In a news release at http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/osha/osha20100157.htm , the U. S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced that it has ordered the Illinois Central Railroad Co. and the Chicago, Central & Pacific Railroad, both headquartered in Homewood, Illinois, to pay a former railroad employee more than $80,000 in back wages, compensatory damages and attorney fees.  According to the February 11, 2010 news release, OSHA investigated the employee’s allegation that the railroad terminated his employment in retaliation for reporting a work-related injury he sustained while performing his job.  OSHA’s investigation found that officials from both railroads ordered an investigation into the cause of the employee’s injury, which ultimately resulted in their decision to terminate his employment.  As stated in the news release, the evidence showed that the employee was in compliance with the railroads’ rules governing the reporting of work-related injuries and not at fault for his injury.  OSHA conducted the investigation under the whistleblower provisions of the Federal Rail Safety Act (FRSA) as amended in 2007.  The FRSA protects railroad carrier employees who report violations of any federal law, rule or regulation relating to railroad safety or security or who engage in other activities protected by the act.  In this regard, employers are responsible under OSHA for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees, and OSHA’s role is to assure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance.

For more information about OSHA visit http://www.osha.gov .  Detailed information on employee whistleblower rights can be found at http://www.osha.gov/dep/oia/whistleblower/index.html .

In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-16-10.cfm , U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) attorneys announced the settlement of the EEOC’s race harassment and discrimination lawsuit against the nation’s largest broadline closeout retailer.  The settlement includes total monetary relief of $400,000 to be paid to at least five employees along with a group of unidentified class members.  The company also agreed to a two-year consent decree that calls for the implementation of new policy, training, procedures and court monitoring to address harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

According to the press release, EEOC attorneys filed the race harassment lawsuit in 2008, alleging that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it subjected a black maintenance mechanic and other black employees to race harassment and discrimination at a California distribution center.  As further stated in the press release, EEOC attorneys contended that an immediate supervisor and co-workers, all Hispanic, made racially derogatory jokes, comments, slurs and epithets, but the company took no steps to prevent or correct it, despite learning of the harassment. 

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace racial harassment.  In Fiscal Year 2009, the EEOC reportedly received 33,579 charges alleging race-based discrimination, accounting for about 36% of the agency’s private sector caseload.  Historically, race-based charges have been one of the most frequent types of filings with EEOC offices nationwide.  Additional information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether workplace race harassment and discrimination occurs in Beaumont, Galveston, Port Arthur or elsewhere, victims may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a race harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination based upon disability.  In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-8-10.cfm , EEOC lawyers announced filing of a federal employment discrimination lawsuit against a global manufacturing company which the EEOC alleges violated federal law when it refused to hire an employee for a full-time position as a process technician because of her gender and because she is the mother of a disabled child.  According to the February 8, 2010 press release, the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to hire the mother of a disabled child for a full-time position in 2007.  EEOC lawyers contend in the case that the disabled child’s mother had worked at a company facility as a part-time process associate for four years but was refused a full-time position due to concerns about her ability to work full-time and care for a disabled child.  The EEOC asserted that the company’s conduct violated the ADA, which protects employees from discrimination based on association with people with disabilities, and Title VII, which prohibits discrimination based upon sex. 

An EEOC lawyer quoted in the press release stated that “Under the ADA and Title VII, employers cannot make employment decisions based on stereotypical assumptions that a female employee with a disabled child would have to miss work or could not perform the job because the employee provides care for a disabled person.”  EEOC lawyers filed the employment discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary out of court settlement with the company.  Further information about the EEOC and the laws it enforces is available at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related discrimination against individuals associated with a disabled person or child occurs in Conroe, Houston, Texas City or elsewhere, victims of ADA discrimination may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential unlawful employment practice claim.

In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-10-10b.cfm , lawyers with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that a major financial holding company will pay $24,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by EEOC lawyers on behalf of a hearing impaired employee who was allegedly denied a reasonable accommodation to which she was entitled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  According to the press release, EEOC lawyers charged in the disability discrimination lawsuit that the woman, a senior teller at a branch bank, was denied a transfer to a vacant position for which she was qualified and as a result, was forced to resign.  As further stated in the press release, EEOC lawyers alleged that she was denied reassignment to other vacant positions in which her hearing loss would not limit her ability to perform her job. 

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including disability discrimination.  An EEOC lawyer quoted in the press release stated, in part, that “Under federal law, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations to enable disabled workers to perform their jobs unless doing so would pose an undue hardship on the employer.”  EEOC lawyers settled the disability discrimination lawsuit when both parties reached an agreement during a court-hosted settlement conference.  More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .   

Whether employment related hearing loss or hearing impairment discrimination occurs in Conroe, Houston, Texas City or elsewhere, victims of hearing loss discrimination may contact the EEOC or a lawyer to determine if a disability discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

In a press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-11-10.cfm , lawyers with the the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced filing of a federal religious discrimination lawsuit against a construction company.  According to the February 11, 2010 press release, EEOC lawyers charge in the employment discrimination lawsuit that the construction company violated federal law by denying religious accommodation to several of its employees and later firing them because of their religion.  As stated more specifically in the EEOC press release, three day laborers with the company are members of the Seventh Day Adventist faith and they all hold the sincere religious belief, based on the tenets of their faith, that they cannot work on their Sabbath, which runs from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday.  EEOC lawyers claim in the case that the workers were discharged when they refused to work on their Sabbath and the company knew that these workers’ objections to working on the Sabbath was based on their religion.

In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including religious discrimination.  For its own part, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.  EEOC lawyers filed the religion discrimination lawsuit after first attempting to reach a voluntary settlement.  An EEOC lawyer quoted in the press release stated, in part, that “Employers need to ensure that their supervisors and managers who are called upon to make decisions on employees’ requests for religious accommodation are fully knowledgeable of the employer’s obligation under Title VII.” 

Whether religion based employment discrimination occurs in Conroe, Houston, Texas City or elsewhere, victims of religious discrimination may contact the EEOC or a lawyer to determine if a religious discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

Mobility products often used for fall prevention are not always designed for fall prevention, according to information posted at http://www.invisiblecaregiver.com .  For example, everyday bed accessories can be inappropriately used and recommended for fall prevention and bed mobility without knowledge of use limitations.  In this regard, undisclosed or hidden risks can include entrapment, increased fall risks due to instability, increased pressure points and increased fall risks due to restraint issues.  As indicated by Invisible CareGiver, all sides need to understand the risks, risk management and liability issues of using and recommending ineffective mobility assistance devices.  Consequently, Invisible CareGiver recommends creating a safe environment to avoid mobility device fall risks by making sure the medical device selected is designed or appropriate for the intended and potential use. 

Assumptions and decisions or recommendations based upon convenience create fall injury risks for senior citizens using mobility aid devices.  In an effort to address mobility aids and their uses, Invisible CareGiver cautions that often one mobility aid is recommended, leaving gaps in the individual’s mobility needs and these mobility gaps create risks that need to be addressed before a fall or fall injury occurs.  As such, many elder care mobility needs are not properly addressed, giving rise to the need to do a better job in addressing mobility issues and fall prevention among the elderly or senior citizens since falls, unintended mobility device uses, and restraint and entrapment issues can be an open invitation to liability risks.  Again,  Invisible CareGiver asserts that knowledge can create effective risk management programs and recommendations.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) attorneys announced settlement of an employment discrimination lawsuit against Albertsons, LLC, a national grocery store chain, according to a December 2009 EEOC press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-15-09,cfm .  As stated in the press release, Albertsons, LLC will pay $8.9 million and furnish other relief to settle three employment discrimination lawsuits in which EEOC attorneys charged the company with race, color, and national origin discrimination and retaliation at its Aurora, Colorado distribution center.  The monetary relief will be distributed among 168 former and current employees.

The first lawsuit was filed in 2006 and alleged a pattern or practice of workplace harassment and discrimination based on race, color and national origin.  According to that lawsuit, minority employees were repeatedly subjected to derogatory comments and graffiti, including racial and ethnic slurs, depictions of lynchings, swastikas, and white supremacist and anti-immigrant statements.  Some of the graffiti allegedly remained for years until the restroom was remodeled in 2005.  In the second lawsuit, EEOC attorneys alleged a pattern or practice of retaliation.  A third lawsuit filed in 2008 claimed race discrimination on behalf of a single African American employee at the distribution center who was fired.

An EEOC attorney quoted in the press release said that the graffiti was particularly shocking.  In addition, the attorney commented as follows: “These cases presented the EEOC with some of the most egregious examples of race, color, and national origin discrimination the agency has seen in years.”  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination based upon race, color and national origin.  Further information about the EEOC may be found at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether race, color and national origin employment discrimination and retaliation occurs in Conroe, Houston, Texas City or elsewhere, victims of workplace harassment may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a workplace harassment lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential employment discrimination claim.

In an article posted December 28, 2009, The Daily News, a Galveston County newspaper, reports that an attorney has filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Galveston County on behalf of relatives of a clerk killed in a robbery at a Galveston convenience store.  According to the article, the clerk was fatally wounded during a January 31, 2008 robbery and the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office reached a plea bargain with the perpetrator, sparing him from a capital murder trial and possible death sentence in return for life in prison without possibility of parole.  For its own part, the wrongful death lawsuit accuses ABHI Enterprises of negligence, among other things, and seeks recovery of damages, including compensation for mental anguish, pain and suffering, medical expenses and funeral and burial expenses. 

See http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?wcd=149428 for additional information concerning the Galveston wrongful death lawsuit filed by the victims’ attorney.

The U.S. Labor Department has settled a lawsuit in which two Texas companies were accused of not paying $1 million in overtime to 154 workers. Those workers inspected temporary housing trailers occupied by people who lost their homes during 2005’s Hurricane Katrina.

Federal labor officials announced Wednesday that Irving, Texas-based Fluor Enterprises Inc. agreed to pay the overtime as part of a consent judgment approved in a Houston federal court. The Labor Department also obtained a default judgment against Houston-based Universal Project Management Inc., a subcontractor used by Fluor. According to court documents, Fluor admitted no wrongdoing in the case, saying it wasn’t the workers’ employer.

Universal Project Management failed to answer the claims against it in court. An attorney for Universal was not listed in court records and no public listing for the company could be found.  Associated Press February 10, 2010.

An attorney has filed a sexual assault lawsuit in Galveston on behalf of an 80-year-old woman who alleges that a former church pastor made unwanted phone calls, sexual comments and propositions to her, as well as physically assaulting her. According to a December 5, 2009 article posted by The Daily News, a Galveston County newspaper, the victim has not only filed a lawsuit but also, through her attorney, gone to the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office.  As stated in the article, the Galveston County District Attorney’s Office has not charged the former pastor but is investigating and has asked members of a Texas City church with information to call his office at 409-766-2352. 

In the lawsuit, the victim’s attorney names the Texas City church, the church’s national organization and the former pastor.  Filed in Galveston County’s 122nd District Court, the sexual assault lawsuit seeks damages up to $25 million plus interest on allegations of negligence, infliction of emotional distress, sexual exploitation, assault and battery and false imprisonment. 

See, http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=036176de5c0163d7 for the complete story regarding this Galveston County sexual assault lawsuit.