Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination which violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as state laws, and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including sexual harassment.  In an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-21-09.html , agency lawyers announced that a California mental health rehabilitation center has agreed to provide $145,000 and take significant remedial measures to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit charging that a male supervisor subjected a group of female employees to a pervasive sexually hostile work environment for several years.  According to the October 21, 2009 Press Release, EEOC lawyers alleged in the lawsuit that the supervisor subjected nine women to a constant barrage of crude sexual comments and unwelcome physical touching.  As stated in the EEOC Press Release, the company failed to act on harassment reported to supervisors for eight months and its belated response was wholly inadequate.  EEOC lawyers filed the sexual harassment lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement.

The Texas Labor Code prohibits unlawful discrimination against employees who make workers comp claims for on the job injuries.  More specifically, Texas Labor Code Chapter 451 states that a person may not discharge or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has: (1) filed a workers compensation claim in good faith; (2) hired a lawyer to represent the employee in a claim; (3) instituted or caused to be instituted in good faith a proceeding under Subtitle A; or, (4) testified or is about to testify in a proceeding under Subtitle A.  In this regard, a person who violates the prohibition against workers’ compensation discrimination may be liable for reasonable damages incurred by the employee as a result of the violation, and the discharged employee may also be entitled to reinstatement in the former position of employment.  Specific information concerning the contents of Texas Labor Code Chapter 451 may be found at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/LA/htm/LA.451.htm#451.001 . 

Whether employment related workers comp discrimination occurs in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio or elsewhere in Texas, victims of worker comp discrimination may contact an attorney to determine if a workers comp retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination claim.

Attorneys with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) announced in a Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-16-09b.html that an equipment rental company will pay $64,641 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit in which EEOC attorneys alleged that a Muslim worker was discriminated against because of his Islamic faith.  According to the October 16, 2009 EEOC Press Release, agency attorneys charged in the case that the worker was subjected to derogatory comments and slurs based on his religion, Islam.  As stated in the Press Release, the comments included suggestions that the worker might be a terrorist because he is Muslim.  In the lawsuit, the EEOC claimed that the worker was subjected to an anti-Muslim cartoon.  The employment discrimination lawsuit settled just a few days before it was scheduled to go to trial.

The United States Department of Justice (”DOJ”) announced in an October 13, 2009 Press Release at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/October/09-crt-1102.html that a Louisiana man pleaded guilty to firing three shots from a shotgun at the home of three Hispanic men and, after they fled, entering the home and setting a fire that burned it to the ground.  The incident occurred in a rural area of western Louisiana, and the man and his victims lived across the street from one another.  According to the Press Release, the man admitted that his crime was motivated by the victims’ race and national origin and was intended to interfere with their right to live in their home.  Sentencing is scheduled for January 13, 2010.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) attorneys filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against a medical transcription company alleging that the company violated federal law when it refused to hire a medical transcriptionist to a full time job because of its stereotypes about people with multiple sclerosis.  According to the EEOC’s October 9, 2009 Press Release, agency attorneys charge that the company denied a full time position to a woman with multiple sclerosis, saying they did not want to “stress her out” with the responsibilities of a full time position, even though she had worked at the company for several years and was regularly assigned to work more than 60 hours a week as a part-time editor.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-9-09e.html .  As stated in Press Release, the employee had nearly 20 years as a medical transcriptionist and as an editor and was physically capable and willing to perform the duties.  However, the EEOC contends that the company ignored her requests for a full time job and hired other persons with less experience.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (”ADA”) makes it unlawful to discriminate against a qualified individual because of a disability, and, in this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace disability bias.  In fiscal year 2008, disability based charges rose to a record 19,543, up 10.2% from the prior year and the highest level since 1995.  Further information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether unlawful workplace disability discrimination against individuals with multiple sclerosis occurs in Houston or elsewhere, multiple sclerosis bias victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a multiple sclerosis disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential employment discrimination claim.

Attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) allege in an age discrimination lawsuit filed in Georgia that a retail chain violated federal law when it fired an employee because of her age, according to an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeooc.gov/press/10-909c.html .  As stated in the EEOC Press Release, agency attorneys charge that the company subjected the employee to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment because of her age, including disparate discipline, prior to her termination.  Such alleged conduct violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (”ADEA”), and, in this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including elder employee age discrimination.  EEOC attorneys filed the elder age discrimination lawsuit in federal court after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement.  Further information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

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

In a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed in Nevada by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) attorneys, the federal agency alleges that a portable toilet supply company in Northern Nevada violated federal law by permitting racial harassment, including racist comments and epithets, in its workplace and by firing an African American driver for reporting the racist behavior.  According to the EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-16-09d.html , the route driver allegedly endured racist comments, epithets and behavior from his coworker and his supervisor.  EEOC attorneys charge in the case that the supervisor used the N-word and a coworker flaunted a swastika tattoo and talked about the need to keep the white race “pure.”  As stated in the Press Release, the driver complained to his supervisor twice in one month about his coworker’s racist behavior and he was fired two days later.  Racial harassment is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which also forbids retaliating against an employee who opposes such conduct.  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting racial harassment in the workplace, including retaliation for complaining about racial harassment.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated that “The law is clear: all employees have the right to work in an environment free from hostility, intimidation and ridicule.”  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 in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

Dallas Morning News reporter Katie Fairbank reports in an August 6, 2009 news article that three Grand Prairie Police Department Officers were suspended for sending racist emails on city computers.  In an article posted at http://www.dallasnews.com , Fairbank writes that the three police officers were suspended 21 days each without pay for forwarding a racist email that appeared to be about President Barack Obama.  In addition, a dispatcher was suspended 28 days without pay.  As stated in the article, none of the four employees appealed the suspensions, and each expressed his or her regret and offered apologies to the Police Department and the community.  According to the article, the first email included an image of Air Force One with a tail number whose letters and digits resembled the N-word, and a second email included a racial cartoon.  Fairbank further reports that the only similar incident in the department was eight years ago, when an officer used a racial slur and that officer is no longer with the department.  Texas Open Records Act information obtained by the Dallas newspaper shows that the Police Department has 287 white officers and 40 black officers.

The Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas offers information about whistleblower protections for state and local government employees at http://www.oag.state.tx .  Under Texas Government Code Section 554, a state or local governmental entity may not retaliate against employees who report violations of the law.  In this regard, the Texas Government Code states that a state or local governmental entity may not suspend or terminate the employment of, or take other adverse personnel action against, a public employee who in good faith reports a violation of law by the employing governmental entity or another public employee to an appropriate law enforcement authority.  A reporting public employee subjected to an adverse employment action may be entitled to relief, including injunctive relief, actual damages, court costs and attorney fees, as well as potential reinstatement.  In this regard, the Texas Government Code provides that a public employee whistleblower who seeks relief under this law must sue not later than the 90th day after the date on which the alleged violation: (1) occurred; or, (2) was discovered by the employee through reasonable diligence. 

Additional information may be obtained from the Office of the Texas Attorney General, P. O. Box 12548, Austin, Texas, 1(800)252-8011.

The U. S. Department of Transportation (”DOT”) Office of Inspector General offers information online at http://www.oig.dot.gov/recovery/whistleblower_protections.jsp concerning Section 1553 of Division A, Title XV of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5.  In this regard, the DOT states that the Recovery Act offers protections for certain individuals who make specified disclosures relating to Recovery Act funds.  According to the DOT posting, any non-federal employer receiving recovery funds is required to post a notice of the rights and remedies provided under this section of the Recovery Act. 

The DOT states that protected employees may include employees of non-federal employers receiving recovery funds, including state and local governments, contractors, subcontractors, grantees or professional membership organizations acting in the interest of recovery fund recipients.  Covered employees are protected against being discharged, demoted, or otherwise discriminated against as a reprisal for making a protected disclosure. 

To be protected, the disclosure must be made by the employee to the Recovery Accountablity and Transparency Board, an Inspector General, the Comptroller General, a member of Congress, a state or federal regulatory or law enforcement agency, a person with supervisory authority over the employee, a court or grand jury, or the head of a federal agency or his/her representative.  In addition, the DOT states that the disclosure must involve information that the employee believes is evidence of: (1) gross mismanagement of an agency contract or grant relating to recovery funds; (2) a gross waste of recovery funds; (3) a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety related to the implementation or use of recovery funds; or, (4) a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to an agency contract or grant awarded or issued relating to recovery funds. 

The DOT recommends that whistleblower victims of complaint reprisal involving DOT recovery funds contact the Office of Inspector General hotline.