Employment Lawyer Blog

The Washington Examiner reports that a jury has weighed in favor of the claimants in a profound racial discrimination and retaliation case involving five black police officers in Washington D.C. The $900,000 verdict aims to compensate the officers, who worked for the First District's Focus Mission Unit - a top level vice squad. Their commanding officer, Lieutenant Wilkins, allegedly engaged in racial discrimination back in 2006. On June 16, 2006 the five officers got together and wrote a letter complaining about what was going on in their department. Several months later, the officers got targeted - transferred to lower positions and taken out of their unit.

More disturbingly, their commanders allegedly did not tell the 5 officers about armed robbery suspects around them and also withheld info about critical observation posts. In addition to demoting/transferring the elite officers out of their unit, the upper echelon of the force moved Wilkins into "a more prestigious position," according to the Examiner.

The jury believed the claimants' argument that retaliation occurred in response to the anonymous letter (and follow-up official complaint) of racial discrimination. That said, a spokeswoman for the D.C. police told the Examiner that the department will likely appeal the decision.

As this story shows, racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation can rear its head even in institutions designed specifically to protect the public interest. If you or a loved one or co-worker has experienced something like this - such as being demoted or fired for complaining about unfair treatment at work or hostile comments from your boss - you may be entitled to significant compensation and other legal remedies.

The attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can help you explore your rights. For a free and zero-obligation consultation, dial 1-866-348-7394 right now, or review www.jhllp.com for more info about the attorneys and firm's philosophy.

On July 15th, Congress passed the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act - H.R. 4173 - which provided a number of additional protections for whistleblowers, including a qui tam provision that rewards whistleblowers monetarily for alerting authorities to fraud in the stock and commodities industries. The Act also strengthened anti-retaliatory measures for workers who reveal fraud to commodities agencies and/or the SEC and who give info to the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (a new organization established by the law).

Prior the passage of H.R. 4173, whistleblowers at rating organizations like Standard & Poor's lacked effective protection. The bill fixes the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) to close loopholes, so that employees even at rating agencies can feel free to come forward with allegations of fraud or misconduct. The Executive Director of the National Whistleblower Center, Stephen Kohn, sung praises of the legislation. According to an official PR statement, Kohn said that "[H.R.4173] is one of the most important advances in whistleblower legislation to date...the anti-retaliation laws of the past have not adequately protected the public interest because employees remain afraid to make disclosures."

Kohn also noted that the whistleblower system must have built-in incentives; otherwise, employees might be tempted to allow fraud to go unchecked because it would not be in their financial interest to come forward. While whistleblower advocates generally celebrated this bill, others in the community want further action to protect federal employees, so that they too can feel freer to come forward and expose fraud and corruption and bad practices.

If you or someone you love has witnessed fraud, corruption, or unfair practices, and you are considering blowing the whistle, you are perhaps wrestling with the issue. You may be confused, afraid, and more than a little overwhelmed by what blowing that whistle might mean for your career and legacy, and even what the legal implications might be for you.

To get a free and confidential consultation with the Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum team, call 866-348-7394 or visit the firm on the web at www.jhllp.com. It takes courage, a strong backbone, and a deep sense of ethics to go through with the whistleblowing process. But if you expose fraud and corruption, you can significantly change peoples' lives for the better. Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum attorneys can also talk to you if you have questions regarding harassment, employment discrimination, or retaliation.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) won a resounding victory in an age discrimination case on June 14th when an Arizona packaging company was ordered to pay out $250,000 to three 40-something claimants. The settlement followed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversal of a lower court judgment that had originally dismissed claims against the company (TIN Inc) by awarding the company a summary judgment.

In its review last October, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that two TIN Inc supervisors had said things that led the jury to conclude "that they harbored discriminatory animus towards older workers." The container board company will pay $0.25 million to the three fired employees, who worked at TIN Inc from 2000 to 2005. In addition, the company must educate all employees about the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

Last year, the EEOC collected over $72 million for age discrimination claimants, and the organization received nearly 23,000 complaints.

If you or a coworker or a loved one has been demoted, fired, sexually harassed, or discriminated against on the basis of your age, and you are 40+ years of age, you may be able to take legal action pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. For fast and immediate assistance with your case, connect now with the lawyers at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at (866)348-7394 or www.jhllp.com.

Remember: Age discrimination can work subtly and viciously to deprive you of opportunity, influence and income. Connect with our attorneys to develop your most effective response now.

On June 29th, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a much-debated case about the definition of the concept of retaliation - e.g. the act of an employer penalizing an employee for filing a claim of discrimination, sexual harassment or other unfair treatment. In this matter, the High Court will address whether relatives, friends, or spouses of an employee are likewise protected from retaliation. The implications of the Supreme Court's decision could resound, nationally.

Case Background -- Thompson v. North American Stainless

Eric Thompson and his fiancée (at the time - now she is his wife) Miriam Regalado worked for North American Stainless, a steel plant in Carroll County, Kentucky. Ms. Regalado felt that she had been subjected to gender discrimination at the company. She filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) saying that her boss discriminated against her. The EEOC notified the steel plant of Ms. Regalado's charge on February 13, 2003. Less than a month later - on March 7th - Eric Thompson lost his job.

Thompson then went to the EEOC to file a complaint for retaliation. Unfortunately for him, the lower courts dismissed his suit. They reasoned that Thompson himself did not engage in "protected activity" by opposing an unlawful practice. So he did not have protection against retaliation. The Obama administration has thrown its weight behind Thompson - the President's acting Solicitor General (via the AP) said that the law "provides a cause of action for any party aggrieved by an unlawful employment practice, and an employee dismissed as a direct or proximal result of such a practice meets the standard."

The Supreme Court has put the case on the docket for this fall - stay tuned to developments in Thompson v. North American Stainless.

If you, a friend, loved one, or spouse has been victimized by unlawful employment practices, you may need expert legal guidance to protect your rights and your wages. Connect today with the attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 1-866-348-7394 or www.jhllp.com. Get a free, completely confidential consultation about what your next steps should be.

A federal judge in Wichita, Kansas has thrown out an age discrimination class action suit against Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems. Judge Eric Melgren ruled on June 30th in a 44-page order that neither Boeing nor Spirit violated the Age Discrimination Employment Act - and that the companies didn't owe compensation to nearly 800 ex-Boeing workers.

When Spirit divested from Boeing, many workers lost their jobs - 90 former Boeing employees filed suit in late December 2005, claiming that their rights under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA) had been violated by these firings.

Jeff Turner, the current CEO of Spirit, was quoted in the past to have remarked that "Boeing's workforce was getting older... and the managers need to find ways to do something about it." This statement on its own suggests that ageism was at work. But Judge Melgren ruled that the CEO's statement - when taken in its broader context - was actually benign. It was intended as a statement of concern about how the company could survive if a sizable number of employees retired at once and left Spirit with a callow workforce.

Judge Melgren was also not impressed by other claims brought by the prosecution, including that Spirit selectively rehired younger employees and that the company worked to prevent older employees from getting their due pension benefits.

Age discrimination cases like these can obviously get quite complicated - and just because plaintiffs manage to get class action status and to assemble a seemingly compelling bill of particulars against an employer - does not mean that victory is assured.

So what should you do if you or a loved one has been the victim of age discrimination? Consider talking to the experienced professionals at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Call 1-866-348-7394 today for a free and confidential consultation - or visit the firm on the web at www.jhllp.com. Protect your rights by getting good advice today.

Swiss pharmaceutical firm Novartis was found guilty of New York sexual harassment and discrimination last Monday by a jury and ordered to pay out $3.3 million to a dozen women who headed up a class action suit. Altogether, around 5,600 women may receive compensation from the corporation. The Class seeks $200 million for lost wages and benefits, back pay and punitive damages. The women allege that they had been the targets of sexual harassment, and that the firm generally mistreated them. A counsel for the plaintiffs declared that Novartis was "not a place where you'd want your wife, your mother, your sister, or your daughter to work... Novartis paid women less, wouldn't promote them... and [would punish] them if they got pregnant."

A District Manager allegedly forced his female sales reps to watch pornography and invited them to "sit on his lap." Another allegation involved accusations that women sales reps had been encouraged to offer themselves sexually to doctors to facilitate the sale of pharmaceuticals.

The legal fireworks are not yet over for Novartis. Individual members of the Class may go before a Magistrate Judge in the next few months to provide evidence of specific wrongdoing and seek personal compensatory damages.

What can and should you do if you find yourself in a workplace situation where there is obvious sexual harassment or discrimination going on?

Ideally, your company should have a system in place to prevent and punish bad behavior. But sometimes the system fails. The corporate culture may be so toxic that your best solution will be to retain independent outside counsel. If you have questions about or need help with your work-related problems, connect with the attorneys of Joseph, Hertzfield, Hester & Kirschenbaum at once to go over your legal options. You can end the frustrating, aggressive, and potentially even dangerous behavior that's made going to work so uncomfortable for you. Call us now for a free and completely confidential consultation at 866-348-7394.

On May 25th, the New York Times reported that former Arabic language school principal Debbie Almontaser will not file a New York national origin discrimination case against the Department of Education (D.O.E.), despite a Federal Commission's ruling early this year that the D.O.E. had discriminated against her in 2007 by forcing her to resign from her position.

As this blog reported several months ago, Ms. Almontaser had come under fire from the D.O.E. after allegations emerged that she provided support to a group of Arabic women who sold shirts featuring the slogan "Intifada NYC." Ms. Almontaser defended herself in an interview with the New York Post, but the Post allegedly misrepresented what she said in that interview, and the distorted article catalyzed the D.O.E. to take action against her. The Federal Commission found that Ms. Almontaser (who is of Yemeni descent) fell victim to "the very bias that the creation of her school was intended to dispel."

Although many New York national origin discrimination analysts have argued that the ex-principal would have substantial grounds to sue the D.O.E., the former principal decided after consulting with her attorney to forego a suit because, per the New York Times, "there would be too much emotional pain to pursue it." Ms. Almontaser released a public statement: "...additional litigation of the discrimination claim would mean reliving the unfortunate and painful events...it was time for me to move on in my professional and personal life."

Ms. Almontaser's treatment by the press and the D.O.E. sparked an avalanche of hotheaded debate in the media and blogosphere, in part because New York collectively is still trying to work through the emotional fallout of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001.

If you or a person about whom you care has been discriminated against at work on the basis of national origin, race or any other factor, you may have substantial legal recourse to stop inappropriate behavior and seek compensatory damages, including wages lost and opportunities for promotion illegally taken away.

How do you know whether you have a case? The best way is to consult with a results-proven, reliable New York City employment rights attorney. Call the lawyers of Joseph, Hertzfield, Hester & Kirschenbaum ASAP at 866-348-7394, or visit us on the web at www.jhllp.com, to explore your legal options to find a better solution and peace of mind.

New York employment discrimination is prohibited by the state's unique Human Rights Law, which ensures "an equal opportunity to enjoy a full and productive life" for all NY citizens. The state even has an institutional organ, the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), to help people who have been discriminated against in employment, housing and credit. The DHR provides critical services, such as:

Prosecuting/stopping illegal New York discrimination.
Investigating and resolving certain claims.
Educating people about the damaging effects of discrimination and helping all parties understand their rights and obligations under state law.
Developing policies for the New York legislature to advance the cause of human rights.

The DHR's main offices are in the Bronx, but the DHR maintains regional offices throughout New York. NY state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of family or military status, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender, national origin, race, creed, and color. The law also makes it illegal for an employer to retaliate against a worker for investigating or filing a claim (for instance by firing or demoting her).

Differences between Federal and New York State Employment Discrimination Laws

The New York Human Rights Law is separate from federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination. Although these laws have much in common they overlap as well. For logistical purposes, in some cases of employment discrimination covered by both federal and NY state law, you can file a single complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights. For more information, see the FAQ section on the Division's official website.

Limits of the Human Rights Law

Every employer who has at least four employees is subject to the HRL. Potential plaintiffs may have only one year following the act of discrimination to file a complaint. Connect with the reliable New York employment discrimination and harassment attorneys of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum to find out more details and for assistance in placing a claim.

For more information about the New York State Division of Human Rights, visit the DHR in person at 1 Fordham Plaza, 4th floor, Bronx, New York 10458, or phone them at 718-741-8400.

Often the variables involved in pursuing a New York discrimination, harassment, or retaliation claim against your current or former employer can be confusing. Call the experienced employment rights attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394 for assistance, or explore more free resources at our website, www.jhllp.com.

New York City has robust anti-employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation laws on the books. But NYC was not always so friendly to claimants. This article briefly reviews the history and evolution of the Big Apple's journey to ensuring fair treatment for city workers.

1944

Mayor LaGuardia forms the Mayor's Committee on Unity via an executive order, in part to address citizen concerns following 1943 race riots. LaGuardia's committee lacks enforcement powers. Despite this, he manages to make some progress, settling disputes in Harlem and Coney Island, and being instrumental in passing a Fair Educational Practices Act.

1955

New York City Mayor Wagner eliminates the committee and replaces it with a more empowered Commission on Intergroup Relations, also known as COIR. The Commission is established by Local Law 55 to collect and investigate all manner of discrimination complaints. COIR also takes an active role in studying and resolving employment discrimination matters.

1958

Sharkey-Brown-Isaacs Law passes, expanding the power of COIR to investigate housing discrimination.

1962

COIR renamed as the Commission on Human Rights.

1965

New laws extend and expand Commission's power.

1980s and 1990s

Human Rights Law amended multiple times to add protection for people with mental disabilities, people of alien status, victims of bias-related sexual harassment, individuals of different sexual orientation, and individuals who are retaliated against for complaining about New York City employment discrimination.

First decade of 2000s

City Human Rights Law again experiences numerous changes. Domestic violence victims become a protective class, the legal definition of "gender" changes to protect individuals of different gender identities, and victims of domestic violence, stalking and sex offences get guaranteed workplace rights.

2005

Mayor Bloomberg enacts Local Law 85, which strengthens the NYC employment discrimination laws by eliminating requirement that victims of retaliation must suffer adverse effects in order to file legal action.

If you or a loved one has been the victim of New York City harassment, retaliation, or employment discrimination, you may benefit greatly from a free consultation with the trial-proven lawyers of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Read more about our services and approach at www.jhllp.com

The New York Daily News is reporting on an exotic New York retaliation and sexual harassment case involving accusations that a salesman's boss made homosexual advances on him.

Background:

Salesman Adolfo Mendez worked for the Gucci Department Store on Fifth Avenue for years, becoming a top seller of luxury apparel. When a new boss took over his department, however, problems ensued. According to allegations, this new manager, Michael Daly, gave Mendez a massage and touched him on his buttocks multiple times. Mendez rebuffed the advances and told his boss that the touching made him uncomfortable. Daly did not respond sympathetically. Soon thereafter, another manager, David Gray, took the helm of the Gucci women's clothes department and made mocking comments towards Mendez, such as "I know you are gay."

Mendez asked his managers to stop the New York sexual harassment and even complained to the HR department, but this didn't seem to help. Gucci put him on administrative leave and then fired him two weeks after he complained. In the wake of all this, Mendez leveled a lawsuit against Gucci for $5 million for New York sexual harassment and retaliation. Although the two managers at the center of the alleged scandal no longer work for Gucci, the company can still be held liable for their actions.

Unfortunately, in many sexual harassment cases, plaintiffs experience a double hit. They face direct aggravation from the harassment. And then they endure stonewalling from HR. If you or a family member has complained fruitlessly to your HR department about harassment, employment discrimination, or other unwanted behaviors, you may be able to take legal action to seek significant compensation under New York and national anti-discrimination laws.

To get justice and end the harassing conduct, look to Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Call us today for a free consultation at 1-866-348-7394, or visit us on the web at www.jhllp.com.

The Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer Wal-Mart faces a class action suit for gender discrimination that could go down as the biggest class action in American history. In an 84-page order issued at the end of April, the Ninth Circuit Court ruled 6-5 that Wal-Mart can face class action charges that it discriminated against female employees. The class will include around 1.5 million women - all female employees who worked for the retailer from December 26, 1998 onwards. Six women will represent the class. The titular claimant, Betty Dukes, worked as a greeter at a California Wal-Mart and sued the store in 2001. Wal-Mart operates more than 3,400 stores. If the litigation goes to trial, and the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs, Wal-Mart may have to pay out literally billions in damages.

What Claimants Seek in this Giant Gender Discrimination Suit

According to allegations, Wal-Mart's culture facilitated discrimination against female employees. Women earned less than male counterparts and found it harder to climb the corporate ladder. Plaintiffs point out that 70% of Wal-Mart's hourly paid workers are women; whereas only around 30% of its managers are women. The plaintiffs seek punitive damages and back pay.

The Ninth Circuit Court had to resolve whether the sheer size of the class would make the dispatch of any case unmanageable. Judge Michael Hawkins, who voted in favor of the certification, wrote that "although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable." A dissenting judge disagreed and wrote that "no court has ever certified a case like this one, until now, and with good reason."

For its part, Wal-Mart has denied allegations of gender discrimination and general employee discrimination. A company statement said, "we do not believe the claims alleged by the six individuals who brought the suit are representative of the experiences of our female associates."

Wal-Mart has numerous options at its disposal, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court to attempt to decertify the class action.

If you or a family member has experienced sexual harassment, gender discrimination, or any other kind of employment discrimination, options are available. The New York based law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can provide a no-nonsense, no obligation consultation about your pressing discrimination claim. Call us toll free at 1-866-348-7394, or email to get immediate assistance through our website at www.jhllp.com.

Steven Seagal's ex personal assistant, Kayden Nguyen, has leveled stunning allegations of sexual harassment against the movie star, who is best known for his roles in movies like Under Siege and Driven to Kill.

Nguyen, a 23-year-old model, got a job as Seagal's executive assistant by answering a Craigslist ad. Her new boss flew her from Los Angeles to New Orleans, where Seagal has been filming a reality show for A&E about his stint as a Reserve Deputy Chief for the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office. According to Nguyen's allegations, Seagal had been keeping two Russian women on staff whose sole purpose was to service his sexual needs. Seagal allegedly assaulted his new assistant on her very first night on the job by "pushing his hands against her shirt and attempting to fondle her bare breast," according to the celebrity site RadarOnline.com.

The following morning, Seagal allegedly took the assault a step further, forcing Nguyen's legs apart and violating her. Later, Seagal made a third pass at Nguyen. After lifting up her dress, "he forced his head on her bare chest and attempted to suck her breasts and nipples." Nguyen escaped from the house on February 28, 2010. The suit also alleges that Seagal forced her to watch him engage in sexual relations with one of his Russian helpers, "Sasha."

Nguyen is suing her former boss for one million dollars. If the allegations of sexual harassment are even partially true, this tabloid story could become bigger news in the coming weeks, especially given the outrageousness of the claims.

The Courage to Call Out Sexual Harassment, Gender Discrimination, or Retaliation

Victims of sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and retaliation often stay silent for days or even months after the assault or bad behavior. Why? The answer depends. Often, a mix of nervousness, respect, and confusion undermines motivation to stop/report the problems. In retrospect, certain behaviors can be seen as illegal and despicable. But when you're in the thick of having to deal with bizarre employer requests, it can be daunting to know what to do.

Fortunately, help is out there. The experienced team here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum can help you develop a strategy for suing a current or former employer for harassment, discrimination, or retaliation against you for making allegations. Call our team today at (866) 348-7394, or learn more about us on the web at www.jhllp.com.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has weighed in on touchy, high profile allegations of New York religious employment discrimination related to the case of Debbie Almontaser, a former Principal of the Khalil Gibran International Academy, an Arabic-language public school.

The case has a complex back story, so put your reading glasses on and settle in:

Ms. Almontaser took over as principal of the dual language academy in 2007. Shortly after she took the helm, however, conservative opponents began to brand her as a militant Islamist. She denied the allegations, and independent sources confirmed her moderate political temperament. Nevertheless, a group called Stop the Madrassa Coalition formed and claimed that she was linked to a campaign to sell shirts bearing the slogan "Intifada NYC" -- a reference to a militant Islamic point of view.

Concerned, the Department of Education urged her to do an interview with the New York Post to put the allegations to rest. But the Post took Ms. Almontaser's interview out of context and quoted her "incorrectly and misleadingly" (according to federal judges who later ruled on a lawsuit she brought against The Post for doing this).

Nevertheless, the principal's connection with the Intifada tee-shirts sparked a wave of outrage that eventually led to her ouster as principal. She was moved to a subordinate position, which eventually disappeared. She sought legal action against the New York Department of Education for religious discrimination, and now that the EEOC has finally weighed in, this case could become even more newsworthy. The EEOC ruled that the DOE "succumbed to the very bias that the creation of the school was intended to dispel" and called for a resolution for Ms. Almontaser to get her job back as well as get $300,000 along with back pay and compensation for legal fees.

If you or a family member or friend has been on the receiving end of religious discrimination at the workplace, you may benefit from the counsel of an experienced employment discrimination attorney. Call (866) 348-7394 or visit www.jhllp.com to connect with the attorneys of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum. Our attorneys are experienced in labor law, and we've successfully handled many matters related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage & hour violations.

Last week, three female financial advisors at Merrill Lynch filed a gender discrimination complaint against both Bank of America and Merrill Lynch for discriminatory practices. The three women filed their suit in the US District Court in Brooklyn and made allegations such as:

• Male counterparts were provided better opportunities and larger bonuses.
• After one claimant protested about the unequal treatment, she was punished and then forced to pre-approve her business lunch claims, which male employees never had to do.
• New York gender discrimination and retaliation problems have only gotten worse since Bank of America took over Merrill Lynch in 2008.

The plaintiffs have sought class action status, which could make the action bigger and broader and more newsworthy. They seek unspecified damages as well as back pay. So far, Bank of America has denied the allegations of gender discrimination. A spokeswoman said the bank was fully prepared to defend itself and that the claims are unwarranted.

One of the claimants -- the lead one, actually, Judy Calibuso -- continues to work as a financial advisor for Merrill Lynch. The other two women, Diane Goedtel and Judy Moss, quit working as financial advisors for BOA. Combined, the three women worked for the bank for over three decades.

If gender discrimination can happen at the biggest financial company in the United States (technically, after Merrill Lynch acquired BOA in 2008, it achieved this status), then employment discrimination can truly happen anywhere. If you or a family member or coworker has been subjected to unfair treatment as a result of your gender, race, national origin, or disability, or other factors, you may be entitled to significant compensation and redress under the law. Please connect today with the reliable, veteran, and results-proven attorneys of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum ASAP for a free and confidential consultation. Demanding justice is never easy, but our attorneys can walk you through the process step by step and answer all of your questions.

Please peruse www.jhllp.com to learn more about us; or phone (866) 348-7394 to get your free consultation.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has reported that age discrimination claims have spiked precipitously since 2007. When considered alongside the U.S. Supreme Court's decision last year to raise the burden of proof that plaintiffs must provide in age discrimination cases, this bump in claims has alarmed many policy analysts.

With the graying of the Baby Boomer generation -- according to non-disputed numbers, around 10,000 seniors become eligible for Social Security every weekend -- many believe that our society is in some ways reaching a crisis point. Today's seniors face a difficult economy, more market volatility, slashed retirement funds, and a legal environment in which it is more and more difficult to file successful age discrimination cases.

Moreover, the courts likely only see a fraction of cases that could be brought. Many discouraged seniors -- who either don't get hired, don't get a due promotion, or get fired unfairly -- choose to look for a new job instead of to pursue legal recompense. Likewise, many would-be claimants simply do not have enough support or confidence in their allegations to take matters to court.

What's frustrating is that good help is available for seniors. With the right kind of legal guidance - timely, and from credentialed, experienced, resourceful attorneys -- victimized seniors can get just compensation from an employer (or would-be employer).

For immediate assistance with any kind of age discrimination related claim (such as harassment or retaliation), look to the esteemed and reliable team here at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Our attorneys have been fighting on behalf of discriminated-against employees for years. We can provide a free, confidential, and no hassle first consultation to answer your questions and help outline a strategy for you. Call us now at (866) 348-7394, or look around our website, www.jhllp.com, to learn more.