generations, racial discrimination and harassment against African-American was culturally normal, today it's not. But our prejudices did not go away. They only shifted towards other groups, such as homosexuals and Arabs.

Both camps make interesting and compelling arguments. It's hard to escape the conclusion that we have made at least some progress; but how much more progress can we hope to make, and what will our final "success" ultimately look like?

Speculation aside, many people who have personally experienced sexual harassment, racial discrimination, wage and hour violations at work, and other kinds of employer mistreatment need urgent help to understand their rights and responsibilities. The law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can give you immediate, free assistance. Connect this reputable firm now at www.jhllp.com or 866-348-7394.

Reuters reports that French prosecutors are investigating sexual harassment accusations against Georges Tron, a leading minister in the French government. Two women filed complaints against the minister. Both victims said that the recent arrest of IMF Chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, inspired them to finally speak out against Tron.

According to Reuters, a former receptionist at Tron's office admitted that "she was driven to break her silence after former IMF Chief Strauss-Kahn was arrested on charges of attempted rape... 'when I see a little chambermaid is capable of taking on Dominique Strauss-Kahn, I tell myself I do not have the right to stay silent.'" Tron, for his part, has disputed the sexual harassment allegations as "incredible" and has asserted "that the two women [victims] were connected to people from the political far right."

Will the very public and embarrassing accusations against high profile French politicos like Tron and Strauss-Kahn, compel the French (and other Europeans and Americans) to revisit and change their behavior? Will these high profile events change the way government officials comport themselves and diminish sexual harassment in the future?

The debacles involving Tron and Strauss-Kahn raise other intriguing questions, including:

• Might publicizing the naughty behavior of the French ministers be counterproductive? When people in positions of power repeatedly engage in sexual harassment, and the news media covers this, does the naughty behavior start to seem common? And if so, does its very commonness begin to influence people into thinking that it's is okay to do it, too?

• Will certain "bad" behaviors always happen, regardless of negative PR or rules that forbid them? Many reformers envision an ideal scenario: we draft perfect laws -- a balanced system of incentives and disincentives -- and thus stamp out sexual harassment forever. But can that ideal ever be reached, even approximately?

• Should society swing to an extreme to root out bad behaviors? Policy changes always have both intended and unintended consequences. We need to be attentive to (and responsible for) the accidental consequences of our policies. A garden may get overgrown with weeds. But weed the garden too much, and you kill plants that you want to keep.

One conclusion is certain: to stamp out sexual harassment, retaliation, gender discrimination, and other misbehavior, we need to think beyond short-term solutions and purely punitive actions and instead take a broader, more open-minded view. If you or somebody you care about needs help with a matter, connect with the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum for a free case evaluation at 866-348-7394 or learn more at www.jhllp.com.