A Miami-based photography studio and photograph processor was being sued by the EEOC after the agency learned that the company violated several federal laws when it subjected its female employees to sexual and gender-based harassment.

The EEOC found out that Piloto Photo Center’s owner, Carlos Piloto, subjected his female employees to sexual harassment, after two fired female workers filed a complaint before the office of the said agency in Miami.

According to the two complainants, they were terminated for objecting to Piloto’s harassing conduct. They claimed in their complaint that Piloto was regularly subjecting them and their other female co-workers to graphic sexual comments, calling them humiliating gender-based names involving frequent comments about sexual conduct, sexual habits of animals, female and male anatomy, and displaying of pornography.

Workplace harassment based on gender-basis and retaliation is a form of discrimination which is against Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

After due process, the EEOC filed a sexual harassment lawsuit and retaliation before the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC is seeking for a permanent injunction outlawing the company from involving in further workplace harassment or retaliation. The agency is also seeking for back pay and other damages.

In its official press release, the EEOC, through its District Director for Miami District Malcolm Medley, noted that employees have lawful rights to file for a sexual harassment case without fear of retaliation. Malcolm further said that sexual harassment is still a problem in the community until present. Nevertheless, the EEOC is committed to ensuring that no further workplace harassment will happen .

Usually, in such sexual harassment cases, employers know all the tactics and tricks to avoid the claim. However, victims should not be afraid to speak out, since they may seek protection and defense from other federal and private institutions that focus on helping victims to get what they deserve for the workplace harassment they have suffered.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

The Human Rights Commission is getting alarmed by the increasing number of pregnancy discrimination complaints that they have been receiving for the past few years.

Within the last two years, the agency has dealt with more than 80 complaints of pregnancy discrimination according to a Human Rights Commission’s Employment Opportunities Commission, Dr. Judy McGregor was quoted as saying.

McGregor said that the number of pregnant women contacting the commission for employment discrimination based on pregnancy is rapidly increasing.

Under the Human Right Act of 1993, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate employees or applicants based on pregnancy while the Employment Relations Act 2000 contains similar protections for pregnant workers and applicants. The Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987, on the other hand, outlaws termination based on pregnancy or parental leave.

McGregor explained that there is plenty of guidance from both the commission and the Department of Labor. Thus, employers have really no excuse from discrimination against employees.

McGregor added that the problem is definitely the old fashioned attitude that if a woman becomes pregnant, her brain becomes sentimental; and that she cannot lift anything or do anything, which clients and customers don’t like.

McGregor also said that people should get over such notions because the issue is getting serious and persistent.

The commission, through its spokesperson McGregor, is encouraging group of employers and the department to cooperate with them in pursuing the establishment of more effective ways to avoid further employment discrimination based on pregnancy.

McGregor also noted that pregnancy discrimination is a practice issue and not a policy issue.

Pregnant workers are also entitled to fair employment opportunity as long as their condition does not affect their capability to perform their job and that their tasks do not affect the child on their wombs.

Pregnant women, who have been singled out from employment or denied for employment, have all the reasons to defend their rights under the existing laws. In such cases, a competent Los Angeles attorney is more than willing to help them seek justice and obtain possible compensation for any employment discrimination claim.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

A huge call center agency, which is a subsidiary of the Cincinnati-based Convergys Corp., is facing a religious discrimination lawsuit and is about to settle the case upon payment of the monetary fines and other related reliefs.

The lawsuit was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after due process of conciliation.

Allegedly, the Convergys Customer Management Group turned down an applicant due to his religious beliefs.

According to the lawsuit, Shannon Fantroy applied as a customer service representative at Convergys’ call center in Hazelwood. However, the recruiter denied him during the initial interview after he said that he can’t work on Saturdays because of his church duties as a Hebrew Israelite.

Under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination in the workplace is prohibited including discrimination based on religion. Thus, employers are expected to make reasonable accommodation to employees, especially for those with differing religious beliefs, as long as it does not present an excessive hardship.

The consent decree which would settle the lawsuit provides for injunctive relief including training for recruiters on employment discrimination and accommodation law. Also included are new procedures particularly for recruiters that will allow applicants to ask for religious accommodations once they are offered a job.

The same also requires that the interview application should still go through even if the applicant requested for a schedule adjustment with respect to his or her religious beliefs.

Furthermore, all job applicants during the two-year consent decree must receive a written notice that they may be entitled to a religious accommodation. However, the said decree must be approved first by the US District Court under Judge Audrey Fleissig before it becomes effective.

The EEOC’s regional attorney for St. Louis District, Missouri, Barbara A. Seely, said in the agency’s press release that it is unreasonable if the said call center agency cannot provide an employee with an alternate schedule if there are hundreds of employees available to cover the shift.

The EEOC hopes that other call center agencies would take note of their requirements to avoid further employment discrimination similar to Convergys’ case.

Employers should also take note that as opposed to the workplace harassment, which deals with actions taken personally against the employee, employment discrimination arises from actual employment practices such as hiring, promotion, demotion and termination.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Four formers employees are suing the Cherokee Chief for Wrongful Termination after the latter fired them for a politically motivated reason.

The lawsuit was filed last month by Sammye Rusco, Rachel McAlvain, Paula Ragsdale and Felicia Olaya against the new Cherokee Nation Principal Chief, Bill John Baker.

In their lawsuit, the complainants are claiming that the new Cherokee’s Chief wrongfully terminated them for actively supporting its political opponent, Chad Smith.

Two of the complainants have been serving the nation for more than five years while Ragsdale has been in service for more than twenty years with neat performance record.

As a matter of fact, more than ten employees including the four complainants have been terminated since Baker acts as the as the new Principal Chief.

The complainants added that Baker violated their human rights and deliberately caused embarrassment when the Principal Chief allowed journalists and other employees to watch them through a glass window as they were being fired.

In a press release, the former employees assert that the nation’s new leadership does not respect the law and rules of governance.

All the four women are seeking for $250,000 for general damages, $1 million for punitive damages and legal fees in their lawsuit.

The Cherokee Nation announced that Baker is not yet giving any comment on the pending lawsuit.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit has caught Smith’s attention and he is currently representing the four complainants in their lawsuit. He provided the women with an attorney for wrongful termination free of charge since he too believed that the women were wrongfully terminated.

The challenge in a wrongful termination lawsuit is proving that the termination was done for improper or unlawful reasons. The most common motive for termination includes different forms of discrimination. Nevertheless, this case of the four women is different since a political issue was involved.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

The mother of a bus accident victim in St. Joseph, Missouri agreed to settle a wrongful death claim with the bus company outside court.

Bridget Blasi, the mother of the boy who was killed in a bus accident was going to be paid by First Student amounting to $5 million in an out of court settlement.

In November 2012, a bus hit Mason Adams as he was crossing the road. It was stated that the bus driver was in a hurry for the morning route and due to this, he missed to fully scrape the frost from the bus windows. The driver missed to see the boy who was then using the legal crosswalk.

First student admitted their fault and took the full responsibility for Adams’ death.

Blasi said that she intended to bring the case to the court but she added that she now prefer not to do so since the bus company already gave a public apology to her and her family and agreed to pay the amount she was claiming for wrongful death case.

According to Blasi, she has specific plans for the monetary relief she will receive from the settlement. She plans to build a ballpark in memory of her son who has been a great baseball player. Other reliefs would go to the scholarship fund that she has been creating along with her family to commemorate Adam.

Though Blasi agreed to settle the said wrongful death lawsuit outside court, she is still hoping that her son’s death would serve as a lesson to all motorists and would raise the awareness on everyone regarding school bus safety.

In a wrongful death claim, surviving relatives of the decedent generally asks for monetary relief for the death of their loved ones. In Orange County, survivors usually seek help from wrongful death attorneys in Los Angeles to guide them on the difficult process from filing the case, representation until it comes to the resolution of their claims. However, in Blasi’s case, she chose the easiest way in settling the case probably to avoid the long trial periods as well as the physical and emotional stress.

Although money can never fill the emptiness left by the loss of our loved ones, the right to a wrongful death is a lawful recourse provided to the survivors.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

The woman who died from the recent accident on 405 Freeway near Sta. Monica was finally identified by the authorities.

Initially, the victim’s identity was withheld pending notification of next of kin. But in recent reports, the vehicle accident victim was identified by the Coroner’s office as Rose Miller, 57-years-old woman. However it was not yet determined which car she was in.

A spokesperson from the Los Angeles Fire Department has said that though it was a three vehicle collision, Miller was the only one that got killed from the accident which happened at around 8:30 in the evening last January 31 at 405 Freeway near Sta. Monica Boulevard.

The three vehicle collision involved a red Volvo, a silver sedan, and a black SUV. The hood mashed in and the SUV landed few yards toward south and fragments from the vehicles were scattered.

The collision created heavy traffic jam on the southbound lane prompting some motorists to use an alternative route. It took several hours for the California Highway Patrol to gather evidences and conduct an investigation to the mangles vehicles. Therefore, traffic started to ease up before dawn.

The main cause of the collision was not yet determined but investigation is on progress.

Each year, the state of California has been a witness to many different vehicle accidents especially within the vicinity of Sta. Monica and victims of vehicle accidents within the said area are lucky for having Sta. Monica personal injury lawyers who are highly skilled in car accident litigations and has established an exceptional record or representing victims for many years.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later

Kessler Foundation is one of the biggest public charities when it comes to helping people with disabilities. The organization works to improve the quality of life of disabled people.

Recently, the said charity foundation granted the University of Hawaii a Signature Employment Grant with an amount of $425,000 as a part of more than $2.7 million in 2011 to its Office of Research Services. Since 2005, Kessler has awarded more than $20 million to the innovative employment initiatives.

The grant will support the development of a virtual reality (VR) software application which will be called EmployAble. It aims to help jobseekers to journey across the world of job hunting and adapt to the workplace.  The Virtual Employment Orientation and Support Center will benefit people with disabilities, including veterans and victims of traumatic brain injury. EmployAble will be created by the University’s team of researchers which mostly comprises of disabled persons. The University of Hawaii Center on Disability Studies, Abilicorp and Virtual Ability will collaborate on this project.

Meanwhile, Kessler foundation is also doing its own study about clinical virtual reality for rehabilitation applications.

EmployAble is expected to draw on new components of commercial VR software programs from Multiple User Virtual Environments (MUVE) to Second Life (SL) and Virtual World Simulation (SIM). Employable will simulate workplace social interactions and present generally used assistive technology such as screen readers, captioning video programs, creation of accessible document, presentation programs and use of accessible features like VoiceThread and Adobe Flash and Text-to-speech software

Many disabled persons are suffering from employment disabilities. Through this two year grant provided by Kessler, problem regarding high rate of unemployment and underemployment of disabled people is expected to be resolved.

This project will make an improvement to the quality of life of the people with spinal cord and head injury, multiple sclerosis, stroke and other neurological problems.

It is indeed illegal for a company to reject a job applicant due to a person’s disabilities, but still a lot of employers do and for that, employment disability is becoming a huge problem in the society. Employment discrimination due to an individual’s physical or mental disability is illegal. Under the Americans with Disability Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act, such sort of discrimination is precluded.

• Bookmark on Delicious
• Digg this post
• Recommend on Facebook
• Buzz it up
• share via Reddit
• Share with Stumblers
• Tweet about it
• Subscribe to the comments on this post
• Tell a friend
• Print for later