In a Press Release at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/September/09-crt-1021.html , the U. S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division announced that two Indiana men pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate the civil rights of African American family and to interfering with their housing rights by burning a cross in the family’s yard.  According to the September 24, 2009 Press Release, the DOJ alleged that on July 25, 2008, the wto men, acting with the assistance of a third participant, built a cross and poured gasoline on it, then set it on fire in the yard of an African American family who lived in the neighborhood.  As stated in the Press Release, this is the second case in two years in which the Civil Rights Division has brought charges for a cross burning that occurred in Muncie, Indiana.  Two men were convicted in 2008 for burning a cross at the home of a woman who had biracial children.   Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King was quoted in the Press Release as saying that the Civil Rights Division will continue to prosecute this type of illegal, hateful behavior to the fullest extent of the law.

Retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-21-09.html , the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced that agency attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against a collection agency company alleging that the company violated federal law by unlawfully retaliating against one of its employees by firing her after she complained about sex discrimination.  According to the September 21, 2009 Press Release, EEOC attorneys charge in the retaliation lawsuit that after the employee complained about sex discrimination by a company owner, she was called to a meeting conducted by an outside attorney, was told she could not have her own attorney present, and was given five minutes to decide whether to cooperate in a so-called “investigation” or be fired.  In addition, EEOC attorneys claimed that when the employee insisted she wanted her own attorney present, she was fired and escorted out of the building.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said “Using ‘investigations’ as a means of intimidating or getting rid of those who complain only compounds problems.”  The attorney added, “As far as the EEOC is concerned, conducting investigations as adversarial proceedings and issuing ultimatums to workers who complain smacks of retaliation.”  EEOC attorneys filed the sex discrimination retaliation lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary resolution with the employer.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related sex discrimination and retaliation for opposing sex discrimination occurs in Houston or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a sex discrimination retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential discrimination claim.

In a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-21-09b.html , attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced filing of a federal lawsuit in which the attorneys charge that a Georgia restaurant violated federal law by subjecting a waitress to sexual harassment and then firing her and family members for reporting sexual harassment.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including sexual harassment, and sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  According to the EEOC Press Release, agency attorneys contend that the restaurant waitress was subjected to unwelcome sexual advances, remarks, and inappropriate touching by a male cook at the restaurant.  As further stated in the Press Release, the waitress worked at the restaurant with family members, and they all reported the harassment to the restaurant owner, but nothing was done by the company to remedy the hostile work environment and the waitress and her family members were terminated in retaliation for reporting sexual harassment.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “The EEOC will protect employees’ rights to protest illegal conduct.”  EEOC attorneys filed the federal discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related sexual harassment of restaurant waitresses occurs in Galveston, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere, waitress victims of sex discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a hostile work environment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential waitress employment discrimination claim.

In Press Releases issued by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) on September 21, 2009, attorneys with the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including sexual harassment, announced the filing of a sexual harassment lawsuit against a Mexican food restaurant and settlement of another sexual harassment against a restuarant which serves Mexican food.  The EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-21-09b.html states that a Mexican food restuarant in Georgia has been charged by EEOC attorneys with violating federal law by subjecting a waitress to sexual harassment and then firing her and family members for reporting sexual harassment.  The EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-21-09d.html states that the owner of six Pennsylvania Mexican food restaurants will pay $35,000.00 and furnish equitable relief to settle a class sexual harassment lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys in Pennsylvania.  As stated in the EEOC Press Releases, sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about sex discrimination violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Further information about the EEOC and the laws enforced by the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

In a September 22, 2009 Press Release, the U. S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (”OSHA”) Englewood Area Office announced that OSHA has cited to Texas companies with penalties of $59,000.00 and $38,750.00, respectively, for alleged violations of the Occupational Safety and Health Act related to fall hazards disclosed at an Aurora, Colorado worksite.  The OSHA Regional News Release found at www.osha.gov or www.dol.gov states that OSHA’s investigation led to one alleged willful and two alleged serious citations against a Carrolton, Texas renovation company, and one alleged willful, two alleged serious and one alleged other-than-serious citations against a roofing company based out of Euless, Texas.  An OSHA Area Director quoted in the Press Release described fall hazards as the biggest killers in the construction industry, adding that OSHA will be stepping up its enforcement of fall hazards, especially in areas where OSHA expects to see an influx in roofing work.  As stated in the Press Release, the alleged willful violations stem from a lack of fall protection for workers performing roof work and failing to use fall protection while workers were being machine lifted to the roof.  In this regard, OSHA issues a willful citation when an employer exhibits plain indifference to or intentional disregard for employee safety and health.  In addition, OSHA issues a serious citation when death or serious physical harm is likely to result from a hazard about which an employer knew or should have known.

Whether fall hazard and fall protection violations, personal injury and death occur at construction jobsites in Texas or elsewhere, employees may contact OSHA regarding enforcement actions and complaints and consult an attorney to determine if a civil lawsuit may ultimately be appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential OSHA violation claim.

The Public Record posted an article by William Fisher entitled “Sheriff Arpaio Slapped With Another Civil Rights Lawsuit” at http://pubrecord.org/nation/3835/sheriff-arapaio-slapped-another-civil/ .  In the August 21, 2009 news story, Fisher reports that the American Civil Liberties Union (”ACLU”) and the ACLU of Arizona filed suit against Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, and several of his deputies for the alleged illegal arrest and detention of a U. S. citizen and a legal resident.  According to the article, Sheriff Arpaio describes himself as “America’s Toughest Sheriff” and is being investigated by the Department of Justice (”DOJ”) for civil rights violations.  As stated in the article, the ACLU lawsuit contends that Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (”MCSO”) deputies racially profiled the father and son as they drove their pickup truck on a busy public road and illegally arrested and detained them, violating the U. S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law and prohibition on unreasonable seizures.  An ACLU attorney is quoted in the article as saying “This country was founded on the freedom of individuals to go about their business without fear of being unlawfully stopped, picked up, or interrogated by the government.”  More specifically, the ACLU contends that the father was driving to work when, without provocation, an MCSO vehicle cut in front of him, forcing him to stop abruptly, and MCSO deputies then ordered the father and son out of their vehicle, frisked them and handcuffed them.  According to Fisher’s article, civil libertarians say the latest lawsuit is emblematic of anti-immigrant sentiment in the U. S. - arguably most intense in states that border Mexico - and of mixed signals coming from the Department of Homeland Security, whose Immigration and Enforcement unit has federal responsibility for enforcing immigration regulations.  In addition, the article states that Arpaio has a long history of conflict with other law enforcement and judicial authorities and this newest lawsuit is adding another lawsuit to thousands already pending against him.  In this regard, Fisher reports that from 2004 through November 2007, Arpaio was the target of 2,150 lawsuits in U. S. District and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts - 50 times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined.

In an article at http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=332940 , the online publication ValleyCentral.com posted an August 4, 2009 story by Sergio Chapa discussing a police brutality lawsuit filed by a Progreso man in a McAllen federal court.  According to the article, the federal lawsuit alleges that the City of Progreso and other defendants violated the civil rights of Norberto Becerra by subjecting him to police brutality and excessive force at the hands of a police officer during a September 2007 traffic stop.  The Progreso man contends that the police officer assaulted him, put him in a chokehold and threw him to the ground without probable cause.  As stated in the news article, court documents allege that the police officer called a Texas Department of Public Safety state trooper to file DWI charges against Becerra during the incident but Becerra was beat up so badly that the DPS trooper refused to take him into custody.  In this regard, Becerra claims that he was taken to a local hospital for treatment instead of jail.  Becerra further claims that police ultimately arrested him on public intoxication and resisting arrest charges for supporting a mayoral candidate in 2008.  His lawsuit alleges inadequate training, inadequate supervision and that police misconduct was tolerated by the City of Progreso, according to ValleyCentral.com. 

Whether police misconduct, use of excessive force or brutality occurs in McAllen, Progreso or elsewhere in Texas, alleged victims of police abuse may contact an attorney to determine if a civil rights lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential law enforcement brutality claim.

In an August 17, 2009 Press Release at http://www.osha.gov , the U. S. Department of Labor (”DOL”) announced that its Occupational Safety and Health Administration (”OSHA”) cited a Tyler, Texas based construction contractor with two alleged willful and 10 alleged serious violations following the electrocution of a Hispanic worker at the company’s worksite in Tyler.  According to the DOL OSHA Press Release, OSHA’s Dallas Area Office began its inspection on February 18th in Tyler where eight employees were upgrading underground energized power lines and pad-mounted transformers.  As stated in the Press Release, the employer damaged the underground power line while digging in front of a pad-mounted transformer.  OSHA contends that an Hispanic worker was unaware and uninformed that the power line was energized and was electrocuted.  In addition, OSHA claims its investigation revealed that the worker was wearing a glove with a hole in the index finger which had not been tested for insulation qualities.  An OSHA Director in Dallas was quoted in the Press Release as saying that “All workers, regardless of whether they speak English, deserve a safe workplace [and] had this company implemented the requirements in their own safety and health program this tragedy could have been avoided.”  In this regard, OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with intentional disregard of, or plain indifference to, the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and OSHA defines a serious violation as one in which there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.  Proposed penalties for the citation total $133,000.00.  Employers and employees with questions about workplace safety and health were referred in the Press Release to OSHA’s Dallas Area Office at 214-320-2400 and a toll free number at 1-800-321-6742.

In a September 15, 2009 Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-15-09a.html , the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced filing of a federal sexual harassment lawsuit in which EEOC attorneys charge that a staffing company failed to take appropriate action when its employees complained about egregious sexual harassment at a plastic manufacturing plant to which they had been assigned.  According to the EEOC Press Release, the staffing company assigned a number of female employees to work at a plastic manufacturing plant and, on several occasions, a manufacturing plant supervisor rubbed his crotch against females and touched or slapped them on the buttocks.  The EEOC lawsuit also alleges that the supervisor also repeatedly made sexually offensive and demeaning comments to female employees.  EEOC attorneys contend in the case that instead of ensuring that its employees were not harassed, the company joined in retaliating against one employee for complaining by firing her and another was compelled to quit as a result of ongoing harassment.  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful to sexually harass an employee and to retaliate against someone who complains about employment discrimination.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release said “As more companies use staffing agencies to recruit employees, it is vital that both the company and the staffing agency understand that they are legally required to protect employees from sexual harassment.”  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) issued a September 16, 2009 Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-16-09a.html in which the federal agency announced filing of a federal discrimination lawsuit against an entertainment club EEOC attorneys claim violated federal law by discriminating against employees on the basis of race.  According to the EEOC Press Release, its attorneys contend that the companies discriminated against black employees and retaliated against them for complaining.  As stated in the Press Release, two black men who worked as doormen were subjected to racial harassment and forced out of their jobs because of race.  EEOC attorneys charge that company managers referred to black employees using offensive racial slurs, forced black employees to work in the back instead of at the club entrance and complained that black music makes the club look bad.  The lawsuit contends further that company managers did not stop the harassment, and, instead, either forced out or fired those who complained.  Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and, in this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibitng employment discrimination, including racial harassment and retaliation for complaining about unlawful harassment.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .