The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including workplace racial harassment and retaliation for complaining about it.  On December 31, 2009, EEOC lawyers announced that a Memphis radioactive waste processing company will pay $650,000 to 23 African American employees and provide other relief to settle a race and retaliation discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC in the Western District of Tennessee.  See, http://www.eeoc.gov.eeoc/newsroom/release/12-31-09a.cfm .  According to the EEOC’s lawsuit against Race, LLC doing business as Studsvik, LLC, a lead worker in the Studsvik shop and other African American employees were subjected to racially offensive comments by their white supervisor.  In addition, EEOC lawyers charged that the lead worker’s supervisor regularly referred to him and other African American employees with the N-word and other derogatory slurs, such as “boy.”  Moreover, white managers allegedly subjected the lead worker and other African American employees to excessive radiation exposure, more than their white co-workers.  As stated in the press release, EEOC lawyers further contended that the lead worker was suspended for 15 days and then laid off in retaliation for complaining about the racial harassment.  An EEOC lawyer with the agency’s Memphis District Office was quoted in the press release, saying, in part, that “Racial harassment remains a longstanding problem in the workplace for many minorities.”  EEOC Acting Chair Stuart Ishimaru added that “Some of the discrimination alleged in this case is unusually extreme because of the physical danger it created for African American employees.” 

Additional information about the EEOC and the federal laws it enforces may be found online in the agency’s website at www.eeoc.gov . 

Whether employment related racial harassment and retaliation occurs in Memphis or elsewhere, victims of racial harassment may contact the EEOC and a lawyer to determine if an employment discrimination lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential racial harassment case.

Chron.com reported in a January 4, 2010 article by Matthew Tresaugue that a Houston company with a history of neighborhood and official complaints has been fined nearly $1.5 million for alleged safety violations after an investigation into a death at an industrial waste facility.  In the article posted at http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6798145.html , Tresaugue writes that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) imposed the penalty against CES Environmental Services six months after an employee died when an explosion and flash fire at the Griggs Road plant knocked him from the top of a tanker truck that he was cleaning.  According to the article, the death was the third at CES facilities in less than a year.  As reported in the article, the company’s lawyer said it will fight the fines by the federal agency, which cited CES for 71 alleged violations in the fatality.  Labor Secretary Hilda Solis was quoted in the article as saying that “Employers should take steps to eliminate hazards and provide a safe working environment for their workers.”  The company’s president contends that the worker disregarded safety rules, but the deceased’s brother has complained that his brother was inadequately trained.  The work related death prompted a criminal probe by federal prosecutors and a lawsuit by the Texas attorney general that alleges 20 violations of state environmental laws.

WSOCTV.com posted a February 15, 2010 article regarding a North Carolina lawsuit filed on behalf of 12 current and former AAA Carolinas employees. According to WSCOTV.com, the plaintiffs allege that they were denied promotions and subjected to racial and sexual slurs by managers at AAA.  See, http://www.wsoctv.com , “Lawsuit Alleges Racial, Sexual Discrimination At AAA Carolinas,” 2/15/10.  As further stated in the article, the discrimination lawsuit also claims those managers favored white employees over African-American.  WSOCTV.com reports in the article that Eric Greene said he was demoted after complaining about being called “boy” and having to endure racial jokes, adding that, after filing a complaint with the EEOC, he got an anonymous letter saying: “You better drop those charges with the EEOC because if you don’t, something will happen to you and your family.”  In this regard, Greene claims his car was stolen and set on fire that same day.  For its own part, AAA issued a statement denying the allegations and stating it would vigorously defend itself in court. 

The EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including employer retaliation for complaining about and opposing unlawful racial and sexual discrimination.  Further information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov .   

Whether illegal employment related racial and sexual discrimination, as well as retaliation for complaining about it, occurs in Beaumont, Conroe, Houston or elsewhere, victims of employment discrimination may contact the EEOC and an attorney to determine if a racial or sexual discrimination and retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular facts and circumstances of the potential discrimination case.

Health Leaders Media reports that state and national nurses associations are applauding a jury’s quick verdict to acquit a Texas nurse of felony charges for reporting a physician to a state oversight board for allegedly providing unsafe patient care.  In the February 12, 2010 posting at www.healthleadersmedia.com , the online publication states that Anne Mitchell, a registered nurse, was charged with misuse of official information, a third degree felony, for reporting Rolando Arafiles, MD, to the Texas Medical Board.  Had she been convicted, Mitchell could have faced up to 10 years in prison, but, after a four day trial, an Andrews, Texas state court jury needed less than one hour to acquit Mitchell.  For her own part, Mitchell contended she was just doing her job.  The American Nurses Association (ANA) called the case blatant retaliation and Rebecca Patton, the President of the ANA, said “Nurse whistle blowers should never be fired and criminally charged for reporting questionable medical care.”  A whistleblower lawsuit claiming damages for her alleged unlawful termination may follow now that the criminal proceeding has concluded.

A Yahoo News posting at http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100210/health/health_rollator_recall states that Dana Douglas Inc. has renewed its recall of selected models of certain rollator models to address potential safety issues.  Depending on the model and date of manufacture, the lower rear frame, front forks, front fork bearings or lower brake rod of the rollators may be subject to failure, according to the Yahoo posting.  As further stated, rollator users could fall and suffer serious injury.  In this regard, the article describes rollators as essentially being walkers with wheels used to help people with mobility issues.  The company recalled certain rollator models in order to fix problems after at least six rollator users reportedly suffered falls.  More information about the company’s rollator recall may be found online at www.danadouglas.com .

In a June 30, 2009 article by Senior Journal , the online Senior Citizen serving publication reported that injuries related to walking canes and walkers are sending 47,000 Senior Citizens a year to emergency rooms because of falls.  More specifically, from 2001 to 2006, an average of 129 American seniors, those 65 and older, were treated in emergency departments each day for fall injuries associated with walkers and canes, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study published in the June 2009 Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.  The study examined six years of emergency department medical records, finding reportedly that for older adults experiencing falls related to walkers or canes, most of the injuries involved walkers (87%).  The study’s lead author, Judy Stevens, was quoted in the article as saying that “Walkers are often used by frail and vulnerable older adults; people for whom falls, if they occur, can have very serious health consequences.”  Consequently, it’s important to make sure people use mobility devices safely.  See, http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Aging/2009/20090630-InjuriesRelatedToWalking.htm

Falls are the leading cause of nonfatal injury in the United States, and falls among the elderly can have especially serious consequences, so the study points out the importance of fall prevention and offers some fall prevention strategies, including, for example, educating mobility device users on how to use their walkers and canes safely, as well as conducting more studies to better understand fall risk factors for older adults who use walkers and canes and identifying potential design problems to improve the design of walkers.

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division (DOJ) announced in a March 4, 2010 news release posted at http://www.justice.gov that two subsidiaries of American International Group, Inc. have agreed to pay a minimum of $6.1 million to resolve allegations that they engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination against African American borrowers.  Brought under the federal Fair Housing and Equal Credit Opportunity Acts, the complaint alleged that African American borrowers nationwide were charged higher fees on wholesale loans made by AIG Federal Savings Bank (FSB) and Wilmington Finance Inc. (WFI), an affiliated mortgage lending company.  According to the DOJ news release, AIG FSB and WFI contracted with mortgage brokers to obtain mortgage applications that were underwritten and funded by the defendants.  In this regard, the DOJ complaint alleged that AIG FSB and WFI failed to supervise or monitor brokers in setting broker fees and this practice had a disparate impact on African American borrowers, who were charged higher broker fees than white, non-Hispanic borrowers on thousands of such loans from July 2003 until May 2006, a period of time before the federal government obtained an ownership interest in American International Group, Inc.  As stated in the news release, AIG FSB and WFI are not currently in the business of wholesale home mortgage lending.

A copy of the complaint, as well as additional information about fair-lending enforcement by the DOJ, can be obtained at http://www.justice.gov/fairhousing .

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced in a March 3, 2010 news release at http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-3-10a.cfm that it has settled a disability discrimination lawsuit against a car dealership, resulting in a $32,500 payment to a job applicant and other relief to remedy alleged disability discrimination.  According to the news release, EEOC attorneys charged in the case that the car dealership dopped a job offer after drug test results revealed use of prescription medication.  More specifically, EEOC attorneys asserted that the car dealership reneged on an offer to hire a job applicant as a salesperson only after a urine test revealed he was taking prescribed medication.  The car dealership then erroneously perceived the applicant as too disabled to do the job despite normal medical results and medical authorization to the contrary, the EEOC said.  EEOC attorneys argued that the conduct was in direct violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).  In this regard, the EEOC is a federal agency which enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination, including discrimination based upon perceived disabilities.  EEOC attorneys filed the employment discrimination lawsuit in February 2009 on the applicant’s behalf after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

In a February 12, 2010 posting at http://www.newsinferno.com/archives/18657 , newsinferno.com reports that Health Canada has announced that NeXus I, II and III rollators are the subject of a voluntary recall initiated by Dana Douglas, Inc., a company located in Ontario.  According to the posting, the rollators are being recalled due to a variety of potential health and safety risks.  In this regard, newsinferno.com states that the company initiated the voluntary recall of certain rollators, which may break during use and could result in the user falling and suffering serious injury, including bruising, broken bones, or death.

In the Health Canada February 2, 2010 public communication concerning the rollator recall, Health Canada advises individuals to stop using affected rollators immediately and to return their rollator to an authorized dealer for necessary modifications.  In addition, Health Canada provides email contact information for the company as info@danadouglas.com for any questions about the recall.  For more info from Health Canada see http://hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/advisories-avis/public/_2010/nexus_pc-cp-eng.php

In its posting on the recall, newsinferno.com reports that there have been nine reported incidents in which the front wheel has fallen off the frame and twenty one reported incidents of the front wheel fork cracking or breaking, as well as five reported incidents of the brake jamming in the locked position during use.  It appears that no injuries have resulted from these incidents, to date.

Whether serious injury or death results from use of defective rollators or mobility aid devices such as a rollator, injured victims and their families may contact the appropriate consumer protection or health and safety agencies to report a rollator complaint.

In a press release at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-civ-136.html , attorneys with the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a Canadian weaver of ballistic fabrics and its American subsidiary have agreed to pay the United States $4 million to settle the United States’ lawsuit against the company for violations of the False Claims Act in connection with their role in the weaving of Zylon fabric used in the manufacture and sale of defective Zylon bullet proof vests.  According to the DOJ’s February 12, 2010 press release, the United States alleged in the lawsuit that the Zylon used in the ballistic fabric woven by the company for the body armor industry lost its ballistic capability quickly, especially when exposed to heat and humidity.  The United States further alleged that the company was aware of the defective nature of the Zylon by at least December 2001, but continued to sell Zylon for use in ballistic armor until August 2005, when the National Institute of Justice issued a report that Zylon degraded quickly in ballistic applications.  At that time, the DOJ reports that all American body armor manufacturers stopped using Zylon in body armor. 

An Assistant Attorney General quoted in the DOJ press release was quoted as saying ”Companies that knowingly sell the government defective bulletproof vests not only commit fraud, they put the lives of our law enforcement women and men at risk.”  As part of the lawsuit settlement, the company has pledged its cooperation in the Government’s on-going investigation of the body armor industry’s use of Zylon in body armor.  The United States previously has settled with six other alleged participants in the Zylon body armor industry for over $54 million, according to the press release.

The United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) offers an OSHA Fact Sheet at www.osha.gov about whistleblower protections and the environment, stating that an employee may file a complaint with OSHA if an employer retaliates against an employee with unfavorable personnel action because the employee reported a potential environmental violation.  According to the OSHA Fact Sheet, covered employees can include employees who report potential violations of certain environmental laws, including violations of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA); the Clean Air Act (CAA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA); the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA); the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA); and, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  As OSHA states, if the employee’s employer is covered under one of these statutes, the employer may not discharge or in any other manner retaliate against the employee because the employee reported potential violations of environmental laws and regulations to the employer or the government.  Further, the employer may not discharge or in any manner retaliate against the employee because the employee filed, caused to be filed, participated in or assisted in a proceeding under one of these laws or regulations.

While OSHA states that these statutes do not expressly provide protection for an employee who refuses to work because of an alleged environmental violation by an employer, the Secretary of Labor interprets this statute to protect refusals to work when an employee has a reasonable belief that his or her working conditions are unsafe or unhealthful, and he or she does not receive an adequate explanation from a responsible official that the conditions are safe.

An employer may be found to have violated these statutes if the employee’s protected activity was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision to take an adverse or unfavorable personnel action against the employee.  Examples of unfavorable personnel actions provided by OSHA include firing, lay-off, blacklisting, demotion, overtime or promotion denials, reduction in pay or hours, and intimidation, among others. 

Complaint deadlines are described by OSHA, and, with respect to deadlines, depending on the statute, complaints must be filed within 30 days (CAA, CERCLA, FWPCA, SDWA, TSCA) or 90 days (AHERA) after the alleged unfavorable personnel action occurs (that is, when the employee becomes aware of the retaliatory action). 

An employee, or representative of an employee, who believes that he or she has been retaliated against in violation of these statute(s) may file a complaint with OSHA.  For example, environmental whistleblower employees suffering an adverse employment action in Beaumont, Dallas, Houston or elsewhere in Texas, may contact OSHA’s Dallas Regional Office at (972)850-4145 or an attorney to determine if a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit is ultimately appropriate under the particular circumstances and facts of the potential whistleblower retaliation claim.