The Associated Press reported on October 5, 2009 that a former pharmacist at Wal-Mart Stores Inc. who claimed she was fired after asking to be paid the same as her male colleagues is entitled to $2 million in damages awarded by a jury, according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.  See, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113515362 .  As stated in the article, Cynthia Haddad was fired in 2004 after working more than 10 years for the company, seven of them at a store in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.  While the company claimed that Haddad was fired because she left the pharmacy unattended and allowed a technician to use her computer security code to issue prescriptions during her absence, Haddad alleged in her discrimination lawsuit that she was fired because she complained about being paid less than her male counterparts, including a bonus given to pharmacy managers.  It states in the article that the company paid the bonus, and then fired Haddad two weeks later. 

As described in the article, a jury found in 2007 that the company discriminated against Haddad, and awarded her $1 million in compensatory damages and another $1 million in punitive damages, but a judge later revoked the $1 million in punitive damages, finding there was an insufficient basis for the jury’s decision.  However, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstated the punitive damages and upheld the total verdict, ruling that the jury had enough evidence to find that the company’s stated motive for the firing was a pretext and that the company acted with “discriminatory animus.”

The NAACP announced in an October 7, 2009 Press Release that the NAACP supports a proprosed increase in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Anti-Employment Discrimination Funding.  According to the NAACP Press Release at http://www.naacp.org/news/press/2009-10-07b/index.htm , it is currently projected that the EEOC’s case backlog is on pace to reach 102,944 charges by the end of fiscal year 2010.  This is nearly double the size of the backlog as it existed less than three years ago.  As stated in the Press Release, the backlog is unacceptable and needs to be addressed and resolved.  In this regard, Hilary Shelton, Director of the NAACP Washington Bureau, stated, in part, that “Over the past few years, the EEOC has been woefully underfunded; one result has been an ever-increasing backlog of cases that need to be addressed and this increase is the first step in that direction.”  As announced by the NAACP, House Resolution 2847 has passed, and the Senate is expected to consider funding. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  Founded in 1909, the NAACP is the nation’s oldest and largest civil rights organization.

In an Associated Press article by Mike Baker posted at Houston’s chron.com, the AP reports that Kimberly McCallum, a black woman, filed suit against her former employer, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, claiming that she was fired after complaining that the organization was not reaching out to black churches.  See, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/religion/6601712.html .  According to the article, McCallum contends that she was the only black employee working in the executive offices in Charlotte when she started in February of 2007, and she complained to her superiors later that year when she was asked to recruit congregations to a camp program but found that a list of 635 prospective churches had only three memberships which were primarily black.  As reported in the article, McCallum said it was apparent that black churches were excluded.  The article reports further that a week after raising her concerns, McCallum said she was informed that her job with global offices was cut because of downsizing, but learned later that the only job eliminated was the job she occupied.  Michael Emerson, a Rice University sociologist who has done research on race and religion, reportedly said that the association has long emphasized trying to increase its diversity even though churches remain deeply segregated.

Failing to make reasonable accommodations for the physical limitations of a qualified individual with a disability or terminating an individual because of that disability violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (”ADA”), and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including disability discrimination.  In an October 9, 2009 EEOC Oxford, Mississippi Press Release, the federal agency announced that a casino operating in Robinsonville, Mississippi will pay $75,000.00 and furnish other relief to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by EEOC attorneys in Mississippi.  According to the EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-9-09b.html , EEOC attorneys charged in the discrimination lawsuit that the company denied one of its dealers a reasonable accommodation for her physical limitations which were sustained as a result of an auto accident.  In this regard, the EEOC said that the employee was perfectly capable of doing her job, but needed to sit while doing so.  As stated in the Press Release, the company fired the employee instead of making that accommodation.  An attorney with the EEOC’s Memphis District Office was quoted as saying that “This case emphasizes the necessity of employers training their decision makers about the rights their employees have under the [ADA].”  Further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces may be found in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits unlawful employment discrimination, including workplace racial harassment, and the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on race.  In an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-30-09f.html , the federal agency announced that agency attorneys filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against a Pennsylvania bakery company, alleging that the company violated federal law when it subjected a black production operator to a racially hostile work environment.  According to the September 30, 2009 Press Release, EEOC attorneys charge in the case that the employee was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race when a white co-worker made deragotory comments about blacks on several occasions, including use of the N-word on four occasions.  As stated in the Press Release, the employee complained to three management officials, but the company failed to take action to address his complaints and the offensive racial language continued, forcing the employee to quit due to the racially hostile work environment.  An EEOC attorney with the EEOC’s Philadelphia District Office was quoted in the Press Release, saying, in part, that “The use of the N-word in the workplace is vile and abhorrent” and the “EEOC is filing this suit to show all employers that such misconduct cannot be tolerated in the workplace.”  EEOC attorneys filed the race discrimination lawsuit in Pennsylvania 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 .

The U. S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (”DOJ”) announced in an October 8, 2009 Press Release at http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/October/09-crt-1090.html that an Oregon man has been indicted and arrested for allegedly mailing a hangman’s noose to the Lima, Ohio chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (”NAACP”).  In this regard, the charges set forth in an indictment are merely accusations and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.  According to the DOJ Press Release, the man was a regional director of a group that advocated white supremacist ideology at the time he allegedly mailed the noose.  DOJ attorneys charge that before mailing the noose, the man sent hate literature to residents of Lima regarding the shooting of an African American woman by an officer employed by the Lima Police Department.  As stated in the Press Release, the two count federal indictment charges the defendant with interference with federally protected activities and mailing threatening communications.  An attorney with the Civil Rights Division described a noose as an unmistakable symbol of hatred and violence.  The case was investigated by the FBI in conjunction with attorneys from the Northern District of Ohio and the DOJ Civil Rights Division.

Under Texas law, the Texas Labor Code prohibits discrimination against an employee who makes a worker compensation claim.  More specifically, the Texas Labor Code states at Section 451.001 that a person may not discharge or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has filed a workers’ compensation claim in good faith; hired a lawyer to represent the employee in a claim; instituted or caused to be instituted in good faith a proceeding under Subtitle A; or, testified or is about to testify in a proceeding under Subtitle A.  The Texas Labor Code further states that a person who violates this Texas law prohibition against worker compensation discrimination may be liable for reasonable damages incurred by the employee as a result of the violation.  In addition, the Texas employee subjected to worker compensation retaliation may seek reinstatement in their former position of employment. 

Whether retaliation against an employee who makes a claim for workers’ compensation occurs in Beaumont, Galveston, Houston or elsewhere in Texas, retaliation victims may have a claim for damages under the Texas Labor Code and may contact an attorney to determine if a Texas worker compensation retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under particular facts and circumstances of the potential discrimination claim.

A Houston based delivery company doing business in Arizona has been sued by the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) in a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit, according to an EEOC Press Release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-6-09b.html .   As reported in the October 6, 2009 EEOC Press Release, agency attorneys charge that the Houston company violated federal law by subjecting female employees to egregious verbal and sexual harassment and then punished them for complaining.  In this regard, the EEOC contends that management failed to take appropriate action to eradicate the harassment, although it was aware of it.  Agency attorneys further charge in the lawsuit that in one instance, a supervisor exposed himself to a female subordinate employee, and in another instance the same supervisor demanded sexual acts from a female subordinate after threatening to terminate her spouse’s employment.  The EEOC said that the victims complained to management and some were subsequently terminated as retaliation. 

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination.  EEOC attorneys filed the sexual harassment lawsuit against the Houston company as the federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it.  Further information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces may be found in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether workplace sexual harassment occurs in Houston or elsewhere, sexual harassment and misconduct victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a sexual harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential sex discrimination claim.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of religion, and the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.  In an October 6, 2009 EEOC Press Release found at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/10-6-09.html , the agency announced that its attorneys filed a lawsuit against a Yuma, Arizona hotel, alleging that the hotel unlawfully permitted a manager to impose his personal religious beliefs on other employees and failed to accommodate those employees who did not desire to participate.  According to the Press Release, EEOC attorneys charge that the company threatened employees with reprisals or otherwise forced them to engage in a particular religious prayer ceremony in spite of their personal different religious views.  As stated in the Press Release, the unlawful discrimination created a hostile work environment and denied employees reasonable accommodation for their religious beliefs.  An EEOC attorney quoted in the Press Release stated, in part, that employees should not be subjected unwillingly to a supervisor’s religious views and should not be subjected to forced prayer sessions.  Another EEOC representative commented that “Employee freedom of and from religion must be protected.”  EEOC attorneys filed the religious discrimination lawsuit in Arizona after first attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.  Further information about the EEOC is available in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov .

The U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (”EEOC”) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including race based discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  In an EEOC Ohio Press Release, the federal agency announced that EEOC attorneys filed a racial harassment lawsuit, alleging that a landfill company subjected its African American employees to race based harassment.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-29-09q.html .  As stated in the September 29, 2009 Press Release, EEOC attorneys charge that the landfill company subjected two workers to unlawful racial harassment and retaliation, including allegedly condoning the repeated use of racial slurs by its supervisors and the permanent display of the Confederate flag on its property.  EEOC attorneys filed the discrimination lawsuit in Ohio after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement.  An EEOC attorney with the agency’s Detriot Field Office was quoted in the Press Release as saying, in part, that “Egregious conduct in the form of racial slurs, especially when uttered by supervisors, plainly cannot be tolerated.”  Further information about the EEOC and the laws enforced by this federal agency may be found in the EEOC’s website at www.eeoc.gov .