Experts say that the economic recession has something to do with the growing number of employment discrimination charges filed against employers before the office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
Despite the EEOC’s strict monitoring and pursuit of employers initiating employment discrimination based on race, age, sex, religion and disability, their recent report conclude that the number of complaints last year coming from the workers and job applicants has hit the most number.
In the statistics released by the EEOC, it showed that 100,000 charges from employees and job applicants have been recorded last year. In history, this is the most number of charges ever recorded within the span of 46 years. The agency also managed to collect $365 million monetary relief for alleged victims of employment discrimination.
Analyzing the figures gathered by the agency, it is proven to be similar to probing the national economic downturn since both are closely related to each other. A representative from the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) said that employment discrimination charges filed within the EEOC tend to reflect what is happening in the economy.
For the past decade, the EEOC has seen a significant rise in number of complaints filed at the agency following the recession of the weak economy over the last four years.
At present, experts are claiming that the growing number of employment discrimination would not fall while the job market is at stake.
In the figures released by the EEOC, cases handled by employment law attorneys from the complainant were not included. Thus, combining all the number of complaints would definitely result to higher numbers than the one shown previously by the agency.
Posted in employment discrimination.
Tagged with employment discrimination, employment law attorneys.
By Willa Ford
– January 20, 2012
Spectra Scaffolding, a scaffolding company in Bury, England is now facing monetary fines of £85,000 after one of its workers has sustained spinal cord injury and became paralyzed.
The 33-year-old victim, David Collins, will be spending his entire life on wheel chair after he sustained spinal cord injury when a ton of scaffoldings landed on him while he was unloading working tools.
According to reports, Collins had already delivered a load in front of a store that morning of November 8 but he had been ordered to go to the back to unload a small compound without any assistance from other workers. Unfortunately, a defective safety catch on the hook came out which trapped Collins underneath. As a result of which, Collins suffered from distressing consequences.
The court found out that the equipment of Collins’ company was not properly maintained and that victim was only trained for a routine lifting operation.
Now, Collins is expected to be paralyzed for the rest of his life due to his spinal cord injury. The company had been required to pay the total amount of £85,000. Unfortunately, the company directors are said to be receiving only £500 a month and a dividend of £42,000 a year. Probably, the said monetary relief would have a great effect to the company and is more likely to drain their resources.
For Collins, justice has been served and definitely, the Spectra Scaffolding officers figured out their failure in implementing safety measures.
A spinal cord injury can be distressing to a person. It can result to serious complications and even the paralysis. Proper treatment could be made possible at some condition but it would absolutely cost a lot. Thus, in such cases, in order to win your claim, you must have the best personal injury lawyer. In Los Angeles finding one of the best is never a problem.
Posted in Spinal Cord Injury.
Tagged with personal injury lawyer in Los Angeles, Spinal Cord Injury.
By Warren.Peace
– January 13, 2012
Committing a violation or a crime doesn’t necessarily mean that one can no longer be entitled to pursue his or her career.
A police captain who has been charged of multiple violations was afterwards terminated from being a police at Santa Rosa and was given $97,000 as a consolation. According to Jamie Mitchel, he was fired from his job having nothing but a “kick on his ass”. Since then, he has worked for any law enforcement agencies.
Way back in 2008, the city of Santa Rosa was flooded with complaints of Mitchel against his immediate superior officer, Chief Ed Flint for various offenses such as discrimination, harassment and retaliation. The city was forced to pay more than $120,000 as a settlement for all the complaints against the two. Prior to that incident, the city fired both police officers causing Mitchel to file for a wrongful termination before the US District Court. However, the said lawsuit was dismissed and he was ordered to pay $32,000 as payment for the city’s legal bills.
Disappointed with the ruling, Mitchel filed an appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and finally after all his efforts, a three–judge panel ruled in his favor last week, setting the case for further proceedings.
Mitchel is anticipating for his win in his wrongful termination lawsuit. It is improper to say that every termination is wrongful. Having an employment lawyer by your side can help you determine whether or not you have experienced a wrongful termination. With a lawyer’s help you are guaranteed with the best result.
Posted in Wrongful Termination.
Tagged with employment lawyer, Wrongful Termination.
By Warren.Peace
– January 5, 2012
An Italian Restaurant chain in Winchester, Tennessee is now facing a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) before the office of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee Winchester Division.
The EEOC filed the lawsuit after learning about the sexual harassment that occurred at the restaurant’s workplace several years ago. According to the information gathered by the agency, way back on 2005, the male kitchen workers at a Tullahoma branch of the Rafael’s Italian Restaurant subjected the female employees, including minors, to rude acts of sexual harassment not only once but in repeated occurrences.
Despite the repeated complaints received by the restaurant’s management from the sexually abused women, the restaurant owners recurrently ignored them.
Once an employer failed to correct the known sexual harassment, it automatically suggests a clear violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The restaurant agreed to pay a monetary relief of $25,000 to settle the lawsuit filed against them. Aside from the monetary fine, they are also required to abide with the EEOC’c directives such as providing an annual training to employees regarding their rights under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and maintaining records of sexual harassment complaints in the workplace. As always, the restaurant management shall post a notice to all employees regarding their protection against all forms of discrimination in the workplace with the agency’s contact details included.
In every sexual harassment case, particularly when there is a young employee involved, managers and immediate superiors are expected to be the first ones to act immediately in stopping the recurring harassment whether it was done by a co-worker or a customer. On the other hand, employees are also held liable for informing the manager or the superiors about the discrimination happening at the workplace. There should be cooperation between the employee and the employer in able to resolve such a case.
Posted in Labor Laws.
Tagged with sexual harassment.
By Warren.Peace
– December 29, 2011
Wal – Mart Stores Inc. is about to pay $275,000 fine for the employment disability lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against them at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Greenville Division after firing an employee who underwent from a cancer surgery.
This case was one of the agency’s first lawsuits that were filed under the ADAAA. Denied reasonable accommodation and retaliation against disabled people violates Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended by the Americans With Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008.
Wal – Mart has been branded since 2008. Right from the start, it is an American Multinational retailer corporation with chains of large discount department stores and warehouse stores. It is the 18th largest public corporation in terms of global listing and revenue ranking. Wal-Mart is also currently the biggest private employer in the globe with more than 2 million employees as well as the world’s biggest retailer.
Under the lawsuit, the EEOC is claiming that the company failed to accommodate the disability of a 12 – year employee of its distribution center at the #6039 Midway Tennessee.
Said employee underwent a cancer surgery which made his right shoulder weak. The company fired him in retaliation for complaining about the said company’s refusal to accommodate his disabilities. The employee worked as a forklift driver. He requested the company not to require him to cover a 20 – minute break in the shipping because it would require manual lifting. However, Wal – Mart denied the employees request for an accommodation and fired him instead for not being eligible to perform the essential functions of his job.
In addition to the fine, the 18 month consent decree settling the suit directs Wal – Mart’s distribution center #6039 from further failure in providing reasonable accommodation, absent improper hardship or following proper methods for accommodating such request in accordance with the ADA and ADAAA. Furthermore they are required to provide anti – disability discriminations trainings and seminars as well as maintaining records of requests for accommodation. The EEOC’s contact information should also be posted together with the notice to employees about the foregoing lawsuit. It’s just the usual and yet heavy punishment for the companies violating both the ADA and the ADAAA.
Employers should never forget that there is a firm body of federal law that strictly obliges employers to provide a reasonable accommodation to employees with disabilities to avoid generous penalties. Such employment disability might be a simple offense to companies but not for the EEOC.
Posted in Employment Disability.
Tagged with Employment Disability.
By Willa Ford
– December 22, 2011
Allegedly, the Coca-Cola Enterprise Inc. and its affiliates in Los Angeles California have violated several California Labor Laws.
The labor law violation lawsuit involves approximately 1,500 workers with possible financial liability that could amount to more than $30 million.
Court documents reveal that the defendants are charged with the following labor law violation:
• Non-payment of overtime wages
• Failure to provide meal and rest breaks and adequate compensations for jobs done during this period
• Failure to reimburse the expenditures incurred for personal vehicle used during work hours
• Failure to provide uniform allowance
• Failure to provide accurate payroll records
In the lawsuit, the complainants claim that on November, 2010, they sent a written notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) noting that the defendants have violated the provisions of the California Labor Code. The said written complaint was supported with evidences. However, on January, 2011, the complaining party received a response coming from the LWDA declaring their lack of intent to investigate the allegations.
The government agency that is supposed to protect workers and strengthen labor laws clearly disregarded worker’s complaints, and such act is extremely disturbing.
The lawsuit was first filed in California state court in Los Angeles but was forwarded to federal court due to the defendant’s motion filed under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
The complainants together with their California employment lawyer is assessing whether a motion to remand is permitted. In their lawsuit, they are seeking for unpaid wages, overtime compensation, premium wages for job done during meal and rest break, unreimbursed and civil penalties in accordance with the California Labor Codes.
Posted in Employment Cases, Labor Laws.
Tagged with California employment lawyer, labor law violation.
By Willa Ford
– December 16, 2011
A factory worker in Georgia filed a wrongful termination against his former employee after he has been fired for not wearing a shirt with a 666 sticker.
According to a news from Insurance Journal, the complainant Billy E. Hyatt refused to wear a shirt with a 666 sticker declaring that the factory he has been working had been 666 day accident-free.
Supposedly, it is good news, thinking that a company has been a safe workplace for its employees. However, for Hyatt’s belief, wearing such shirt with a demon’s number would condemn him to everlasting cursing.
666 is believed to be the number of the beast or the number of evil in some countries. This number is featured in the Book of Revelation under the New Testament.
Hyatt had worked for the North Georgia plastics company from June 2007 until he was penalized with a 3–day suspension after not–wearing the 666 shirt sticker which resulted to his termination.
Hyatt is a devoted Christian that’s why he did not agree to wear the sticker shirt even though he’s very much aware of the consequences he might receive for not obeying the factory’s memorandum. But one thing he didn’t expect is that he’ll get fired for that simple and unlawful reason.
After his wrongful termination, Hyatt together with his California employment lawyer filed a complaint against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which has been granted with a right to sue the company last August.
Hyatt’s wrongful termination lawsuit against the plastic factory – Berry Plastic Corp. is still under proceedings and the respondent still remains silent.
Posted in Wrongful Termination.
By Willa Ford
– December 10, 2011
Finally, the Oklahoma City Council has approved the new proposed policy protecting gay employees. The controversial policy passed for its 7 to 2 votes last November 15, 2011.
A council member had actually delayed the vote for several weeks to find enough time to do some research regarding the matter. One council man claims that addition of sexual orientation is no longer required in the city policy since there is no such issue that arises in Oklahoma.
Councilmen opposed to the measure expressed their religious point of view and opposition to adding a policy to employment non – discrimination. Meanwhile, those who are in favor of the policy expressed their intention for fairness and equality.
Despite the controversies and debates, the new policy passed in the city council and is now approved. Sexual orientation is now added to the city’s employment non – discrimination policy.
An employment non – discrimination act is a bill in the US made to prevent employment discrimination against employees and applicants based on sexual orientation or gender identity by employers and even other people such as civilians and other civic organizations.
Apparently, gays, bisexual employees and job applicants in Oklahoma City may now have clear rights and protection against employment discrimination.
Admittedly, not every one is happy with the new approved policy. However, Councilman El Shadid stick to his personal point of view that it will not do any harm to people nor cause any dime to taxpayers for adding the sexual orientation into the city’s employment non – discrimination.
However, it is noted that the city council ordinance is only applicable to the city employees and applicants and not to any private businesses.
Gays and bisexuals who still experience discrimination despite the city’s new approved policy, may consult an employment lawyer to make people understand the essence of the new approved policy.
Posted in employment discrimination.
By Zara Michel Collins
– November 24, 2011
Huawei is the largest networking and telecommunications equipment supplier in China with head office at Longgang District, Shenzhen, Guangdong. Slowly, Huawei has been staging in UK and also plans to expand its enterprise operation in the Western part of Europe after failing to do invasion in US.
While working its way for a huge expansion in England, one former British employee of Huawei is claiming that he was terminated by the said Chinese telecom manufacturer because he was not a Chinese.
Judeson Peter worked as a customer support engineer in Huawei since April 2006 until he was terminated on May, 2009. Allegedly, he was fired because he is a British. Huawei’s unlawful act had caused Peter to file for a lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, breach of contract and racial and age discrimination.
Peter is also claiming that more than 300 workers were moved to UK during his employment while 49 British and non – Bristish staff lost their jobs. This has led him to believe that he was unfairly pre – selected for termination due to his race and age. Peter also added that not single Chinese engineer has ever been terminated while 30 non – Chinese have been.
Huawei has denied Peter’s claims against them. Huawei representative opposed Peter’s argument by stating that Chinese expats were employed by their holding company in China and did not work for their UK – based company.
In a statement, Hauwei proved Peter’s allegations false. According to them, Huawei unfortunately had to do a series of termination, resulting in twenty – five percent British workers and thirty two percent Chinese employees jobless.
Though, Huawei had given out their response to the lawsuit filed against them to clear out their names particularly in the UK area, they are still required to pass through the employment discrimination lawsuit which will resolve on the allegations set forth against them.
Posted in employment discrimination.
By Warren.Peace
– November 17, 2011
Another teacher is suing her former employer from Ronald Wornick Jewish Day School for 13 counts related to wrongful termination claiming for age and employment discrimination.
The former teacher, Rina Shapira filed the 46 pages lawsuit on October 24, 2011. The lawsuit is claiming for multiple violations of the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Age, racial discrimination, wrongful termination, defamation, breach of contract and good faith, non – remittance of overtime pay and wages and a violation of the Unfair Competition Law are among the complaints for damages.
Meanwhile, the Head of School Barbara Geredoff has spoken and said that no one among them is at the right place to give a comment on the lawsuit.
Shapira has been happily employed at the said school as a Hebrew language teacher from 2001 until her termination was served effective August. 31, 2011. Shapira have not received any negative reviews or feedback during her years in service. The major reason for her termination is due to her being 77 – years old and an Israeli citizen.
According to the lawsuit, Shapira was excused from her job position, paid a lower amount than in the recent years and requested to return her keys.
The lawsuit also mentioned nine other cases in which school employees were thought to have suffered improper retaliation which involved being terminated or having significantly cut hour without enough reason. Generally, the employees were 40 years and older in all case. The lawsuit also claims that the new employees hired are mostly younger and are not Israeli citizens.
Shapira is seeking for fair justice for the wrongful termination lawsuit she had filed against her former employer. Furthermore, she is waiting for an employment offer.
Under social security law, the normal retirement age for an individual is 60 – 65. Shapira is at 77. It’s impressive that at her age, she still manages to perform her job as a teacher. She almost dedicated her entire life in teaching that’s why people like her don’t deserve such kind of treatment.
Posted in Wrongful Termination, employment discrimination.
By Zara Michel Collins
– November 11, 2011
Loading ...
Recent Comments