Employment Lawyer Blog

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.

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.

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.

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.

Victims of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, and other workplace violations often feel fairly confident that the perpetrators "knew what they were doing." A boss, for instance, who makes lascivious suggestions to a secretary, clearly understands that he is engaging in illegal or at the very least untoward behavior. A plant manager who intentionally demotes (or fails to promote) an African-American might not admit out loud that he is "racially discriminating" - but in his heart of hearts, he is clearly aware of what he's doing - and that it's wrong.

Right?

Perhaps... but perhaps not.

Clearly, many cases are cut and dry. Some superiors who mistreat their workers just don't care, or they think they can "get away with it." But others may simply be running unconscious scripts or deferring to what they perceive to be the normal culture of their industry. The unconscious forces that play on all of us - employers and employees alike - are quite profound.

If you take a look at some of Abraham Lincoln's statements about African-Americans -- even just a few years before the Civil War, you might be shocked at how "racist" Lincoln comes across. Here's a real quote from the 16th President:

"While [blacks and whites] do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Remember: this is the man who literally put his life and his country on the line to liberate African-Americans from their shackles. The cultural influences on the way Lincoln thought about race were so powerful that they locked him into a certain way of thinking.

We often tend to demonize the people who do the harassing or discrimination as monsters and uncaring and evil people. And their actions and comments - intentional or not, conscious or not - can certainly have monstrous effects. But as the eminent psychologist Dr. Marshall Rosenberg -- Founder of a school of thought known as Nonviolent Communication (NVC) -- puts it, we are often so blinded by the "enemy images" we have of one another that we fail to see the broader pathologies at work in any given situation.

For instance, say your boss screams at you every morning if you make her coffee even slightly wrong. You might be tempted to think that the woman is crazy - or that she is harassing you or discriminating against you. And, indeed, she may be. But once you get away from the "enemy images" you have of her, you may see that she is concurrently responding to pressures from her superiors or she is simply imitating cultural norms of her industry. For instance, as the Kevin Spacey movie Swimming With Sharks illustrates, executives in the entertainment industry can often adopt terrifying and dictatorial personas - not because these people are intrinsically dictatorial but because they are, for whatever reason, attempting to mimic an archetypal "Hollywood exec" persona.

A quality, experienced law firm, such as Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can work with you to identify and put an end to workplace misbehavior and mistreatment. For a free consultation today, call 866-348-7394, or review the firm's resources at www.jhllp.com.

31-year old Janet Kim has filed a complaint through the New York State of Human Rights against "Hell's Kitchen" and "Kitchen Nightmare" celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay -- as well as Ramsay's restaurant in the London NYC Hotel. The single mom, who works as a commis chef, alleges that her male colleagues sexually harassed her and mistreated her in a variety of ways.

Here are some of the "incendiary" allegations against the male chefs:

• According to the Daily Mail Reporter, workers referred to her derogatorily as "China" - hinting at racial and ethnic discrimination there.
• Chefs called her a whore and propositioned her for oral sex.
• Ms. Kim also alleges she was retaliated against by the kitchen staff members, who forced her to make tiny hors d'oeuvres in what her male colleagues called the "c**t corner."
• In the wake of Ms. Kim's accusations, many members of the staff -- who were furious at her -- walked out of the restaurant to protest her return.

Although Ramsay no longer owns the 2 star Michelin restaurant - he sold it back to its original owners - the fine dining establishment bears his name, and it gets a significant amount of business because of its association with his celebrity. The allegations of sexual harassment, racial harassment, and retaliation are particularly ironic, since one of Chef Ramsay's most famous TV shows - Kitchen Nightmares - focused on rehabilitating restaurants in trouble.

According to the Daily Mail Reporter, "Ms. Kim felt the British Chef's fiery television persona had rubbed off in her male colleagues, creating a 'toxic environment'." Her legal representative suggested that "she feels he is a celebrity who films the shows there [at the London]... where this type of environment [fiery and testosterone driven] is permitted and accepted."

So far, both Gordon Ramsay's spokespeople and LXR Luxury Resorts (the company which now owns the London NYC) have kept mum about the allegations.

Chef Ramsay is not the only celebrity restaurateur who's recently been targeted with charges like wage and hour violations, sexual harassment, and retaliation. Far from it. But, just because you're a celebrity who owns a business does not give you the right to mistreat your employees. Unfortunately, a kind of "culture of abuse" pervades many restaurants; especially, apparently, here in New York City.

Fortunately, victims have rights, and they have a lot of law on their side. If you or someone you care about has been subject to any kind of mistreatment at your restaurant or other work place, the powerful and resourceful team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can provide a free and confidential consultation. Learn more about the firm at www.jhllp.com, or dial 866-348-7394 to get a confidential consultation now.

According to an April 25th article in the Hartford Courant, last year, employees filed nearly 100,000 complaints of workplace discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) - "an all-time high."

More than 33,000 complaints were specifically for retaliation, which has now surpassed "racial discrimination" as the number one EEOC complaint. The EEOC also received high numbers of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, disability and national origin, and religious discrimination complaints last year.

A spokesperson for Connecticut's Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), Jim O'Neill, blamed the spike on the recession: "The economy is bad and people are desperate not to lose their jobs, so they are filing complaints they would not necessarily have made in the past."

The Courant, however, also quotes an EEOC spokesperson, James Ryan, who cautioned analysts not to over-interpret the spike: "The fiscal year charge data can tell us a lot, but it does not tell us why there was an increase in a given charge or about the cause for the filing of particular charges."

The Courant's analyst speculates that the rise in retaliation filings could be attributable to "shifting legal strategies by plaintiffs' lawyers."

The swelling number of complaints has some policymakers alarmed. Will all this legal action help employees and make the system fairer? Or will it simply glut the court systems and create an unnecessary burden on employers who are already struggling with a tough economy?

It's difficult to answer these questions objectively, since one's perspective will color one's read of the data. For instance, if you're an advocate for workers' rights, you may look at the spike in EEOC filings and conclude that employers are giving their workers short shrift and cutting corners to survive in the troubled economy. On the other hand, the data could be read differently. Perhaps employers are acting like they always did... but workers are now (for whatever reason) far less tolerant of bad behavior or mistreatment than they had been in the past.

Pulling back from the policy debate and regardless of whether there are more or less issues being reported, it's important to ground this in practical terms if you or someone you care about has been victimized by racial discrimination, retaliation, or any other workplace violation. The legal team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can provide high-caliber assistance in such matters. Connect today for a free and confidential consultation at www.jhllp.com or (866) 348-7394.

New research out of Penn State University suggests that African Americans who suffer from racial discrimination will experience an increased likelihood of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) at some point in their lives. William A. Smith, a Professor at University of Utah, coined the term "racial battle fatigue" to describe the similarities between the chronic debilitating effects of race discrimination and the debilitating effects of war time stresses.

"Racial battle fatigue" manifests both physically and psychologically. Psychologically, victims may suffer agitated thoughts and trouble concentrating. Physically, victims may experience ulcers, fatigue, and headaches. This new research - published in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders - examined nearly 6,000 American adults, including over 3,500 African Americans.

Jose Soto, an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Penn State, reports: "one interesting finding from the study is that non-racial discrimination seems to be associated with the development of GAD [generalized anxiety disorder] for all three groups in the sample... about 49% of non-Hispanic whites said they suffered other forms of discrimination... this is just one instance of how powerful social stressors can impact healthy functioning."

Soto suggests that the experience of racism causes the anxiety. Perhaps. This conclusion seems to match our intuitive expectations. For instance, consider a situation in which a co-worker harasses you on a daily basis; this abuse might lead to a long-term self esteem deficit, which in turn could cause generalized anxiety.

However, alternative explanations also might explain the data. For instance, perhaps the correlation between racial abuse and GAD could be explained in reverse. Consider a situation in which an anxiety-prone individual enters the work force. Perhaps this person had a genetic tendency to be anxious. A non-anxious person might be able to "laugh off" a tasteless joke or a rude comment. But a more sensitive person -- more prone to anxiety -- might be more likely to interpret bad behavior as harassment/discrimination.

In science, it's important to be able to tease apart cause from effect. If the end goal is to end racial and gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation - as it should be - then experts should consider multiple reads of the data before implementing policy prescriptions.

In any event, irrespective of how one might try to interpret this research, the reality is that racial and gender discrimination occurs all the time in American workplaces. If someone you care about has been denied a promotion, fired, or otherwise mistreated at work, the team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum can work with you to develop solutions. Explore clear and active resources at www.jhllp.com, or connect for free consultation at 866-348-7394.

Last Thursday, nine former Auburn University Athletic Department employees filed a racial discrimination suit against the college in U.S. District Court in Montgomery, Alabama.

The lawsuit stems from a spree of firings in 2010. When AU moved its basketball arena from the old Beard-Eaves-Memorial Coliseum to a new arena, the Athletic Department let go of 11 workers, 10 of whom happened to be African American.

Kurtis Chandler was one of the employees who was let go. In a statement at a press conference following the filing of the suit, Chandler said: "it is just mindboggling that in 2011 it [racial discrimination] is still going on." The employees want their jobs back at AU's Athletics Department as well as compensatory and punitive damages as well as back pay.

The nine workers filed complaints with the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) last June about the job losses, however the EEOC apparently had been moving too slowly for the group, so they commenced legal action on their own.

Reaction from around the blogosphere

Some analysts suggest that the employees are making a "mountain out of a mole hill." These critics argue that AU had simply downsized its workforce without any conscious malice and that the majority of the fired workers happened to be African American was a random coincidence.

There are others who see more disturbing motives. These critics point out that Auburn is located in Montgomery, Alabama - one of the bastions of the Old South where discrimination was rife.

It's often difficult to parse the veracity of discrimination allegations. Even after you consider witness statements, relevant documents, and historical context, there is the possibility for serious errors.

News stories - even in-depth news analyses - typically don't delve deep enough into allegations of racial discrimination, retaliation, and sexual harassment to provide readers with enough meaningful information to draw fair conclusions.

Does this mean you shouldn't react emotionally when you read stories about racial discrimination? Obviously not. But a more mature approach to analyzing the news might help; withhold your judgment until more facts are clear.

If you've personally witnessed (or have been victimized by) racial discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, or wage and hour violations, you know how difficult it can be to get other people - even sympathetic family members - to empathize with your concerns and to really hear out what happened to you. Solving job-related "hostile work environment" situations begins with active listening.

If you crave to be listened to about your discrimination or harassment matter, talk to the reputable, compassionate, and experienced team at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Dial 866-348-7394, or learn more about the team on the web at www.jhllp.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that McFadden's Restaurant & Salon has resolved a racial discrimination lawsuit brought by bartender Michael Bolden.

Bolden started working at the bar in 2007 while studying law at Temple University. After noticing what he believed to be discriminatory policies - he alleged that the bar made a push to cater specifically to white patrons starting in August 2010 - Bolden got entangled in unsavory email and text message exchanges with his managers. One manager, Walt Wyrsta, sent several inflammatory messages, including one that read: "We don't want black people, we are a white bar!" Upon internal investigation, McFadden's fired Wyrsta.

According to the terms of the settlement, McFadden's will hire an HR consultant to enforce nondiscrimination policies and establish a confidential hotline for workers to report future complaints of racial discrimination, sexual harassment, or retaliation. McFadden's also must report on its progress to the court every quarter for a full year.

Bolden, who now serves as a lawyer for Community Legal Services, a local non-profit that gives legal services to the poor, elected not to receive any compensation as part of the settlement. He said: "My goal is to effectuate changes at McFadden's that will positively impact race relations." McFadden's majority shareholder issued a statement of thanks to Bolden for alerting the company to the discrimination and said "race discrimination at McFadden's 3rd Street is not acceptable and will not be tolerated."

Often, cases of racial discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation can fester for months if not years. Victims may feel like that their rights have been compromised and that no one can end the tyrannical policies or punish offenders. Fortunately, victims of on-the-job mistreatment have a key resource, the law firm of Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum. Learn more about what JHLLP can do for you at www.jhllp.com, or schedule a free consultation by calling 866-348-7394.

The EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) has filed a religious discrimination suit on behalf of Christopher Woodson, a Rastafarian who allegedly did not get hired as a mover because of his long dreadlocked Rastafarian hair.

According to an AP article, Woodson applied to work for Lawrence Transportation Systems in May 2008. But the company denied him a chance to be a loader because of their "grooming policies." According to a statement provided by the company's lawyer, "[Woodson's] hair was down to the middle of his back, and he was asked to get it cut to about shirt collar length." The attorney said that, since loaders work closely with customers, the official policy stipulates "that hair, facial hair, beards and general grooming must be neat, clean and trimmed." Hiring someone who looks like Woodson, in other words, would cause the company "undue hardship" and a loss of business.

The EEOC has counter-argued that Rastafarians "view growing their hair unbridled as a tenet of their religion." Therefore, the company's decision not to hire Woodson violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC wants Lawrence Transportation to pay for Woodson's back pay as well as pay punitive damages and recalibrate its hiring policies.

As this story illustrates nicely, cases of religious discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour violations, and retaliation can get quite complex. The law is full of nuances. And cases which may seem to be "straightforward" examples of employment discrimination or harassment may be far more layered than they initial appear to be in media reports.

To that end, if someone in your life has experienced workplace religious discrimination, harassment, retaliation, or another kind of mistreatment, it's worth your while to get an objective legal opinion about whether you have a case -- and, if so, about how you should proceed. Connect with the attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum today for a free consultation - dial 866-348-7394, or visit www.jhllp.com.

A three-year battle over New York racial discrimination has finally come to a close, as a US District Court Judge awarded current and former African-American employees of Elmer W. Davis Inc., (a Rochester, NY based roofing company) $1 million pursuant to charges that African-American employees had been singled out for mistreatment over many years.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed the lawsuit back in 2007 after Samuel Crenshaw, a former roofer, came forward with allegations that Elmer Davis employees had made threats against him and called him racial slurs. Other African-American employees also complained about mistreatment. Dilanjan Jackson, another ex-employee, was quoted saying: "I was called a Hebrew, the N-word, and a drug dealer." When Jackson reported these problems to supervisor, the manager "laughed at my face and I was laid off." Another employee, Phil Byford, alleged that his supervisor had sprayed him with tar.

Elmer W. Davis Inc. is the biggest New York roofing contractor with revenues approaching $30 million annually. In response to the verdict, the company maintained that the allegations of racial discrimination were untrue. CEO Jeff Davis said that the firm capitulated to the EEOC settlement because "we simply do not have the unlimited resources and deep pockets that the federal government has to continue litigating."

In addition to having to pay out $1 million to African-American employees, Davis Inc. has agreed to (per the AP) "use seniority as the basis for layoffs and employees recalls, to make a good faith effort to hire qualified African-American for foremen and supervisory positions, and to provide anti-discrimination training to employees."

Overcoming racial discrimination, harassment, and retaliation can be challenging, even if you know that wrongdoing has been perpetrated against you and/or your coworkers. Fortunately, there are great resources available to help you fight back. For a free and confidential consultation about your potential New York workplace discrimination case, get in touch with attorneys at Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester & Kirschenbaum by dialing 866-348-7349 or emailing the firm through its official website, www.jhllp.com.

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 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.