Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a June 30, 2009 Press Release that the federal agency filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against a major real estate development, construction and management company alleging that the company violated federal law by subjecting a class of women to a hostile work environment, sexual harassment, and retaliation for complaining about harassment.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-30-09a.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, the employment harassment lawsuit charges that an assistant sales agent faced verbal and physical harassment from a lead sales agent and retaliation from a sales manager.  As stated in the Press Release, the harassment lawsuit includes allegations that the lead sales agent repeatedly made sexually explicit remarks to the employee, asked her to have sex with him, and threatened her life with a gun in March 2005.  The EEOC asserts as well that she was retaliated against when she was denied a promotion and made to share her commission with another employee.  Finally, she was forced to quit due to the harassment and retaliation.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “The EEOC will aggressively enforce laws prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.”

The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination and additional information about the EEOC may be found in its website at www.eeoc.gov .

Whether employment related sexual abuse occurs in Baytown, Brownsville, Wharton or elsewhere, victims of hostile work conditions may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a sexual harassment lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential sex abuse claim.

The Department of Justice (”DOJ”) Civil Rights Division announced in June 29, 2009 Press Release the filing of its 17th Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (”USERRA”) lawsuit this year.  According to the DOJ Press Release, the DOJ filed a USERRA lawsuit in Las Vegas against Stonescrape Pavers LLC alleging that the company willfully violated USERRA by firing an employee without cause when he returned from active duty. See, http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-638.html .  As stated in the Press Release, the employee, a former Utah Army National Guardsman and current Airforce Reservist, was a salesman for the company when he was called to active duty to deploy to Iraq with the Utah Army National Guard in January of 2006.  After he was honorably discharged in June 2006, he was reemployed.  The DOJ alleges that the company terminated him without cause in August of 2006 during his statutorily protected reemployment time period.  In this regard, USERRA prohibits employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees or applicants for employment because of their past, current or future military obligations.  Subject to certain conditions, USERRA requires that employers promptly reemploy returning service members and prohibits employers from terminating members except for cause for 180 days after their reemployment.  Additional information about USERRA can be found on the DOJ’s website at, for example, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp . 

Whether employment discrimination against military service members occurs in Beaumont, Galveston, McAllen or elsewhere, military service victims of employment discrimination may contact the DOJ and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a military leave lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential USERRA claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a June 22, 2009 EEOC Press Release that an operator of ski resorts in Vail and Keystone, Colorado will pay $80,000.00 and furnish other relief to settle a religious and gender discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.  According to the Press Release, the lawsuit charged that an emergency services supervisor was subjected to harassment based on her Christian religion and her sex, denied religious accommodation and treated less favorably than her male colleagues.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-22-09.html .  As stated in the EEOC Press Release, the employee’s supervisor allegedly forbade her and another Christian employee from even discussing their Christian beliefs with one another while at work, and would not allow them to listen to Christian music while on duty, because it might offend other employees, but had no similar restrictions on music with profanity or lyrics promoting violence against women, which were offensive to her.  In addition, the EEOC lawsuit claimed that she was ridiculed by her supervisor for asking for scheduling accommodation so that she could attend her preferred religious services.  Further, the lawsuit alleged that her supervisor tolerated and created a sexually hostile work environment where he and other male employees made offensive sexual comments and jokes in the workplace.

Whether employment related discrimination against Christians occurs in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, victims of workplace religious bias against Christians may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a religious harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

Religious discrimination charge filings reported to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) offices nationwide have substantially increased from 1,388 in Fiscal Year 1992 to 3,273 in Fiscal Year 2008.  Accoring to a June 18, 2009 EEOC Press Release, United Parcel Service, Inc. has agreed to offer monetary damages and religious accommodations to a 19-year employee at UPS’s Bartlett, Tennessee facility to resolve a religious discrimination lawsuit filed against UPS by EEOC attorneys.  As stated in the EEOC Press Release, the lawsuit charged that UPS violated federal law by refusing to accommodate the religious beliefs of one of its drivers and trying to force him to work past sundown on his Sabbath.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-18-09.html .  This conduct allegedly violated his tenets as a member of the United Church of God, and, in this regard, religious discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandates that sincerely held religious beliefs of employees must be accommodated by employers as long as it does not cause undue hardship on the company.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “All employers must respond reasonably to an employee’s religious accommodation requests.” 

Whether workplace religious discrimination occurs in Baytown, Freeport, Wharton or elsewhere, victims of employment related religion bias may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a religious discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or ADEA which protects people aged 40 and over from employment discrimination.  Recently, EEOC attorneys announced in Press Releases that the EEOC has settled two age discrimination lawsuits.  In a June 18, 2009 EEOC Press Release, the EEOC stated that age discrimination represents the fastest-growing type of charge filing with the EEOC.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-18-09b.html .  In this regard, the EEOC received a record 24,582 age discrimination charge filings during Fiscal Year 2008.  According to the June 18, 2009 Press Release, Catholic Charities, one of the largest non-profit providers of social services in the San Francisco Bay Area, agreed to pay $30,000.00 and provide other relief to settle an age discrimination lawsuit brought by EEOC attorneys.  In that case, the EEOC charged that Catholic Charities fired a highly qualified 71-year-old advocate of the aged and replaced him with a less qualified woman half his age and such alleged conduct violates the ADEA.  In addition to agreeing to pay $30,000 in back pay and interest, Catholic Charities also agreed to provide training to its work force on age discrimination prohibitions and periodic reports to the EEOC on work force demographics in terminations and layoffs.  On June 19, 2009, EEOC attorneys announced that the California State University System agreed to settle an age discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of a longtime San Francisco State University Lecturer for $50,000.00 and other relief.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-19-09.html .  In that lawsuit, the EEOC’s investigation reportedly found that despite over 30 years of teaching experience at various Bay Area colleges and universities and a Ph.D. from Stanford in 1976, the lecturer was passed over for a much younger candidate who had not yet received his Ph.D., a requirement for the position.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in that Press Release as saying that “We are pleased that the California State University System worked with the Commission to reach a fair resolution of the case.”

Whether employment related age bias occurs in Freeport, Galveston, Houston or elsewhere, victims of workplace age discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if an age discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential age bias claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a June 22, 2009 Press Release that the federal agency filed an employment discrimination lawsuit against a furniture company alleging that the business violated federal law when it permitted a store manager to harass a dark complexioned Puerto Rican employee because of his skin color and fired the employee for complaining.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-22-09b.html .  According to the EEOC Press Release, the store manager, who is also Puerto Rican, taunted the sales associate about his dark skin color and asked him why he was “so black.”  As further stated in the Press Release, the company retaliated against the sales associate by firing him after he complained about the harassment.  Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “Harassment based on skin color can be just as humiliating and degrading as other forms of discrimination.”  In this regard, the EEOC noted that the EEOC has noticed a substantial increase over the past 15 years in discrimination charge filings based on color.

Whether employment discrimination based on skin color occurs in Baytown, Freeport, Corpus Christi or elsewhere, victims of workplace skin color bias may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential skin color discrimination claim.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is the federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that employers provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities unless it would cause undue hardship to the employer.  In a June 24, 2009 EEOC Press Release, the federal agency announced that attorneys sued a national retail giant alleging that the company violated federal law by firing an employee because of his disability.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-24-09.html .  According to this EEOC Press Release, EEOC attorneys charge that a store greeter with a debilitating back impairment used a cane to assist him in walking and standing.  Even though he was successfully performing his duties as a greeter, the disability bias lawsuit claims he was fired for using his cane.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “This lawsuit is a reminder that, although we have made great strides in educating employers and the public about disability discrimination, some employers still judge applicants and employees based on a disability rather than on their proven ability to do a job.”  In a separate June 25, 2009 EEOC Press Release, the federal agency announced filing of another disability bias lawsuit.  According to the June 25th Press Release, a Chicago-area beverage distribution company allegedly violated federal law by refusing to reasonably accommodate the needs of an employee who needed medical leave by firing her because of her disability.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-25-09.html .  During Fiscal Year 2008, disability discrimination charge filings with the EEOC nationwide rose to 19,453 - and increase of 10% from the prior fiscal year and the highest level in 14 years. 

Whether workplace disability bias occurs in Bay City, Freeport, Port Lavaca or elsewhere, victims of disability or medical leave discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential disability bias claim.

Minority car dealers are expected to be hit hard as General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC trim their retail networks, undoing years of work by the auto makers to bring more African-Americans, Hispanics and others into the car business. Chrysler on Thursday said it would drop 789 of its 3,200 dealers as part of its bankruptcy restructuring. GM plans to eliminate 2,600 of its more than 6,000 dealers as it reorganizes.

The National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers estimates that 140 of Chrysler’s 170 to 175 minority-owned franchises could be closed, and at least 174 of GM’s 300 minority-owned dealers could shut their doors.

Michal Czerwonka for The Wall Street Journal

Sil Gonzales worried Chrysler would close his dealership in South Gate, Calif. The yellow markings list cars sold recently. The organization said Chrysler’s minority-owned dealerships are at risk because many are small stores that offer only one of the company’s three brands, Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep. Fewer than half have converted to the company’s “Genesis” format that puts all three makes under one roof, NAMAD said. That compares to the approximately 60% of all Chrysler dealerships that have the three-brand format.

Genesis stores are usually more profitable because they sell and service more vehicles than single-brand dealerships. Chrysler plans to emphasize Genesis dealerships under its reorganization. About 58% of the GM stores run by minority owners sell Pontiacs, Saturns, Saabs or Hummers, NAMAD said — all brands the company plans to phase out or sell.

“We’re more vulnerable,” said NAMAD President Damon Lester. “We were the last ones to come to the table.” Chrysler declined to comment. Dawin Wright, GM’s executive director of dealer development, said GM is trying to put in safety nets to help minority dealers survive. “We share their concern,” he said.

After years of losing market share, GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. have been left with more dealers than they need, especially in metropolitan areas. As a result, their franchises often end up competing with each other for customers and many lose money.

Many minority dealers operate in cramped downtown locations that are less desirable than the spacious suburban auto malls that are now popular, said Mr. Lester and other dealers. Urban franchises typically draw fewer shoppers and carry less inventory for customers to choose among. Both factors tend to limit sales.

Minority dealers often don’t own the land beneath their showrooms, so the monthly rent adds to their costs, Mr. Lester said. And since many borrowed money to get into the business, they sometimes have more debt than family-run dealerships that have been in business for decades. Sil Gonzales, 57 years old, feared his Casa de Gonzales Chrysler-Jeep store in South Gate, Calif., a largely Latino suburb of Los Angeles, would be one of those Chrysler terminates.

When Houston Texas attorney spoke with former African American dealer, Mike Farr, Mr. Farr stated the fianancing for auto purchases makes it tough for the business.

As Chrysler’s troubles have mounted in the past year, his sales have plunged. He’s hoping to sell the six acres of land beneath his store to raise cash to pay off $14 million in debt. But on Thursday he learned from Chrysler that his dealership had been spared. “We were very fortunate,” Mr. Gonzales said.  “Now I’m just concerned for my fellow minority dealers.”

 On Wednesday, a delegation of about 100 dealers, including some minorities, gathered in Washington to lobby Congress to save dealerships from closure. Dealers from Houston traveled as well to Washington.  On Thursday, representatives of the National Auto Dealers Association, along with NAMAD, were scheduled to meet with the White House’s automotive task force, according to an NADA spokesman.

The Big Three car makers first set up programs to help minority and women entrepreneurs get into the dealer business back in the 1970s and ’80s. The idea was both to increase diversity among their retail networks and do a better job appealing to the growing ranks of minority consumers.

Greg Baranco, an African-American, owns a Buick-Pontiac-GMC store in Atlanta and a Mercedes-Benz dealership nearby. He’s been in the business 30 years, but said he has watched how his Pontiac sales plunged after GM announced earlier this year the brand would be eliminated. After selling 20 Pontiacs a month on average, he sold just four in April. Mr. Baranco worries how he will do carrying just GMC and Buick. “Dealers are finding it difficult to maintain those operations with just two brands,” he said.

By ALEX P. KELLOGG (Wallstreet Journal)—Kate Linebaugh contributed to this article.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in an April 1, 2009 EEOC Press Release that the federal agency filed a workplace discrimination lawsuit against Accurate Insulation, LLC on behalf of a female and class of African American workers who were employed at the company’s Upper Malboro, Maryland location.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the lawsuit charges that a senior manager subjected a female worker to sexually offensive overtures, overt comments, and explicit sexual comments, and a senior manager also made racially charged statements to three African American workers by frequently referring to them as “boy” and stating that they “haven’t got their 40 acres and a mule,” referencing a proprosed governmental reparations act following slavery.  As stated in the Press Release, all four employees are African American and were employed by the company as home insulation installers.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-01-09c.html .  In addition, the Press Release states that shortly after they filed internal complaints, the company began exclusively hiring Latino workers to replace them, and the African American employees’ job assignments and work hours were then drastically reduced.  Further, the lawsuit alleges that all four African American employees were terminated after they filed complaints of discrimination with the EEOC.  An EEOC attorney was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “Any form of discrimination in the workplace is unlawful, and workers cannot lose their jobs for reporting it.”  The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, and in Fiscal Year 2008, workplace discrimination charge filings increased 15% to an unprecedented level of 95,402.  Further information about the EEOC may be found in its website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related discrimination occurs in Bay City, Freeport, Port Lavaca or elsewhere, victims of workplace discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney or lawyer to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential discrimination claim.

In February 2009, a Travis County jury awarded a woman $900,000.00 after finding that she was fired from her job at Texas civil rights agency for complaining about discrimination against minorities at the agency, according to an article from an Austin, Texas newspaper.  See, Osborn, Claire, “Jury Awards Whistle-Blower $900,000,” Austin American-Statesman, 2/4/09, http://www.statesman.com .  As stated in the article, the jury arrived at the verdict after a six-day trial in a lawsuit which Merilou Morrison filed against the Texas Commission on Human rights and the Texas Workforce Commission (”TWC”).  The TWC Civil Rights Division enforces the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act; which has been codified into Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.  Austin attorney Gary Bledsoe was quoted in the article as saying that “The agency that is supposed to enforce civil rights is being hit with basically a million dollar judgment for violating the very statutes they are required to enforce.”  According to the article, Morrison, who is white, was a 58 year-old investigator at the Texas Commission on Human Rights when she told agency commissioners in December 2002 that the agency’s former director was discriminating against black and Hispanic employees and applicants.  In this regard, an attorney representing Morrison in the lawsuit was quoted as saying that “Her allegations were that the agency was bringing in white employees from the outside who had no experience or interest in civil rights to be put in positions above qualified minority employees.” 

Whether unlawful retaliation for opposing or reporting employment discrimination occurs in Austin, New Braunfels, San Marcos or elsewhere, whistleblowers may contact an attorney or lawyer to determine if a whistleblower lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential unlawful employment practice claim.