President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act into law yesterday.  In a victory for several classes of disabled persons, the new law once again covers persons who had been excluded by a series of decisions by the United States Supreme Court.  Since the ADA was made law in 1990, the Supreme Court had had narrowed the protections of the law, which resulted in no protection from discrimination for persons disabled by certain types of chronic conditions, such as, Diabetes, Cancer, Epliepsy and Depression. 

The Law signed today once again outlaws discrimination against those persons who suffer from these disabilities and restores the rights of these persons from being the subject of discrimination.   Stewart Perry, chairman of the Board of The American Diabetes Association,  stated today:

“This is a historic victory for Americans with chronic illnesses like diabetes who will once again be covered by this law, and is a triumph for all individuals with disabilities who want to work and will now be able to fulfill their potential. Today, we proudly usher in a new era for hardworking Americans with disabilities.”  ”American Diabetes Association Celebrates Historic Victory for Americans With Disabilities” (September 25, 2008, www.marketwatch.com), http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/american-diabetes-association-celebrates-historic/story.aspx?guid=%7B44E69A02-5F35-4E62-97CD-AC2AAC3058C9%7D&dist=hppr

Further, the American Association of Disabled Persons stated:

“…I deeply appreciate the bipartisan leadership in the Congress that brought us to this point, and I thank President Bush for his leadership in signing this critical civil rights law that will make a real difference in the lives of millions of Americans with disabilities and chronic health conditions,” said Andrew Imparato, President and CEO of the American Association of People with Disabilities.”  “AAPD Applauds President Bush for Signing ADA Amendments Act into Law” (September 25, 2008, www.marketwatch.com)http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/aapd-applauds-president-bush-signing/story.aspx?guid=%7B3EBECE49-E20A-4DFB-A020-D1250D91C8D8%7D&dist=hppr

On February 8, 2008, an attorney with the Houston office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that a federal jury in Houston returned a verdict in a sexual harassment lawsuit against a Houston dry cleaner in which it was alleged that the company owner inappropriately touched a female employee, then aged 19, besieged her with offensive comments, and kept her against her will in a long car ride during which he graphically described his sexual appetites and his intent to have sex with her against her will.  See, Houston EEOC Press Release, “Jury Awards $110,000 Verdict Against Houston Dry Cleaner For Sexual Harassment Of A Teenager And Other Employees,” http://www.eeoc.gov/press/2-8-08.html , 2/8/08.  According to a Houston EEOC attorney quoted in the press release, “The conduct complained of in this lawsuit was particularly egregious, especially considering the age of one of the victims and the fact that she was harassed by the owner of the company.”  Id.

Sexual harassment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and prohibits employers from retaliating against those who complain about such misconduct.  Id.  In Fiscal Year 2007, the EEOC received 12,510 charges of sexual harassment and 16% of those charges were filed by men. 

See, http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html .

Whether employment related unwelcome sexual advances and sexual misconduct occur in Houston or elsewhere, sexual harassment victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a sexual harassment or sexual misconduct lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate in Houston or elsewhere under the facts and circumstances of the potential case.

According to a posting at Houston’s Examiner.com, federal officials say Scolari’s Warehouse Markets, a food and drug company, in Reno, Nevada has agreed to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit by paying nineteen (19) women $425,000.00 who contend they were sexually harassed and retaliated against by supervisors at several local stores.  See, http://www.examiner.com/a-1598016~Scolari_s_settles_sexual_harassment_lawsuit.html 

As part of the settlement, the company agreed to provide training to all employees and submit reports to the EEOC concerning its employment practices, as reported in the posting.  Id.; See also, http://www.rgj.com (Reno Gazette-Journal).

Unwelcome advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace in Houston or elsewhere can be reported to the EQual Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and discussed with an attorney to determine whether a sexual harassment lawsuit may be appropriate in Houston or elsewhere under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.

For information from the EEOC regarding sexual harassment, see http://www.eeoc.gov .

Whether religion related employment discrimination occurs in Dallas, Fort Worth, Irving or elsewhere, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of their religion and victims of religious practice discrimination may make a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and consult an attorney to determine whether a religion discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. 

According to Dallasnews.com, Razzoo’s Cajun Cafe which is based in Irving Texas settled a religious discrimination lawsuit in June, 2007 for $38,750 after the EEOC sued the restaurant chain on behalf of a fired employee who because of her faith declined to participate in birthday cheers at a Mesquite Texas location since, as a Jehova’s Witness, her faith does not recognize birthdays.  See, Torbenson, Eric, “Razzoo’s Settles Lawsuit Over Religious Firing,” The Dallas Morning News, http://www.dallasnews.com , 6/20/07.  As reported in the posting, the employee offered to do other activities when servers sang to customers, but was fired.  Id.  The restaurant chain contended it disagreed with the religious discrimination lawsuit, did not fire the plaintiff and was never informed of the plaintiff’s concerns.  Id.

Employers must reasonably accomodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html . 

According to WFAA.com, two Grand Prairie Texas firefighters allege in sexual harassment lawsuits that they are victims of what they charge is a pattern of discrimination that has lasted for ten years, resulting in their being prisoners of sexual harassment which included requests to go to sex toy shops and topless bars, as well as x-rated videos, sex toys and lingerie left in a victim’s car and an officer pulling his pants down in front of a female victim.  See, Harris, Byron, “Grand Prairie Firefighters Allege Sexual Harassment,” http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/localnews/investigates/stories/wfaa080620 , 6/20/08.  The article states that Stacy Conaway’s supervisors reported the misconduct to the Grand Prairie Fire Chief who allegedly said, “That’s a rock we don’t want to turn over … We’re afraid what might crawl out from under it.”  Id.   After a captain made a written complaint about what was happening to Conaway, his career began to decline and now he is assigned to a desk job, according to the posting at WFAA.com.  Id.  For her own part, Conaway contends that she is still the target of sexual harassment, including profanity and intimidation.  Id. 

Whether sexual harassment and sexual discrimination occurs in Grand Prairie, Dallas, Fort Worth or elsewhere, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical sexual conduct in the workplace may be reported to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and an attorney to determine whether a sexual harassment lawsuit may be appropriate in Grand Prairie, Dallas, Fort Worth or elsewhere.  In this regard, sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when this type of misconduct explicitly or implicitly affects an employee’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html .  It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on sex.  Id.

According to an Associated Press article posted at MoneyCentral.MSN.com, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart has been accused by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in St. Louis, Missouri of violating federal law in the firing of a 67-year-old employee, and, as stated by an EEOC attorney, the age discrimination lawsuit was filed in Missouri after attempts to resolve the matter out of court were unsuccessful.  See, Associated Press, “Agency Accuses Wal-Mart Of Age Discrimination,” 9/22/08, http://www.news.moneycentral.msn.com .   The EEOC contends that the employee was fired from the company’s store on October 5, 2005 because she was too old and made too much money.  Id.  The employee had worked for the company for 10 years and had earned $18 an hour as a certified optician, according to the article.  Id.  The Missouri filed age discrimination lawsuit seeks reinstatement, back pay and damages.  Id.  A director for the company’s corporate communications was quoted as saying that “this individual was terminated for violation of company policy.”  Id.

Whether discrimination based on religious belief occurs in the work place in Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion and victims of employment related religion discrimination may contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to file a formal charge of religion discrimination and consult an attorney to determine whether a religion discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.  More specifically, Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees because of religion in hiring, firing and other terms and conditions of employment.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html (EEOC Website).  Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.  Id.

For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a lawsuit on behalf of an employee who was fired from her position as a cashier after she refused to work on Sundays since her religious beliefs as a christian, protestant and Born Again Christian included spending all of Sunday with her family.  See, http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008 , 4/2/08; see also, EEOC v. Aldi, 2008 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 25206 (W.D.Pa., 3/28/08).  In addition, KVIA.com - El Paso Las Cruces - reported in June, 2008 on a religion discrimination lawsuit brought by four former New Mexico State football players who alleged that they endured religious discrimination because they are Muslim.  See, http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=8456902 , Associated Press, 6/10/08.  In that case, the football players alleged that the football coach for NMSU instituted a religious brotherhood within the football team and that the Muslim athletes were singled out to recite the Lords Prayer after each practice and before each game.  Id. The lawsuit was reportedly settled for $165,000.  Id. 

In another different type of religion discrimination lawsuit, two real estate developers filed a federal lawsuit against a rural Maryland town alleging that the town illegally discriminated against a Muslim group by barring them from building a mosque and holding annual conventions on 224 acres of land zoned for farming such that the religious group canceled a property sale to the group valued at about $6 million.  See, Dishneau, David, “Lawsuit Claims Ant-Muslim Bias in Maryland Town,” Associated Press, http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1435425&nid=25 , 7/7/08.  According to the article, the religious group canceled the purchase after the town’s three-member Board of Zoning Appeals voted unanimously to reject their request for a special exception to land-use restrictions based largely on open space preservation concerns and fears that thousands of people attending the group’s annual convention would overwhelm the community’s roads and emergency services.  Id.  The lawsuit alleged, in part, violations of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees free exercise of religion, as well as violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act and the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  Id.  The attorney for the real estate developers, David and Robert Moxley, was quoted as saying that “I’ve never seen a worse example of hostility toward a religious group accomplished through the zoning process …”  Id.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html . 

In Fiscal Year 2006, the EEOC received 2,541 charges of religious discrimination.  Id.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the bases of race and color and Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also neutral job policies that disproportionately affect persons of a certain race or color and that are not related to the job and needs of the business.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/types/race.html . 

According to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Press Release, a home electronics retailer, Video Only, Inc., will pay $630,000 and implement preventative measures to settle two discrimination lawsuits alleging that two employees, one of whom is Hispanic and another who is African American, faced repeated slurs and jokes about their race, national origin and religion, including use of the “N-word” by management, the telling of racially offensive “jokes”, use of the epithet “beaner” and a doll with its hair and face painted black that was hog-tied and hung by a nail in the break room.  See, EEOC PR, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/8-4-08.html , 8/4/08.  The EEOC alleged in the lawsuit that the company retaliated against the employees after they reported the harassment by, among other things, hiring a private investigator to gather information in an effort to discredit their harassment claims and confronting co-workers who supported the complaining employees by telling them they were hurting the company and trying to get them to quit.  Id.  The Judge in the lawsuit ruled that the company had retaliated against the employees.  Id.  As stated in the press release, the two plaintiffs were awarded $500,000 while $130,000 of the $630,000 went to another lawsuit in which the EEOC was not a party.  Id.

An attorney quoted in the press release concerning the discrimination lawsuit called the company’s alleged conduct “heavy-handed intimidation” and said that the employees “should be recognized for their courage in stepping forward.”  Id.  Whether race discrimination and intimidation or retaliation occurs in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston or elsewhere, victims of employment discrimination may contact the EEOC to make a charge of discrimination and consult an attorney to determine whether a racial discrimination and harassment lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the particular discrimination case.

According to the El Paso Times, the attorney for an Hispanic El Paso police assistant chief filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against the City of El Paso, alleging that she has been treated unfairly by city and police officials, faced harsh retaliation as a result of her complaints and that a former El Paso police chief routinely displayed favoritism toward non-Hispanic male officers.  See, Chavez, Adriana, “Assistant Police Chief Alleges Discrimination,” El Paso Times, http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_10432590?source=most_viewed , 9/11/08.  As reported in the article, the City Manager said the City has not been officially notified of the lawsuit and could not respond, but the City Manager added that a complaint filed by the plaintiff with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) “was reviewed with no finding of fact to support [it].”  Id.  EEOC officials said in 2002 that at least nine (9) women filed discrimination complaints against the department but that they could not prove discrimination in any of the cases except that of one female officer who was passed over in 2000 for a promotion to a deputy chief post that went to a male co-worker.  Id.  However, just because the EEOC decides not to pursue a case does not mean that no discrimination occurred.  Victims of employment discrimination in El Paso or elsewhere can contact an attorney after an EEOC decision and consult with the attorney to determine whether an employment discrimination lawsuit may be appropriate in El Paso or elsewhere under the facts and circumstances of the particular case since the EEOC rarely actually pursues a lawsuit as a result of limited resources and budget constraints. 

In a religious discrimination lawsuit filed in Baltimore, two real estate developers allege violations of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantess free exercise of religion, and the 14th Amendment, which provides equal protection to all, by a rural Marlyand town whose three-member zoning board voted to reject a Muslim group’s request for a special exception to land use restrictions, resulting in the group cancelling a land purchase valued at approximately $6 million, according to Associated Press article posted at WTOPnews.com.  See, Dishneau, David, “Lawsuit Claims Anti-Muslim Bias in Maryland Town,” Associated Press, http://www.wtop.com/?sid=1435425&nid=25 , 7/7/08.  In addition, the lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, enacted in 2000 to bar land use regulations that would discriminate against a religious organization.  Id.  The lawsuit was not filed by the Muslim group but was instead filed by the developers whose attorney was quoted in the article as saying, “I’ve never seen a worse example of hostility toward a religious group accomplished through the zoning process …”.  Id.  As reported in the article, officials of the town of 5,600 based their denial largely upon on open space preservation concerns and fears that the thousands of people attending the group’s annual, three-day national convention would overwhelm the community’s roads and emergency services.  Id. 

Whether religious discrimination or First Amendment violations occur in Houston or elsewhere, victims of religious and First Amendment discrimination or retaliation have civil rights and may consult an attorney to determine whether a First Amendment religious discrimination lawsuit may be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the potential case.