Is the Supreme Court Divided on LGBT Job Discrimination Case?

The Supreme Court appears divided as they struggle over whether a landmark civil rights law protects LGBT workers from employment discrimination. The cases under consideration are the court’s first on LGBT rights since Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the place of the retired Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court’s four liberal justices are expected to side with the employees terminated due to their sexual orientation or transgender status. The question was whether or not one of the court’s conservatives would join the four liberals in siding with the employees in either of the two highly anticipated cases. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that strong arguments favored LGBT workers. He also stated that there was a question of whether or not justices of the court should take the “massive social upheaval” that could follow such a ruling into account when coming to a decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, two other conservatives, did not openly indicate their views on the matter, but Roberts did question how employers who hold religious objections to hiring LGBT individuals could be affected by the outcome of the cases.

In one of the cases, a skydiving instructor and a government employee (at the county level) were both fired because they were gay. 

In the second case, a transgender funeral home director named Aimee Stephens was fired. Stephens attended court the day of the arguments.

If the court were to rule that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers LGBT individuals, it could lead to some required changes to:

·      Locker rooms

·      Bathrooms

·      Women’s Shelters

·      School Sports Teams 

The argument led to a discussion that lawmakers should be in charge of changing the law, not unelected judges. Justice Samuel Alito, another conservative, apparently agreed with this sentiment stating that 1964’s Congress could not have imagined the law to apply to sexual orientation or gender identity cases when it was created. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg presented the counter-argument that the Congress of 1964 also did could not foresee sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination.

A decision is expected in the early summer of 2020. 

If you need to discuss discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Another Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against PIMCO

A Pacific Investment Management Co. lawyer, Andrea Martin Inokon, is suing the firm. She alleges that the firm discriminated against her regarding pay, mentorship, and promotions. Pacific Investment Management Co., the $1.84 trillion asset manager, denied the allegations. 

Inokon served as PIMCO senior counsel. She filed suit in September 2019 in the Superior Court of California in Orange County. Inokon listed three Defendants in the lawsuit: PIMCO, deputy general counsel Rick LeBrun, and David Flattum, global general counsel. Inokon claims she was passed over for promotions she earned because she was pregnant. In the lawsuit, she claims that women at the firm who are mothers are identified as choosing family over work and labeled as not wanting to advance in their career or receive equal pay.

PIMCO’s spokesperson denied the gender discrimination allegations made in the suit. The spokesperson categorically denied the accusations about PIMCO’s general employment policies and the details of Inokon’s employment circumstances. The company insists that they will show that the plaintiff was treated fairly, received fair pay due to her job duties and her performance.

Inokon is suing for Fair Employment and Housing Act violations, wrongful retaliation, California Equal Pay Act violations, and intentional misrepresentation. She seeks punitive damages.

According to allegations in Inokon’s complaint, PIMCO operates similar to a fraternity. Allegedly, the firm’s senior officers encouraged workers to drink and socialize at strip clubs, poker nights, and golf outings. Inokon, an African American woman, also alleged that white men were over-represented at every level of the firm’s management and leadership. She also alleged that the leadership at the firm interfered with, limited, and prevented female employees from receiving adequate credit for the job duties.

Inokon’s attorney stated that her client was inspired to come forward by the #metoo movement. Inokon sees the case as larger than herself, with finance being one of the few remaining male enclaves where these types of environments continue to thrive. Inokon seeks the release of PIMCO’s compensation records to prove whether or not PIMCO paid her and other staff members fairly.

Inokon claims she was passed over for promotions. She also claims that LeBrun approved her request to work remotely to care for her mother (with the stipulation that she check in with the New York office twice a week). He advised Inokon that he would let Flattum know of the arrangement. Once Inokon started to prepare to move to her new location, LeBrun did an about-face and told her she could not work remotely. Inokon alleges LeBrun told her she would be terminated from her position if she did not work four days of the week in the New York office. Around this same time, Inokon discovered she was pregnant. She advised LeBrun of the pregnancy and that she would likely not be able to travel to New York as required.

These are not the first tine PIMCO has faced allegations of this type.

If you need to discuss how to file a sexual harassment lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

9. Blind Worker in Redding to Receive $570,000 Settlement in Dignity Health Discrimination Suit

In an announcement earlier this month, the U.S. EEOC announced that Dignity Health agreed to pay a $570,000 settlement to resolve a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by Alina Sorling, a previous employee of their Mercy Medical Center in Redding.

Sorling worked as a food service technician for 10 years on the Mercy Redding campus. At that point, she suffered a severe illness that resulted in vision loss. When she lost her sight, Sorling completed the necessary training to enable her to complete everyday tasks she would need to complete on the job including cleaning, stocking, cashiering and grilling. By her account, she mastered the skills necessary to continue to live independently.

Once she completed the training necessary, she requested to return to work. She made this request in February 2015. She provided her employer with a list of accommodations that would allow her to accomplish her duties. The facility rejected her suggestions. Sorling was fired from her position with Mercy Medical in June 2015. According to the lawsuit, the company cited a vision requirement for the reason behind the termination even though the company did not test Sorling’s vision once in the ten years she had previously spent on the job.

After the unexpected loss of her sight, Sorling worked hard to complete all the necessary training and rehabilitate herself so she could learn all the necessary skills to continue to work independently without restrictions. She sought to return to the same employer she had been loyal to for over a decade. Rather than let Sorling demonstrate her abilities, the healthcare facility excluded her based on assumptions regarding her disability and how it would limit her abilities.

As a part of the settlement agreement, the healthcare company agreed to actively move forward with steps to prevent any similar forms of discrimination in the future, but Dignity did not admit any wrongdoing as a part of the agreement. They officially claim that they value their loyal employees and support any with disabilities.

Please get in touch if you would like to know more about disability discrimination in the workplace or if you need assistance filing a disability discrimination lawsuit in California. The experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can assist you in one of their law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and Chicago.

California Company that Refused to Hire ‘Non-Hispanics’ Must Now Pay $2M

Marquez Brothers, a California manufacturer of Mexican-style cheese and other food items, must pay $2 million to settle a discrimination lawsuit filed more than two years ago. The settlement was announced in September 2019.

The discrimination lawsuit was filed by two African American individuals who attempted to submit job applications. When they requested applications from the Marquez Brothers’ Hanford facility, they were refused the paperwork required to applied. One of the potential applicants had numerous years of dairy goods production experience but was not hired even though the job applicants eventually hired were far less qualified. In fact, he was not even allowed to apply at all. 

The second potential job applicant attempted to apply for a job at Marquez Brothers various times but was discouraged from applying and advised that the company was not hiring. During the course of the case, allegations were made that the Marquez Brothers routinely discriminated against non-Hispanic job applicants. The refusal to accept job applications from non-Hispanic job applicants was normal procedure. This standard practice occurred at various Marquez Brothers’ locations throughout California including Hanford, Fresno, Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego. The discrimination was also evident at out of state plants in Texas, Nevada, and Colorado.

The two men who originally brought the discriminatory employment practices to light were African American, but further investigation into the issue showed similar acts of discrimination against other ethnicities including white, Asian, etc.

According to the settlement agreement, the company must provide monetary compensation, take steps to prevent future discrimination including hiring an external monitor, creating and implementing appropriate goals, improving training and resources for their hiring staff, and creating a system to manage and track discrimination complaints.

If you have experienced discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file an employment law lawsuit, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

Catholic Hospital Faces Lawsuit for Transgender Discrimination

The California Appeals court reinstated a lawsuit against Dignity Health, a Catholic hospital chain, filed after they barred a hysterectomy for a transgender patient. The court found that the state’s interest in fighting LGBTQ discrimination outweighs the facility’s alleged right to impose religious standards on healthcare they provide.

The patient denied a hysterectomy who filed suit against Dignity Health was Evan Minton. Minton’s hysterectomy surgery was cancelled abruptly in 2016 when officials at Dignity’s Mercy San Juan Medical Center in Carmichael, California discovered he was transgender. The hospital claims their actions in cancelling Minton’s surgery complied with the church’s ethical and religious directives for Catholic Health Care Services that prohibit sterilization procedures except in very rare circumstances.

The appeals court found in favor of the patient stating that any burden California places on the exercise of religion is justified by the state’s interest in ensuring equal access to medical treatment for all residents regardless of sexual orientation. The case will return to San Francisco County Superior Court for further proceedings and trial. The appellate court’s ruling may limit the ability of Catholic health facilities in California to limit what healthcare services are provided to patients. A number of procedures are forbidden by the previously cited Ethical and Religious Directives. Most denied treatments and procedures are associated with women’s reproductive rights, end-of-life care, and treatments for transgender patients.

In the Ethical and Religious Directives document, certain treatments and procedures are described as “intrinsically evil.” Some of these treatments include abortion, euthanasia, direct sterilization, and assisted suicide. Administrators and employees of the facility are barred from assisting patients with these procedures or referring them to outside providers for the services. Local bishops must approve any exceptions.

If you need help due to discrimination in the workplace or if you need to file an employment law lawsuit, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

Netflix Original Documentary Brings Up Bikram Choudhury’s Numerous Sexual Misconduct Lawsuits

The Netflix original documentary called “Bikram: Yogi, Guru, Predator” from Academy Award-winning filmmaker Eva Orner tells the story of Bikram Choudhury. Choudhury is the controversial yoga instructor who faced numerous lawsuits for sexual misconduct. The film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival and highlights the various stories from women who sued the Indian American yoga teacher. It also artfully explores that contradiction between the healing nature of the discipline and the harmful behavior of the founder.

Orner, the filmmaker, is now asking California lawmakers to reopen the sexual misconduct and sexual assault cases against the yoga instructor. Orner hopes Gavin Newsom, the California governor, watches the film on Netflix and is inspired to call the LA District Attorney to request that she reopen the case.  

The California State Court of Appeal dismissed Choudhury’s 2017 plea and ordered him to pay $7.3 million to Miakshi Jafa-Bodden, his former attorney, who sued him for wrongful termination and sexual harassment. A string of other women made similar claims against Choudhury claiming he raped, sexually abused or harassed them.

Orner also made appeals to the yoga studios bearing his name to drop it and use generic names instead. She is adamant that no woman should go to a Bikram studio – they should go to a hot yoga studio instead.

When Choudhury arrived on the scene from Kolkata in the early 1970’s, he quickly achieved near-celebrity status and created a global fitness empire that left him extremely wealthy. By the 2010’s, he was facing numerous sexual harassment and abuse allegations.

If you have been sexually harassed in the workplace or if you have questions about what an experienced employment law attorney can do for you, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.

Walgreens Employee Fired for Using Discriminatory Language Files Wrongful Termination Lawsuit

A senior maintenance mechanic, Robert Marvel, was employed at a Walgreens warehouse in Northern California until December 2018. Marvel claims there was a spill and he passed along a request from another employee for a “wet vac,” a vacuum commonly used to deal with liquid messes. The Latina co-worker to whom Marvel made the request reported that he called her a wetback. Marvel insists that she misheard his request for a wet vac, but alleges he was not given a chance to defend himself before he was suspended the next day. A week later, he was fired from his job of 13 years.

Marvel was employed by Walgreens in their Woodland warehouse where he was responsible for maintaining various equipment and repairing conveyor belts. According to the lawsuit, Marvel had excellent work performance reviews. Marvel claims that he loved his job and had plans to stay until he retired.

Co-workers describe Marvel as a man of compassion and integrity, but the company summarily branded him a bigot and discarded him as if he was worthless. The wrongful termination lawsuit against Walgreens also alleges defamation and discrimination. The suit seeks unspecified damages. In a court filing, Walgreens’ legal counsel denied Marvel’s allegations and also stated that even if his allegations were proven, the company will not be shown to have violated the employee’s rights.

In addition to proclaiming Marvel’s version of events, the lawsuit cites numerous public and common usages of the phrase “wet vac” in newspapers, advertisements, catalogs, etc. in an effort to show that Marvel’s use of the phrase was not out of the norm. The Latina who reported that Marvel referred to her as a “wetback” later that same day spoke to Marvel regarding the incident, but Marvel had no idea what she was talking about. The next morning, he was shocked to be summoned to human resources where he was asked if he had said anything “ethnically insensitive” before he was handed his suspension. He didn’t make the connection until he was driving home. He immediately called the human resources officer to let her know that he realized where the misunderstanding occurred, but a week later Marvel received a phone call during which the same human resources staff member told him he was fired.

If you have questions about filing a wrongful termination lawsuit in California or if you have questions about what an experienced employment law attorney can do for you, please get in touch with one of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP’s offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside or Chicago.