Category Archives: Personal Injury Blog

More claims related to wrongful retaliation in the workplace were filed with the federal administration last year, than any other types of claims. In fact, even as the number of discrimination-related claims against employers in the United States drops, the number of wrongful retaliation claims is actually on the increase.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently released data which indicated evidence of this disturbing trend. The data found that 42.8% of the complaints that it received were related to wrongful retaliation. The second most frequent charges were those related to race discrimination, with 35% of the complaints.

Apart from these two, the other most common charges received by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were those related to pregnancy and sexual harassment, accounting for 29.3%, disability discrimination accounting for 28.6%, age discrimination accounting for 23.2%, national origin discrimination accounting for 10.8%, and religion-based discrimination accounting for 4%. Apart from these, color-based discrimination accounted for 3.1% for the discrimination-related claims, while discrimination based on violations of the Equal Pay Act, accounted for 1.1% of the discrimination claims.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also admitted that the number of charges filed with the agency actually dropped compared to the recent past.

An employer may decide to retaliate against any employee who files a complaint against him or takes any other kind of legal action against the employer. Such wrongful retaliation can take the form of harassing the employee in the workplace, making it difficult for employees to continue to work, and ultimately forcing the employee to resign. In extreme cases, the employee may also be fired for no valid reason.

If you have recently been terminated from your job or have faced other kinds of harassment and retaliation, speak with a California employment lawyer, and discuss your legal options.

A former aide to US Representative Blake Farenthold, R-Texas is suing the lawmaker, alleging that she was wrongfully terminated, and that she was frequently subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace.

The lawsuit has been filed by Lauren Greene, who worked as a new media director and communications director at the office of Representative Blake Farenthold. According to the allegations, she was subjected to sexual harassment and other forms of undesirable behavior in the workplace. Her former employer, she says, regularly drank excessively, and at one point, informed one of his staff members that he frequently had sexual fantasies about Greene.

He once told her, according to the lawsuit, that she had something on her skirt, trying to imply that she had semen on her skirt. In fact, according to the lawsuit, he frequently made comments like this that were designed to harass her, and to gauge if she would be interested in a sexual relationship with him.

The lawsuit names harassment, not just by the lawmaker, but also by his Chief of Staff. She claims that she once complained to Representative Farenthold about the Chief of Staff’s behavior towards her, calling him harassing and condescending. the Representative told her to stand up for herself, and that he would support her. Less than a month after that meeting, she was fired.

Farenthold is currently serving out his third term in Congress. The lawsuit is claiming unspecified damages.

Sexual harassment in the workplace can take any number of forms. From lewd gestures and off-color jokes, to outright assault, such harassment can occur in any number of forms that are designed to make you feel uncomfortable and intimidated. If you are facing sexual harassment in the workplace, you have rights under the law that you can protect. Speak to a California sexual harassment lawyer about your options.

California is one among several states that expressly prohibits workplace discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees. The state prohibits discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation and gender identity.

Employers in the state must respect the fact that their workplaces are now very sexually diverse. California employers are responsible for providing employees with a workplace, that protects them from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Although there is no full-fledged federal law that prohibits discrimination against lesbians, gays, and transgender employees in private employment, there is an Executive Order that specifically prohibits the federal government from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation. However, if private employers in California must follow the state law that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in spite of the fact that there is no federal law yet that bans such discrimination.

California’s law prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, and if a plaintiff files a discrimination lawsuit based on LGBT discrimination and the case goes to a jury, it is likely that plaintiffs will find a jury that is in their favor. According to recent survey, Americans across the board now seem to be in favor of a inclusive workplaces, and zero discrimination against homosexuals, lesbians and transgender persons.

According to the survey, as many as 55% of the more than 2,500 people who were surveyed believed that no employer should be granted exemption from protecting employees against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Only a minority believed that such exemptions should be granted, and even among them, the majority believed that the exemption should only be applicable to churches and places of worship.

According to a new survey, Americans are opposed to discrimination against persons with other sexual preferences or sexual orientation.

The poll focused on more than 2, 500 Americans, and out of these, more than 200 indicated that they were homosexual, and 354 identify themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender. Approximately 55% of these persons believed that no employer should be given any exemption from providing employees protection against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, or preference. A minority of them believe that certain businesses or organizations have the right to discriminate against these persons, including places of worship. They also believed that private businesses could have exemption from anti-discrimination laws, based on religious beliefs.

At least two- thirds of the respondents admitted that they believed that there should be an expansion of the federal law to expand protection against workplace discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Two- thirds of the respondents admitted that they were strongly in favor of the expansion of federal law to provide protections against employment discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. About 54 % were strongly in favor of equal treatment of transgender workers.

This rising tide in favor of acceptance of persons of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in the workplace comes as several states around the country, continue to relax their laws and accept same sex marriages or unions. Even though so many Americans are strongly in favor of protections against workplace discrimination, in matters of gender identity and sexual orientation, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act continues to be debated by lawmakers in Congress. In several American states, it continues to be legal for employers to fire employees if they are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. In 32 states, a person can be fired from his employment if he identifies as transgender.

A recent report that focused on widespread incidences of sexual harassment involving farmworkers in California guided the design of a new bill which was recently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown. The bill makes California one of the first states in the country to enact sexual harassment laws that protect farm workers from abuse.

The investigative report by University Of California Berkeley journalism students groups and other agencies spotlighted the high rates of sexual abuse involving farmworkers in picking, packing and other farm activities.

Under the law, liability for protection of farmworkers will be placed on a third party, who provides temporary farmworkers to agricultural employers. The new law will mandate training for supervisors who are required to undergo sexual harassment training at least once every two years.

Migrant female workers are unwilling to report these incidents of sexual harassment. Many of them consider themselves fortunate to be able to work in the country, and decide that reporting any kind of abuse or harassment is simply not worth the consequences. Women are often afraid of reporting these crimes, because these are often undocumented immigrants who are at risk of being deported.

Incidents of sexual harassment may not be as widespread, but still do occur in other workplaces across the country. Lewd jokes, inappropriate gestures, obscene e-mails, and inappropriate comments made in passing, all of these can constitute sexual harassment. If you have been subjected to any type of obscene, inappropriate behavior or language in the workplace, you may have rights to file a complaint. Speak to an employment lawyer in California about how you can protect your rights.

Immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants who are in this country illegally, very often find themselves holding the short end of the stick as far as employment protections are concerned. Their undocumented status very often comes in the way of them being able to protect themselves against employment violations. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently pledged that the agency would protect immigrant workers, including undocumented workers who are in this country illegally.

That pledge came as part of a memorandum of understanding signed between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Mexican Foreign Affairs Ministry. As part of the Memorandum of Understanding, the two countries stated that the memorandum’s purpose would be to establish a collaborative relationship that is targeted at helping Mexican nationals in the United States arm themselves with the guidance, information and other tools that they need to help exercise their workplace rights. That includes more access to education, and training resources.

The Commission is concerned about workplace violence against undocumented immigrants, and exploitation. The memorandum will also help eradicate and eliminate violations against undocumented immigrants. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it is not concerned with the immigration status of a worker who comes to the agency complaining about mistreatment, discrimination or harassment. The federal agency is not interested in asking you for your documentation status. Immigrant workers, who have been treated unfairly, or are currently being targeted for exploitation, discrimination and harassment can get in touch with the agency to protect their rights.

Considering how volatile the immigration question is, especially the rights of undocumented immigrants, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission needs to be commended for actually tackling the widespread violations of the freedoms of undocumented immigrant workers in this country.

For the first time in three decades, the federal administration has updated its guidelines to prevent workplace pregnancy discrimination. The new guidelines will go a long way in helping protect pregnant workers from discrimination.

The rules were adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and now hold that workplace discrimination or harassment against pregnant employees is a form of illegal sex harassment. The guidelines clearly establish that such harassment is illegal, and that there has been an increase in overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as more subtle discrimination against pregnant employees over the past few years. For the first time, the guidelines clearly establish how the Americans with Disabilities Act will apply to pregnant employees. The guidelines also establish that discrimination against female employees, based on past pregnancies or potential future pregnancies is also illegal under the law.

The last time the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated its guidelines related to pregnancy discrimination was back in 1983. These new guidelines are sorely needed. There has been an upswing in the number of employees who have been fired, denied jobs, and promotion opportunities all because they were pregnant, or could possibly get pregnant in the future.

Those kinds of discriminatory practices are now clearly illegal under the law, and this will have a major impact on employment lawsuits that are based on pregnancy discrimination in California. Under the new guidelines, employers are specifically prohibited from forcing pregnant employees to take leave, and are also guided to provide light work for pregnant workers. Lactation is now covered as a pregnancy-related medical condition after childbirth. The guidelines also include paternal leave under the same umbrella, and say that when it comes to matters involving parental leave, males and females must be treated similarly.

More than 1 million people currently live with HIV in the United States. These are people who are living normal lives, and as the drugs that are being developed to treat the disease improve, HIV-positive people are expected to live longer, more productive and satisfying lives,. However, there’s one thing that has changed little since the word ”AIDS” entered our lexicon. Workplace discrimination is something that many persons with HIV continue to face on a daily basis.

The laws have become progressively tougher on any kind of harassment or discrimination against persons with HIV. Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against a company on behalf of an HIV-positive man. According to the complaint, the company refused to hire the man because of his HIV status. Over the past ten years, in fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed at least 25 cases involving alleged discrimination based on HIV status. Between 1997 and 2013, the federal agency received more than 3,900 complaints that alleged that people were being discriminated against based on their HIV status.

In most of these cases, these persons were simply terminated from their jobs after employers learned about their HIV-positive status. In fact, most lawsuits filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have to do with this kind of discrimination. In other cases, the company simply refused to hire persons due to their HIV-positive status.

It isn’t just small companies that are guilty of such discrimination. Some of the defendants in HIV-positive discrimination lawsuits include the likes of Popeye’s Chicken, a Mac Donald’s franchise and even Kaiser Permanente. People have been fired from jobs as dental technicians, chefs, or even taking care of the produce section in their supermarket, after employers learned about their HIV status.

After concerns over discriminatory practices at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the agency has announced that it will soon implement strategies that are aimed at reducing biases in the workplace.

There have been a number of recent concerns about workplace discrimination at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is the premier consumer financial regulatory agency. A number of reports recently revealed that there were disparities in employees’ performance ratings that seemed to be based on racial distinctions. There have also been a number of other complaints of unfair treatment at the agency that made their way into the media.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created as part of the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act. At the time, the agency worked quickly to hire employees, and diversification of the workforce was not prioritized. Now, the agency says that it wants to attract a diverse pool of job applicants, and focus on creating an inclusive workplace culture.

Recently, a report that was filed by the American Banker newspaper analyzed internal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau data, showing clearly that the agency’s white employees were approximately twice as likely to be given a top performance rating, compared to African-American or Hispanic employees. At least one attorney who worked for the agency has told a Congressional committee that she was the victim of gender discrimination at the agency. When she filed a formal complaint, she alleges that she was retaliated against.

Agency officials clearly admit that there is room for greater inclusionary practices at the agency. That is definitely a step in the right direction. The agency now has a solid opportunity in which to rectify past mistakes, and promote a more inclusive culture that bans discrimination against women and minorities.

It’s not a situation that is common right now, but with the increased use of social media use and companies making use of social media channels for recruitment, it is not a situation that is will be uncommon in the near future. Employers currently often use Facebook, twitter and other social media for recruiting, and therefore, the federal administration has a pertinent question – will these companies be at risk of discrimination lawsuits, because those recruitment strategies leave out older people who may not be using social media?

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission focused on such questions at a recent hearing on how the use of social media by companies, job applicants and employers can affect enforcement of discrimination laws. Any job seeker now knows that Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and other social media networks are just as important a source of job opportunities these days as conventional recruitment channels. In fact, more opportunities are posted on these channels, as more and more companies use social networks to hire prospective employees.

However, older persons may not be as inclined to use computers, and even less inclined to use more professional networks like LinkedIn, although older people are likely to use social media like Facebook. Therefore, there could be issues about whether companies could be found guilty of discriminating against older employees by using such recruitment channels.

Last year, one study found that as many as 77% of companies frequently used social networking sites to find candidates for specific jobs. That was an increase from 56% in 2011, and a rate of 34% in 2008. The highest recruitment action took place on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

There are also questions about the risk of lawsuits, arising when employers choose to use social media to screen applicants.