Employment Lawyer Blog

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.

The Producer of Superman, Jon Peters, lost a significant sexual harassment lawsuit last week. A jury ordered the hairdresser-cum-studio executive to pay $3 million to his former assistant, Shelly Morita, who waged a five-year legal battle to bring her former boss to justice. Morita will get $822,000 in lost wages on top of $2.5 million in punitive damages.
According to an August 27 article at msnbc.com, "[the] 44-year-old single mother sued Peters and his company, J.P. Organization Inc., in December 2006, alleging he fondled her at his Malibu home and climbed into bed with her in an Australian hotel during the 2005 filming of "Superman Returns." She claimed that she couldn't find work in Hollywood after suing Peters because of his pull in the industry."

A Hollywood Reporter article reported that: "Peters [also allegedly] withheld a $25,000 Christmas bonus until [Morita] signed a confidentiality agreement."

The former hairdresser vowed to appeal the decision. But some pundits and entertainment watchers are considering the jury verdict to be a kind of "shot across the bow" - warning Hollywood executives, producers, agents, and other big wigs that the "swimming with the sharks" treatment will not, and should not, be tolerated.

Swimming with Sharks, starring Kevin Spacey, is about a tyrannical producer who tormented his young wannabe-Hollywood-player assistant until the assistant snapped, kidnapped Spacey and returned the torment, literally. It's no secret among Hollywood insiders that Hollywood players often mistreat, abuse, harass, and otherwise degrade their assistants. It's an open secret, actually. But, the question is: What can be done to change the culture in Hollywood so that these big wigs treat assistants and other supporting staffers with respect - or at least end the most flagrant abuses?

Is it a matter of simply going after the worst offenders - like Mr. Peters - or is it a matter of more systematically changing the culture in Hollywood to hammer home the point that bad treatment of employees will simply not be tolerated? Or maybe it is both - go after every violation until the norm changes.

It is indeed possible for whole industries to be corrupt. The New York City restaurant industry, for instance, for years engaged in bad practices that allowed "a cultural norm" to develop that encouraged restaurateurs to violate wage and hour laws. Thanks to persistent legal action against these restaurateurs - waged in part by Joseph and Herzfeld's own attorney Maimon Kirschenbaum - we may now soon see changes to the culture. But it's no doubt going to be a long and vigorous battle.

If you or someone you care about has recently been mistreated, harassed, or retaliated against, the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can help you. Connect with us today at 866-348-7394, or explore more about our firm 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.

If you or someone you love has recently encountered a workplace violation - like racial discrimination or sexual harassment - you may be bombarded with advice how to rectify the situation and, possibly, hold the wrongdoer accountable. Whether a boss said something lascivious about your workplace attire, or a co-worker forwarded you something ghastly and inappropriate in an email, you want tools and ways of processing this unwanted event that empower you and protect your rights.

One very interesting method for dealing is a process called Nonviolent Communication. Dr. Marshall Rosenberg, a widely respected psychologist and peace negotiator, who has helped warring Rwandan tribes and Palestinians and Israelis negotiate with one another, developed this model of communication to help people resolve conflicts. Rosenberg claims his methodology helps people in conflict focus on their feelings and needs instead of on guilt, shame, and recrimination. In two blog posts, we will discuss a little bit about how the nonviolent communication approach might be deployed to help victims of harassment.

Let's consider a hypothetical situation in which a vice president at a telecommunications company encounters his secretary in the break room and makes comment, such as, "Wow, you look smokin' in that outfit." What might you do? Here are some typical reactions:

• "Give as well as you get" - either "harass" your boss back, insult him, or act in some kind of aggressive way;
• Say nothing but take your complaint to a higher authority, such as HR, to stop the behavior and, possibly, inflict penalties;
• Say nothing and "take it" and hope it goes away;

These solutions may work to make your workplace more comfortable; the sexual harassment may stop. But they all have potential drawbacks. For instance, if you "give as you get," you may only encourage the bad behavior. Alternatively, if you go to a higher authority to solve the problem, you could successfully end the annoying behavior, but you might set back your relationship with your boss. Simply absorbing it could make you stressed and may cause you to "explode" at some later time. Not reacting at all might also be construed as complicit acceptance of the unwanted behavior.

Nonviolent communication suggests two alternative ways to deal with the problem:

1. One involves expressing your own feelings and needs;
2. The other involves listening and empathizing with the boss's feelings and needs.

These two strategies can be deployed simultaneously, and you can shift from one to the other. But you might be surprised at how much more effective this nonviolent communication approach can be not just in terms of ending the harassment, but also in terms of "saving face" for everyone, maintaining a positive, constructive workplace, and even helping you and your boss both grow from the experience in dynamic ways.

In our next post on this topic, we will delve into nonviolent communication tactics to solve situations differently. We'll also give you more resources to explore this alternative philosophy.

If you need immediate assistance with an issue like sexual harassment, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, or any other workplace conflict, connect with the attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394, or learn more about the team at www.jhllp.com.

Fernando Flores, a former bodyguard for Britney Spears, is suing the 29-year old pop princess for sexual harassment.

The former police officer wants $10 million in damages. He claims that, during his half a year stint as one of Spear's bodyguards, the singer made "repeated, unwanted sexual advances." Flores' lawsuit also alleges that Spears spent a lot of time under the influence of drugs, like Narcon, Ritalin, and other methamphetamines.

One blurb from the lawsuit is particularly telling: "Spears was generally personally unkempt... [she] had obnoxious personal habits, such as chain smoking cigarettes, which made her smell continuously of stale tobacco. She broke wind or picked her nose... unapologetically before [Flores] and others, and she was constantly and gratuitously loud and profane in her speech."

According to TMZ.com, "Fernando Flores claims Britney made repeated unwanted sexual advances towards him by exposing herself in front of him in her home."

Flores described a scene in which Spears - who was wearing a skimpy white lace outfit - intentionally dropped her cigarette lighter, bent over to pick it up, and "thereby exposed her uncovered genitals to (Flores) causing him shock and disgust."

Another time, naked Britney summoned the bodyguard to her room to fetch her some bottles of 7UP. The third time she exposed herself, Britney allegedly taunted Flores, saying: "You know you liked it." Lastly, the suit also claimed that "in addition to exposing herself...Spears engaged in numerous sex acts in front of (Flores)."

The bodyguard finally quit his position after the pop princess allegedly exposed herself to him.

Unsurprisingly, Spears's attorneys have been quick to denounce Flores' allegations as totally untrue. But this has not stopped the blogosphere from going wild. Radar Online, for instance, seemed to revel in the details of Ms. Spears's alleged hygiene problems, and quoted the lawsuit extensively, including this blurb: "she did not bathe for days on end, did not use deodorant, did not brush her teeth, did not fix her hair, did not wear shoes or socks."

So did Spears "parade naked in front of [Flores] and often beckon him into her bedroom for sex"? Or didn't she?

Spears's history of odd behavior - remember a few years ago when she shaved her head seemingly for no reason? - no doubt prompted many readers to buy into some or all of Flores' allegations.

This is an important lesson: past perceptions can radically shape how we view future allegations. In this case, Flores' allegations seem to "rhyme" with Spears's tabloid worthy past behavior.

If you've experienced sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation, or other some other form of workplace mistreatment, you might want to note any relevant historical behavior. If a supervisor (or other person) who mistreated you has a history of breaking the law, or at least making inept, stupid, or even hostile behavioral choices, this can help you.

For instance, say you served as an executive assistant for six months, and your boss has been sexually harassing you. If other past assistants can support the thrust of your argument -- by testifying that they, too, experienced harassment or at least saw signs that indicated that the boss was more than capable of violating workplace conduct rules -- then you may enjoy extra leverage to get compensation and hold the wrongdoer to account.

To approach your case in a systematic, strategic way, we invite you to connect with the powerful, experienced team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at 866-348-7394 or www.jhllp.com.

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.

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.

Victims of workplace sexual harassment, gender discrimination, wage and hour violations, and other atrocious and illegal treatment often wait a shockingly long time to take action to stop the bad behavior, seek justice, and move on. Why is this?

Are victims psychologically weak, scared, or intimidated? Are their cases less than rock solid? Are they seeing mistreatment where there really isn't any?

In many cases, the problem can be summed up nicely with the famous "boiling frog" metaphor. This is a metaphor that Al Gore made famous in his "Inconvenient Truth" documentary. Scientists and pundits evoke it to illustrate how it is possible for someone to drift into desperate straits without realizing it... until it's too late to do anything about it.

Boiling Frog Syndrome: If you toss a frog into a pot of boiling, the frog will immediately and alertly hop out of the water to safety, given the chance. But if you put that same frog into a pot of colder water and slowly heat the water until it comes to a rolling boil, the frog will just sit there and slowly allow itself to be boiled to death.

The same principle might be at work with workplace sexual harassment and other kinds of mistreatment. If, on the first day of your job, your boss or co-workers made outlandish sexual comments to you, forwarded you lewd pictures, or propositioned you, chances are that you would leave and never come back... and potentially alert the authorities. This would be a logical and rational response.

However: imagine you take a job at an office - maybe somewhere in Midtown Manhattan, for instance. You work at that job for several months and begin to enjoy it and develop relationships. Then, one day, your boss makes a veiled sexual proposition, which you choose to ignore. Slowly, but surely, the innuendo escalates. Pretty soon, you are dealing with a full blown case of sexual harassment - including, perhaps, lewd propositions, surreptitious e-mails, unwanted touching, etc. But now -- much like the frog placed in the cold water slowly heated to a boil -- you don't react "rationally" and instead allow the behavior to continue. You are now so used to your surroundings -- and you've become inured to the incremental increase in the sexual harassment -- that you know longer see it as weird but rather as something that's a normal part of the tapestry of your office life, or at least something you should or could tolerate.

Fortunately, there are resources that can help you out of the metaphorical boiling pot. If you or someone you know and care about has been experiencing workplace mistreatment of any kind, connect immediately with the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum at www.jhllp.com, or dial our offices for a free and private consultation at 866-348-7394.

Nine cocktail waitresses have banded together to sue Atlantic City's Resorts Casino Hotel for age discrimination and gender discrimination. According to the Daily Mail (a UK paper), "Atlantic City waitresses claim they were made to strip in front of their co-workers and told to squeeze into flapper outfits that were too small for them. Their photographs were then sent to a modeling agency that decided who should stay and who should be axed."

The hotel, for its part, maintains that it evaluated each waitress fairly and maintained that the flapper costumes were a key part of its rebranding to capitalize on the revival of the "Roaring 20s" style spurred by the popular HBO TV series, Boardwalk Empire. Terry Bruno, a former waitress at Resorts, said "we had to go up into this poorly lit, dingy room with uniforms strewn all the floor and we had to try and find something to fit us." Another waitress, 53-year-old Katharyn Felicia, insisted that the resort's rebranding was "very degrading to women... we had no idea that the photo shoot was fighting for our jobs." She also told the Daily Mail: "I was forced to get undressed in front of six co-workers, one of them being my manager... I had no top on because you can't wear a bra with the uniform. I had stockings on, but that's it. It was the most embarrassing thing I've ever had to do."

The gender discrimination allegations touched off a rowdy and at times unpleasant debate on the blogosphere about the rights and responsibilities of cocktail waitresses. Critics of the lawsuit argue that the job of "cocktail waitress" is by nature intended for younger women. The resort deserves the chance to make money; if the law required the hotel to employ septuagenarian and octogenarian (to go to the extreme) cocktail waitresses, then the business would lose money. Not so fast, say advocates of workers. Sure, businesses like casinos should be entitled to screen employees legally and pick the best people suited for the job. But the screening process cannot be arbitrary. It cannot violate age discrimination and gender discrimination laws.

Gloria Allred, an attorney representing the women, put it this way: "Mr. Gomez [the resort boss] may have sought to recreate the 1920s with the flapper uniforms and G-men. But we are here to remind him that, although there were no laws prohibiting employers from discriminating against women on account of their sex and age at that time, there are laws that prohibit such discriminatory conduct now."

The lawsuit fascinates the public because it touches on multiple "hot button" issues, including:

• The rights of the women in the workforce;
• The fears and anxieties of baby boomers as they age out of certain jobs and face uncertain retirement circumstances;
• The fears of many Americans languishing in the stagnant economy;
• The new obsession many Americans have with the 1920s, thanks to Boardwalk Empire;
• Americans' ongoing fascination with the somewhat seedy world of casinos and cocktail bars.

If you or someone you care about has been retaliated against or has experienced unfair treatment at work, wage and hour violations, or discrimination of any kind, the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can help you understand and protect your rights and get abusive behavior to stop. Learn more about your rights at www.jhllp.com, or call us toll free at 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.

Yale University, perhaps the Ivy League's most respected school, is still reeling from a public relations nightmare stemming from charges of sexual harassment and intimidation on campus. Earlier in the spring, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights investigated complaints launched by 16 current and former students that Yale had violated Title IX of the United States gender equality laws. Last week, Yale took a decisive step towards stamping out sexual harassment, intimidation, and hostility on campus by punishing a campus fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon (a.k.a DKE), for intimidating and threatening women.

Last October, the DKEs were recorded marching around campus chanting "No means yes! Yes means anal!" Video of the sexist, misogynist chant got posted on YouTube and went viral. In light of this release, Yale University officials felt compelled to take action to punish the fraternity. A May 17th story from an article in Reuters detailed the University's actions:

• DKE may not recruit or engage on fraternity activities on Yale's campus for five years.
• DKE may not use Yale's name or communicate with Yale students.
• Yale University has asked the national organization of Delta Kappa Epsilon to suspend Yale's chapter for five years.
• The Dean of the Yale College, Mary Miller, released a statement explaining the University's draconian actions: "It is my hope that this will not only shed some light on the matter of public concern but also provide notice of the outcomes to all those who may have been affected by sexual harassment and, accordingly, educate our community."

Did Yale go too far in punishing DKE? Did the university not go far enough?

Can sexual harassment - and discrimination in general - ever be "stamped out" in our nation's universities and colleges? And how should schools balance the desire to cultivate freedom of expression and the need to punish people for abusing that freedom to hurt others?

These are not easy questions to answer.

Bastions of learning, like Yale, were designed not only to educate young people and instill ideals of scholarship but also to challenge them to communicate in new ways and to engage in critical, dynamic thinking. Clearly, even our nation's most elite universities struggle with how to temper the desire to stimulate with the mandate to protect students and others from needless harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

What we learn at college can shape the way we think, behave and interact with others for a lifetime. If we learn that loud, bullying, misogynistic behaviors on campus will go unpunished and perhaps even rewarded by our peers, we will be more likely to carry these behaviors with us after we graduate and enter the professional sphere. Moreover, once we learn that the "power over other" mentality gets results, we will have difficultly unlearning it, even after we intellectually come to appreciate how it can damage others and ourselves.

Fortunately, victims of mistreatment at work can leverage a variety of resources to end bad practices and make the office safe and supportive.

If you or someone you care about has experienced mistreatment at work, the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester and Kirschenbaum can give you a free and totally confidential case evaluation. Learn more at www.jhllp.com or call 866-348-7394.

On May 18th, the Los Angeles Times laced into former California Governor (and action movie star, and former Mr. Universe) Arnold Schwarzenegger -- not only for his recent sexual infidelity but also for his past sexual harassment.

As anyone who has been reading the news or scanning internet headlines already likely knows, Governor Schwarzenegger recently split from his wife, Maria Shriver, after Shriver discovered that her husband had carried on an affair with a household staffer and had fathered a child with her as well. The explosive revelations marked yet another crazy turn in Schwarzenegger's extreme and polarizing personal story.

The Governator has never been a stranger to charges of lurid misconduct. As the Los Angeles Times story notes: "When he first ran for Governor of California in the 2003 campaign to recall Governor Gray Davis, Schwarzenegger was dogged by allegations of sexual harassment... of having groped more than a dozen women over the years who did not want his attention and who were humiliated and angered."

Indeed, these charges dogged Schwarzenegger throughout his campaign. One of the key defenses he utilized was his wife's testimony about his character. As Ms. Shriver famously noted nearly a decade ago: "you can listen to the people who have never met Arnold or who met him for 5 seconds 30 years ago. Or you can listen to me." As Times' article shrewdly noted, following Ms. Shriver's defense, "the voters elected [Schwarzenegger] in a landslide."

Who knows whether Ms. Shriver may be reconsidering her past staunch defense of Schwarzenegger in light of the revelations of his infidelity. It's impossible to get inside her thinking, obviously. But the whole escapade - especially one considered in the context of the allegations of harassment throughout Schwarzenegger's career - is oddly telling.

It helps us perhaps understand how and why harassment can be such a difficult problem to solve - both for the victim and the victimizer. It is often very difficult for people to recognize and accept their own failings. And even if someone understands that he or she has done something wrong (such as retaliated against an employee unfairly or sexually harassed someone at work), retooling how that person thinks and operates often requires both deep inner work and the institution of systems and structures to keep bad behavior in check.

If you've been a victim of harassment, retaliation, discrimination, or any other workplace conduct, you don't have to work through your challenges alone. The team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester and Kirschenbaum can provide a free and comprehensive consultation for you. Just call 866-384-7394 or explore additional resources and articles at www.jhllp.com.