Recent Study Indicates Transgender Discrimination in the Workplace is Prevalent

In a recent study, 2015 report from the Center for American Progress and the Movement Advancement Project, almost 80% of American transgender workers claimed they had experienced discrimination in the workplace or during the employment application process. From general discrimination to harassment to mistreatment, this demographic is facing a substantial challenge on the job.

Expert and author, Lee Schubert, indicated that it is not uncommon for employers or co-workers to present transgender employees with rude and inappropriate questions, comments, etc. Common discriminatory questions/topics that transgenders face include: questions about transition surgery, questions about sexuality, etc Many employers face difficulty when attempting to appropriately refer to their transgender employees, i.e. which pronoun to use – he or she. Some transgender employees do not want to be referred to as either he or she, but prefer they as they may not identify with either male female. Employers can find it confusing – it’s new territory in many cases. But the challenges this causes transgender employees to face are very real. In fact, the recent 2015 report noted above concludes that employment discrimination is a fact of life for trans people and that it comes with serious economic consequences.

In the study, “Paying an Unfair Price: The Financial Penalty for Being Transgender,” it states that up to 47% of trans workers report being denied employment unfairly. 78% report harassment, mistreatment and/or discrimination on the job.

Tips for appropriately interacting and/or managing trans workers are actually the same tips that apply to interactions with all workers in a workplace: demonstrate respect, recognize that there is a difference between personal values and community values of a workplace and act professionally, and be respectful of coworkers’ privacy and confidentiality.

If you have questions or concerns about employment discrimination or transgender employment discrimination specifically, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Former Kohl’s Employee Not to Be Discriminated Against for Medical Marijuana Use

A former Kohl’s employee, Justin Shepherd, was fired for his use of medical marijuana after he was injured on the job and a drug test was conducted. A federal court judge in California determined that this employee may move forward with his lawsuit against Kohl’s, his former employer. Shepherd worked at Kohl’s Department Store for over five years before he was diagnosed with acute and chronic anxiety and given a recommendation for medical marijuana use. He did not inform his employer of his use of medical marijuana, but the company did update their policies to include rhetoric protecting California employees from medical marijuana use discrimination.

When Shepherd’s job injury led to a drug test that revealed his use of marijuana, he was terminated. When he sued for the alleged breach of contract, covenant of good faith, fair dealing and defamation, the court denied Kohl’s motion for summary judgment, but placed a few claims under the state’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. This is a noteworthy case as there is still heavy discussion about the contradictions between federal law that still identifies marijuana as an illegal substance and state laws that permit marijuana use for medical and sometimes recreational use (depending on the state).

Shepherd worked as a material handler at Kohl’s in June 2006. When he was hired, he signed an agreement including a clause stating he was an at-will employee. By 2011 Shepherd had been promoted. He had also been diagnosed with acute, chronic anxiety with his doctor recommending medical marijuana use. Shepherd did not disclose his condition or treatment to Kohl’s. In 2012, the company policies were updated to include exceptions to its drug testing and substance abuse policies protecting California (and other applicable states) employees from discrimination for medical marijuana use in regards to hiring, firing, and other employment matters. Shepherd claims he took note of these policy changes and was depending on them when he decided to continue his anxiety treatment and stay at Kohl’s rather than look for new employment elsewhere.

In 2014, Shepherd was injured on the job. He went to a healthcare provider contracted with the company where a drug test revealed trace amounts of marijuana metabolites. Shepherd then showed his manager his medical marijuana recommendation and advised them that he only used it when off duty, and that the metabolites can stay in the system for quite a while. Shepherd was terminated for his “drug use.” He was told that he should have chosen to address his anxiety issue with a different medication. He filed suit quickly thereafter.

If you have questions about medical marijuana policies in your workplace or about what constitutes wrongful termination, please get in touch with the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

California Orchid Farm Accused of Pregnancy Discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit against Dash Dream Plant, an orchid farm located in Dos Palos, California, 65 miles northwest of Fresno. Officials state that the California business broke federal law when they refused to give women their jobs back after completing maternity leave. At least four women are involved in the suit, making the same pregnancy discrimination allegations against the company.

The Defendant: Dash Dream Plant, Inc. Dash Dream holds over 140,000 square feet of land and utilizes multiple greenhouses to handle wholesale and personal orchid based orders. They keep an experienced staff on hand, claiming over 20 years of experience. The business began in Korea and expanded to the United States in the late 1990’s. The Dash Dream Plant facility is designed to facilitate both wholesale and retail orders with a retail location within the farm. The farm grows: Cybidiums, Dendrobiums, and Phalaenopsis Orchids in a variety of colors.  

Officials involved in the case state that during Dash Dream Plant staff meetings, managers advised women in attendance not to get pregnant because there were already “too many of them.” They also advised workers that the next to get pregnant should just consider themselves fired from their position with the orchid farm.

Pregnant workers in California are protected by both state and federal employee laws. They have the right to take pregnancy leave without penalty. In fact, California is one of the best states in the nation for pregnant workers and/or workers who plan to have or adopt children. Employers are required by law to respect the right to take disability leave or pregnancy leave in accordance with California pregnancy leave laws.

The law related to this lawsuit states that businesses that have 15 or more employees have to hold a job for women who will be returning from maternity leave. When advised of the lawsuit and the allegations included, Dash Dreams did not respond with a comment.

The southern California employment lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik have the experience needed to help workers in California. Having served as legal representation for both employees and employers in the southern California area, we offer a unique perspective of both sides of the legal argument in employment law cases. If you need assistance with pregnancy discrimination in the workplace, please get in touch as soon as possible. 

Chipotle Now Facing Alleged Racism Allegations in Another Lawsuit

Chipotle is having a rough year – at least in regards to legal allegations. From class action food poisoning lawsuits, animal welfare issues, drops in both sales and stock price…the popular restaurant chain can’t seem to catch a break in 2016. What are they facing now? Chipotle is making news again, but this time because they are facing allegations of racial discrimination and harassment at one of their California franchise locations.

The California lawsuit filed by Sheqweshu Clark, a previous employee at the El Segndo, California location, states that Latino managers assign day shifts to other Latino employees, but leave “black” staff, like herself, with the less desirable night shifts. But this is not the only claim being made by Clark in the recent lawsuit. She also alleges that management denied there was a problem with either shift assignment or discrimination and then fired Clark a few weeks later without offering an explanation. Clark claims she when she attempted to confront by Chipotle supervisors about preferential treatment, she was summarily dismissed and advised that “black girls” always have “attitude.” Formal allegations included in the lawsuit against Chipotle include: retaliation, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, racial discrimination, and failure to prevent harassment.

Chipotle is not commenting on the allegations at this time, but do state that they have received the suit and will consider its merits in order to determine a course of action. The Chipotle spokesperson did advise that, generally speaking, the filing of a lawsuit constitutes a series of allegations, but does not actually represent proof of wrongdoing.

If you have questions about wrongful termination, discrimination in the workplace, or workplace retaliation, please contact one of the experienced employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik as soon as possible.    

In-House Lawyer Lays Out Discrimination Claims Against Apple

A former in-house attorney at Apple, Inc. going by the name of “Jane Doe” to shield her identity has accused Apple of age discrimination, gender discrimination and wrongful termination – all in violation of California labor laws. The complaint was filed June 1st in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Jane Doe alleges that men were offered more flexible work schedules and that supervisors at Apple gave her conflicting directions that forced her into a “no-win” predicament. The case has been assigned to Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Johnson. Jane Doe was hired by Apple as global product safety counsel in February of 2014. At the time she lived primarily in Los Angeles and worked out of affiliate offices in accordance with an arrangement her original supervisor approved. Within a few months, Jane Doe got a new boss, senior director of products law, Michael Miramontes, due to reorganization at Apple.

Miramontes (Defendant) allegedly asked Jane Doe (Plaintiff) to move her family to Northern California. After further discussion, he eventually agreed to allow Jane Doe to work from Los Angeles on Fridays. In comparison, plaintiff alleges that there were male attorneys in the same department with deals to work from Sunnyvale for only 2 days of the work week or working out of state one week a month, etc. Jane Doe also received reprimands on the job for not “flying to Korea” to handle a product safety issue. Based on this reprimand, Jane Doe later offered to visit a Chinese manufacturing facility to handle safety issues in connection to a line of Bluetooth speakers by Apple Beats Electronics unit. She was then criticized for offering – creating a “no-win” scenario for Jane Doe. She was fired in January.

Johnson has already denied a request by Apple to have the lawsuit moved to Santa Clara – where they may have been hoping for a more tech-friendly venue. Downtown L.A. has a reputation for being fairly realistic regarding work situations and the inequities that occur, especially when dealing with one of the most powerful companies in the modern world.

If you need to know more about wrongful termination or if you fear that you have been a victim of wrongful termination yourself, please get in touch with us as soon as possible. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is the home of southern California’s favorite employment law attorneys. We have the experience and the knowledge to take your case from start to finish. 

Wells Fargo Settles Transgender Discrimination Suit in California

Marco “Marlo Kaitlin,” a former Wells Fargo employee, claims she was harassed and mocked to the point that brought her near to suicide. Her lawsuit against Wells Fargo was filed with Los Angeles Superior Court last July 14th. She alleged wrongful termination, discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress on the part of Wells Fargo. She claims it all started with her decision to transition from a man to a woman.

Throughout the negotiations, part of Gallegos’ case was dismissed due to a long history of job performance issues and what the company referred to as absenteeism. Wells Fargo claimed that they had a strong commitment dating back 25 years to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. They also publicly stated that they believed discrimination of any kind against any group is wrong. They responded to Gallegos’ allegations by stating that the claims were wrong and inconsistent with how Wells Fargo treats its employees.

Facts of the Case According to the Lawsuit:

·       When Gallegos was hired for the Wells Fargo El Monte consumer call Center in August of 2010, she was male.

·       In December 2010, Gallegos started treatment to support the transition from male to female. Gallegos also began to wear women’s clothing more often.  

·       In May 2011, Gallegos’ boss told her she would “go to hell” for her behavior and that they were “unnatural” and an “affront to God.” Gallegos complained to another supervisor, but in response the supervisor receiving Gallegos’ complaint simply became extremely critical of her work. Gallegos’ attempts to transfer to another area at work (the Spanish speaking call center) were mocked, but she was given the new position. Yet colleagues immediately began using demeaning comments (i.e. referring to her as an “ugly woman” and nicknaming her “The Mask.”) Gallegos again lodged a complaint with a supervisor, but saw no appropriate response. She eventually changed her name from Marco to Marlo Kaitlin.

·       In spite of Marlo’s request that her co-workers use her new name, they continued to use her old name. Male co-workers consistently taunted her by greeting her with phrases meant to cause discomfort (i.e. “What’s up, man?” or “How you doing, man?”)

·       She was given permission to use the women’s restroom, but a female co-worker was upset. 

·       Gallegos was excluded from meetings and mandatory training sessions with supervisors.

·       Gallegos eventually sought out Human Resources to advise them that the hostile work environment was too much for her and that she often considered committing suicide.

·       Gallegos was fired in August 2014 by a supervisor who stated that they had received “word from above” that the company could no longer employ her.

The case was resolved on May 25th through a settlement, but terms were not divulged.

If you have questions about what constitutes a hostile work environment or if you need to discuss wrongful termination, please get in touch with one of the experienced southern California employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Eddie Money Drummer Adds Sexual Harassment Claims to Discrimination Lawsuit

Eddie Money’s drummer, Glenn Symmonds sued for wrongful termination in October. More recently, his fiancé decided to join the suit with sexual harassment claims against Money. The original discrimination suit claimed that Money mocked his disabilities on stage and sexually harassed his fiancé (with repeated lewd advances). The sexual harassment claims were included in an amended lawsuit that was filed in California state court.

When Symmonds was fired, he claimed it was due to his age and disabilities (stemming from a combination of bladder cancer and a back injury). He also claimed that the sexual harassment of his fiancée, Tami Landrum, resulted in emotional distress. The case has recently been moved from Sacramento to Los Angeles.

In defining the “sexual harassment” she endured, Landrum states that Money made sexual comments to her repeatedly and frequently attempted to kiss her. Money also made lewd gestures at Landrum after dedicating a song to her on stage, etc. Symmonds stated that Money mocked his urinary incontinence (a result of chemotherapy) on stage, telling the audience that their tour was sponsored by Depends adult diapers.

According to the suit, the problem peaked in May of 2015 when Money dragged Landrum, Symmond’s fiancé, into a bathroom and blocked her exit. Symmonds confronted Money after Landrum told him of the situation and the entire band was laid off the next week. Within months, the entire band was back at work except Symmonds and Landrum. The two claim this is due to the confrontation and Symmonds’ disabilities previously noted.

Money’s legal counsel dismisses the lawsuit as “ridiculous” and points out that the addition of the sexual harassment claims only occurred when Symmonds realized that his age discrimination lawsuit had no merit. They claim that the plaintiffs shamelessly seek to “shake down” Eddie because he is famous.

Money claims that the entire band was released for the summer as Money intended to tour with his children. The plan the entire time was for the band to rejoin him at the end of the season. Several of the band members were disappointed, but according to Money, Symmonds and Landrum responded very poorly by writing disparaging posts online, claiming they had been fired, calling and leaving messages with concert promoters threatening them and advising them not to pay Money, etc. Money claims his decision not to invite Symmonds back to the band was not related to his age, any illness or disability or any alleged difficulties with his fiancé. He claims it was due strictly to the inappropriate reaction the plaintiff had upon hearing that Money planned to tour with his adult children for the summer.

If you have questions regarding workplace discrimination or sexual harassment on the job, please get in touch with the experienced employment law attorneys from southern California’s Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.