A worker’s environment plays a crucial role in his productivity and well-being. So, there are laws enforced to maintain a person’s environment free from any factors that may hinder his means to earn income.

This should prevent any acts of discrimination and harassment that would create a hostile work environment and greater odds that he would have to beat in order to be compensated for his work.

One of the twin white deputies in Compton who filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against the county has recently testified of their ordeal and the abuse they allegedly suffered from their Latino colleagues and the county who failed to address their complaints.

Deputy Ryan Wade, 33, and his twin brother Richard Wade were allegedly discriminated, harassed, and retaliated against by their co-workers, who were mostly Latinos, for being white.

The twin also said that they were considered a snitch as their father, a retired police sergeant in South Gate Police Department, testified in behalf of the minority workers who claim that they are being harassed in SGPD.

Aside from the threats and taunts that the two allegedly suffered, they also were transferred to a lesser prestigious post at the Community College Bureau.

These inhumane acts of discriminating a person for his race should have heavier consequences to the defendant so that they will realize the gravity of their actions. If these allegations of Wade brothers were found to be true, then they should be compensated for the wrong done to them.

• 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

What’s the price for pregnancy discrimination?

Quite a huge sum actually the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has obtained $16.8 million worth of monetary benefits from pregnancy discrimination charges in 2009 alone.

Recently, Brandi Cochran, a former model for the long-time running game show “The Price Is Right” has sued the show for pregnancy discrimination.

In her lawsuit, Cochran claimed that as far back as 2007, she experienced harassment and stress over her pregnancy – when she suffered a miscarriage, a producer allegedly told her that it was nature’s way of getting rid of a bad baby.

When she became pregnant with twins again in 2008, a producer reacted negatively to the news and that another producer made a derogatory comment about a “wide load coming through” when she walked past.

She eventually lost her job after experiencing complications from her pregnancy and had to be on disability.

Under the law, employers are prohibited from treating women less favorably (harassment and termination) because of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Likewise, a pregnant employee who is unable to perform her jobs because of her condition should be treated the same as a temporarily disabled employee.

However, harassment and discrimination still continue to persist against pregnant employees. All too often, employers see them as a “liability” because of their condition despite the fact that pregnancy is as natural and biological as one’s skin color, disability and gender.

Pregnancy harassment in the workplace is any physical, verbal, or written conduct that is unwelcome and offensive. Examples include demeaning comments, offensive jokes or gestures, pictures or sketches that related to pregnancy which can create a hostile work environment.

Pregnant employees who are discriminated and harassed on the basis of their condition have a right to file a complaint against an employer who has made her work conditions adverse or at the worst case scenario, fired her because of her pregnancy.

However, it should be noted that there are certain requirements in filing a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. Legal experts, particularly employment lawyers should be consulted first before filing a claim to serve as a guide through the whole process.

• 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 recent study on how racial discrimination affects American support for Obama and his health care reform revealed some interesting results.

According to the study by Eric Knowles of UC Irvine, the study tested 285 whites, Latinos and Asians for underlying bias against blacks.

About 45 percent of the subjects identified themselves a liberal or very liberal, while 25 percent said they were conservative or very conservative.

The study did not attempt to measure how pervasive prejudice is rather it measures if Obama’s skin color has an effect on the perception of him and his policies.

The results show that half of the participants who were deemed to be most racially biased were 43% most likely to vote against Obama than the other half.

Among those more highly prejudiced participants, 65% liked the health plan when it was attributed to Clinton while only 41% liked it when it was attributed to Obama.

The GOP rebukes the study saying that Obama would not have won and became president if racism existed in a serious level.

I think the study shows that although racism has gone down far enough for us to actually elect a black president.

It did not actually remove some of our preconceptions, ideas or even just negative feelings against people of different races.

It exists in many workplaces where employment decisions are based on a person’s race even though sometimes it is done unconsciously.

Racism will not disappear anytime in the near future. What we can do is work on ourselves to make sure that despite what we think of others, we can be better people by seeing past what we think and see what really is.

• 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

Mel Gibson’s 2006 arrest has become one of the most prominent DUI cases not only in Hollywood but the whole US  as well.

The world went nuts after Gibson’s DUI report details were posted on celebrity website TMZ.

It is not just that Gibson was arrested for drunken driving, but the outrage poured because of his apparent anti-Semitic tirade.

This led to an investigation of whether Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy James Mee was involved in leaking the report to the media.

Records obtained by investigators showed that there were calls between Mee and Harvey Levin, TMZ’s founder, but it was impossible to say who made the call from Mee’s end of the line.

Mee’s financial records were also reviewed but no improper payments were found to him or his family.

Harvey Levin also denied that he paid anyone at the LA County Sheriff’s Office for the information about the DUI report.

Now, the prosecutor has declined to file charges against Mee, citing a lack of proof that he leaked details about the case.

The attorney of Mee claims that because of the incident, his client was ostracized and reassigned after arresting Gibson.

It may be a sign that Mee’s camp may file for discrimination charges in the future.

They may claim that even though there were three sheriffs’ employees who had access to the information, no cases were presented to the other workers, who include a sergeant and a lieutenant that oversaw Mee’s report on the arrest.

The report released last Wednesday also showed that Mee’s superiors asked him to rewrite the initial report and turn it into a sanitized version.

All these information may be used by Mee’s attorney to establish their case.

For more information on workplace laws, you should consult an expert law attorney for help.

• 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

According to  this article in the New York Times, an attorney in New York filed a discrimination claim against Columbia University accusing the University of discriminating against males.  The suit alleges that by offering women’s studies programs without a corresponding “men’s studies” program, the University is violating the Equal Protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.   The U.S. District Court in New York dismissed the suit on April 23, 2007,  noting that the suit was baseless and frivolous.

As ridiculous as this claim is, it underlines one of the considerations that a potential litigant should consider before filing a discrimination or harassment lawsuit.   (more…)

• 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