Caleb Gross, Author at Decatur Legal Page

Four Hawaii Farms to Pay $2.4 Million to Workers to Settle EEOC National Origin and Retaliation Employment Discrimination Lawsuit

In a suit filed by the EEOC approximately three years ago against six farms in Hawaii, the EEOC claimed that Thai workers were subjected to conditions comparable to that of human trafficking. As described in the article Four Hawaii Farms to Pay $2.4 Million to Thai Workers to Settle EEOC National Origin and Retaliation Employment Discrimination Lawsuit, between the years 2003 and 2007, Global Horizons contracted Thai workers to work at farms under the H2-A temporary visa program. As part of the program, workers were to be provided food and housing, in addition to pay for the work performed. Not only were the workers required to pay excessive recruitment fees, once on site, they were subjected to denial or delay of pay, confiscated passports, denial of of adequate food and water, unsanitary and overcrowded living conditions, and production quotas that were not required of non-Thai workers. The workers who complained of the discrimination and harassment were retaliated against.

One of the affected Thai workers stated, “We worked and lived under terrible conditions, treated like animals in cage. We were housed in an overcrowded place with a few rooms but many workers, and threatened almost daily. I am grateful that the EEOC is here to help people like me.”

In March of this year, U.S. District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi ruled that Global Horizons is liable for their continued practice of harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against Thai farm workers based on their national origin and race, in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.

In addition to the $2.4 million settlement paid by four farms that were named in the suit, injunctive relief will ensure that policies and procedures prohibiting discrimination will be put into place by farms and farm labor contractors.

Regional attorney for the EEOC Los Angeles District, Anna Y. Park, stated, “We all have a responsibility to ensure that the most vulnerable workers are not denied basic human dignity and life-sustaining water and food. Farms and farm labor contractors – and the supervisors that represent them – must ensure workers’ civil rights remain intact, no matter their race or the country they come from.”

If you or someone you know believes they have experienced employment discrimination and/or retaliation, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609.

Middle school students suspended over Facebook post: is this a First Amendment issue?

As a result of a Facebook post about their school’s dress code, a group of Spalding County students are facing suspension. The weekend before the last week of school, a FB post instructing classmates to break dress code through the last week of school escalated into what the principal described as “terroristic threats.” According to a recent post published by WSB-TV 2, the students facing suspension either commented on and/or shared the FB post which initially told students to wear red on Monday and by Thursday escalated to, “Everything they say we can’t wear, wear,” and, “We need the hallways packed and out of control.”

“To me it was just a bunch of 13-year-olds acting crazy,” states the father of one of the suspended students, whose only reply to the post was that she was in. “You should at least contact us first and let us know to be aware of this and that way we could’ve disciplined our own kid instead of ya’ll taking action her.”

Next, the students face a tribunal that will decide if additional disciplinary action will be taken. The First Amendment has been held to protect student speech, especially when it is off-campus speech and does not disrupt campus functions. The question is, will the school district uphold this discipline? And if so, will they violate the students’ constitutional rights?

If you or someone you know believes their 1st Amendment rights have been violated, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609.

Supervisor Threatens to Hang Worker for Drinking from “White People” Fountain

An African American cotton mill worker in Tennessee has alleged discrimination and harassment by his supervisor. In the article Supervisor Threatens to Hang Worker for Drinking From “White People” Fountain, Untonia Harris states that he used his phone to record his supervisor making comments such as, “Black man, don’t go on this white man’s lift,” and in response to Mr. Harris’ attempt to use a water fountain, “I need to put a sign here that says, White people only.” The supervisor then replied to Harris’ inquiry as to what would happen if he were caught using the fountain, “That’s when we hang you.”

Another African American worker at the mill has filed a complaint with the EEOC for similar instances of harassment and discrimination. Marrio Mangrum claims the same supervisor made similar statements to him such as, “You need to think like a white man.”

In the audio, the supervisor is heard expressing support for the Jim Crow era, when racial discrimination and segregation were enforced, “Back then, nobody thought anything about it,” the supervisor says in the audio. “Now, everybody is made to … think it’s bad.”

In response to the supervisor’s alleged behavior, the owner of the cotton mill told CNN, “It’s crazy that anybody would think to talk like that nowadays. It makes no sense whatsoever. You can’t even comprehend it.” Management for the mill is outsourced to Federal Compress. In a statement to CNN, Federal Compress stated, ““Federal Compress very much regrets that the allegations were not reported to it when the first incident is claimed to have occurred,” and has since fired the supervisor in question.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced discrimination due to race, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609.

I Quit! Can I Still Receive Unemployment Benefits?

People often ask us, if I quit my job, can I still recover unemployment benefits? The answer is, “it depends.”

There is a common misconception that an individual who quits his or her job will not be entitled to receive unemployment benefits. Fortunately, that is not always the case. An individual who voluntarily separates from his or her job may receive unemployment benefits if they can show a “good work related cause” for their separation. A showing of “good cause” usually requires that the employee show that the terms and conditions of work have changed in a manner such that a reasonable employee would not be expected to continue that employment. Though each case is different, The Georgia Department of labor and Georgia Courts have held that, under certain circumstances, the following situations may constitute good work related cause for leaving a job:

work conditions that either cause or aggravate a pre-existing medical condition to the extent the employee is unable to perform his or her job duties;
downgrading an employee’s position for reasons other than the fault of the employee;
a reduction in salary that falls below a reasonable rate for that industry or trade;
severe physical or verbal threats made by a co-worker or supervisor;
a material breach of the hiring contract by the employer;
unreasonable employer rules as related to proper job performance;
quitting after receiving notice of termination, but prior to the termination date;
being given the choice between quitting or being terminated.

Even if your situation differs from the situations listed above, you may still be entitled to benefits if you were given no reasonable choice, but to quit your job. So, if you have quit your job, or are thinking about quitting your job, call us! Voluntary separation cases are typically much more complex than termination cases, and we have the knowledge, expertise, and experience to guide you through the process. Call us at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Jury Awards Montville Grandfather $50,000 in Damages in Excessive Force Suit Against New London, Connecticut Police

According to a recent article Jury Awards Montville Grandfather $50,000 in Damages in Excessive Force Suit Against New London Police, Robert D. Crawford intervened after a fight broke out at a New London High School basketball game. Mr. Crawford, who was 64 at the time of incident, held one of players to the ground until police arrived on the scene. Crawford claims that when police arrived, he was pushed against a wall, put in a strong hold, and forced to the ground. As a result, Mr. Crawford suffered a fractured tooth and dislocated his jaw. Police charged Mr. Crawford with third-degree assault, interfering with an officer and risk of injury to minor.

Police claim Mr. Crawford was verbally confrontational and tensed up, pushing himself off the wall during his scuffle with police. Video footage shows Mr. Crawford facing the wall and falling backward to the ground. There was no audio on the recording that was provided in court.

In a complaint against New London police, Crawford filed a claim for excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault and battery, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ultimately, a jury decided only on the issues of excessive force and failure to intervene. Earlier this week, the jury cleared six of the seven officers named in the suit and ruled that the remaining officer did in fact use excessive force, awarding Mr. Crawford $50,000 in damages.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced false arrest and/or malicious prosecution, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609.