Wrongful Termination Archives - Page 3 of 5

Former Yahoo Software Engineer Sues Female Tech Executive for Sexual Harassment

Last week, Nan Shi filed a complaint against Google executive Maria Zhang for claims of sexual harassment, emotional distress and wrongful termination.

As detailed in this CNN article, the complaint alleges that in exchange for oral and digital sex, Zhang promised Shi a bright future at Yahoo. Shi claims to have been coerced into such activity on multiple occasions. The complaint alleges that after rejecting Zhang’s sexual advances, Shi began to receive poor performance reviews and assignments that were beneath her skill set. Zhang at one time told Shi that she had the power to take everything away from her.

According to Shi’s attorneys, the two women had not engaged in an intimate relationship previous to the allegations made in the suit.

A spokesperson for Yahoo stated, “There is absolutely no basis or truth to the allegations. Maria is an exemplary Yahoo executive and we intend to fight vigorously to clear her name.”

Although this action is between two females, attorney for Shi, Mathew Da Vega stated, “You’ll see more sexual harassment cases in Silicon Valley because of the male dominated culture.”

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced sexual harassment, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

EEOC Updates Its Pregnancy Discrimination Guidelines

In a strong move to deter the upward rise in pregnancy discrimination, for the first time in thirty years, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has updated its pregnancy guidelines.

As described in this article, Chairwoman for the EEOC, Jacqueline A. Berrien, stated, “Despite much progress, we continue to see a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination, and our investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices.”

According to the latest EEOC data, between 1997 to 2011 there was a 46 percent increase in pregnancy related complaints to the EEOC.

In part, the new guidelines bar employers from forcing pregnant employees to take leave, and provides that employers may be required to provide light duty to pregnant employees as needed. In addition, the updated EEOC guidelines provide that similarly situated male employees shall be given the same rights as women in regards to parental leave.

The EEOC’s new pregnancy guidelines set forth how the Americans With Disabilities Act is applicable to pregnant workers. They also make clear that any discrimination and/or harassment based on past, present or future pregnancy against any woman is strictly illegal.

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

Two Recent Historical Events May Have Impact In Suit Against Catholic School for Sex Discrimination

Flint Dollar taught music at Mount de Sales Academy in Macon, Georgia for four years. According to Dollar, who is gay, he was clear with school administration about his sexual orientation when he was hired by the school. As described in this npr article, it was after Dollar announced on his Facebook page his plans to marry his longtime partner that his contract with the Catholic school was not renewed.

“I was told that…. the bishop of the Diocese of Savannah called and expressed his concern that if I was to return it would be against the teachings of the Catholic Church,” stated Dollar in the article.

Although federal discrimination laws do not explicitly prohibit employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sexual orientation, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination due to an individual’s sex. Courts are beginning to clarify that these prohibitions against sex discrimination do include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In an effort to address the issue of discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation, attorneys for Federal employee Peter TerVeer have successfully argued thus far that the Plaintiff was penalized for his romantic interest in men, whereas similarly situated female employees were not penalized for the same reason.

In recent weeks, President Barack Obama has made great strides for federal employees in the LGBT community, providing them a protection that has never been guaranteed. While President Obama has specifically provided this protection to federal employees and contractors, such legislation could be used to deter future discrimination against the LGBT community across the nation.

In the recent Supreme Court opinion Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al., it was determined that as a religious founded company, Hobby Lobby is exempt from the requirement to extend birth control coverage to its employees. Attorneys for Hobby Lobby argued that birth control methods such as the ‘morning after’ pill constitute as abortion and the requirement to provide such is unconstitutional under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

As a Catholic school, attorneys for Mount de Sales Academy can ultimately argue that under Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al., the decision to terminate an employee’s employment based on something that goes against an entities religious beliefs or affiliation, such as sexual orientation, is constitutional.

If you or someone you know thinks they have experienced employment discrimination due to sexual orientation or identity, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.

Former Benjamin Moore Employee Sues Over Racist Paint Names

Clinton Brown and Tucker Chocolate are two of the Benjamin Moore paint names that a former employee found to be offensive, enough so to file suit against the paint company. As detailed in this article, Clinton Tucker began his employment with Benjamin Moore in 2011.

Tucker was hired in the digital marketing department and according to his suit the discrimination began almost immediately. While working on Benjamin Moore’s campaign for its Williamsburg color collection, Tucker became aware of a new color Tucker Chocolate, which according to the suit is “extremely racially offensive.” Tucker Orange and Tucker Gray are also offered as part of the paint company’s Williamsburg Collection.

The suit reads in part, “Despite (Tucker’s) repeated complaints and protestations to BM management about these appallingly racial color names, no action was ever taken by Benjamin Moore to change the names of these colors.” Other claims made in the suit are that Tucker was demoted at the time his white coworkers were promoted and his request to take Martin Luther King , Jr. Day off was denied. Benjamin Moore terminated Tucker’s employment in March of this year.

Tucker is seeking damages for discrimination, retaliation and a hostile work environment.

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

Pregnant Worker Sues Massage Envy for Wrongful Termination

In April, 2013, Morgan McCloskey was hired to work as a front desk attendant at a Massage Envy franchise. Before her first day of work, McCloskey took a home pregnancy test and the result was positive. As detailed in this article, a complaint filed by the EEOC alleges that on her first day of work, McCloskey told a supervisor of her possible pregnancy.

After a doctor confirmed her pregnancy a few days later, McCloskey was called into a meeting with two managers and her employment with the well known spa was terminated.

After attempts to reach a settlement with the franchise failed, the EEOC is seeking injunctive relief to bar future discrimination by the franchise. In addition, the EEOC is asking for back pay and damages.

Attorney for the EEOC, Lynette Barnes, “No working woman should have to fear losing her job simply because she decides to have a child.” Further stating, “Employers must remember that terminating an employee because she is pregnant violates federal law.”

Speaking for Massage Envy, attorney Nichole Murphey, “Massage Envy has never terminated anyone’s employment due to pregnancy. My client has routinely employed and currently continues to employ pregnant women.”

If you or someone you know thinks they have been terminated for unlawful reasons, the team at Radford & Keebaugh can help. Contact us by phone at (678) 369-3609 or use our contact form.