Chopourian v. Catholic Healthcare West – Sexual Harassment Cases

Tayeb Hyderally is an attorney whose expertise is in the area of employment law. One of the primary reasons he pursued this particular area of the law was the diverse types of cases and situations that could be presented under the topic.  Ty Hyderally makes it his business to keep both employees and employers informed on their legal rights and responsibilities regarding employment law. He is very well respected in this field as he has had years of successful litigation for his clients. One interesting case which has captured the attention of those who practice employment and discrimination lawis Chopourian v Catholic Healthcare West.

There are several very interesting facts about this particular case. For one thing, it is the largest sexual harassment case that involved only one plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s reward was also extremely high for these types of cases; and there are several distinct areas of employment law that were directly violated. In the end, the jury sided with the plaintiff and awarded Ms. Chopourian $168 million in damages and for lost wages. They agreed that she had been a victim of sexual harassment as well as retaliation.

Ani Chopourian is a cardiac surgery physician assistant. She cited several specific incidents that occurred while she was at work where she felt she had been the target of bullying and sexual harassment. On one occasion, one surgeon purposefully stabbed her with a needle. A different surgeon would call her “stupid chick” while working with her in the operating room. One surgeon greeted her each morning with a pat on the bottom and the comment, “I’m horny.” She felt her work place had become a hostile environment.

On top of the bullying and sexual harassment, she was ridiculed for her Armenian heritage. She was teasingly asked if she had joined with Al Qaeda on many occasions. And she had also been denied meal breaks which were in violation of wage and hour laws set forth by the state of California. The jury sided with Chopourian, possibly due to the fact that there were several former employees of Catholic Healthcare West who testified to similar abuses that occurred while they were employed at the facility. Ms. Chopourian was likely a target of retaliation as well. After she filed her complaints, it was less than a week that the company terminated her.

The hospital continues to deny the severity of the allegations. However, the jury awarded Ms. Chopourian $125 million for punitive damages as well as $42.5 million in lost wages and for mental anguish. These dollar amounts are large for this type of case. Perhaps it is due to the violation of so many types of employment laws.

The jury’s verdict in this case is a stark reminder that even in healthcare environments where roles such as cardiac surgeons are generally highly respected; there is no place for this type of gross misbehavior. Employment laws are in place to protect all employees regardless of their field of work. Those employers and employers in highly respected positions are subject to all of the same policies regarding discrimination in the workplace.

Previous Post

The law is becoming clearer on what exactly constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace. Legal experts such as Ty Hyderally have been successfully litigating cases which set new precedents in the legal world. This class action suit which was filed against the Mitsubishi Corporation is an example of successful litigation. This is a case wherein sexual harassment in the workplace got totally out of hand and became a sexually hostile environment.

A class action law suit was filed against Mitsubishi Motors Corp by the United States Equal Employment Opportunities Commission on April 9, 1996. The suit contained over 300 claims by women who worked at the Normal, Illinois Mitsubishi plant. Their claims were that they had been subjected to repeated sexual harassment in the workplace which began as early as 1988.  The EEOC alleged that managers had been involved in passing around pornographic photographs of male workers displaying sexual acts, male workers who had exposed themselves, obscene graffiti and assaults (both physical and verbal) against women who worked at the plant. The second part of the class action suit stated that the management and Employee Relations Department failed to respond adequately. Many times there was no response at all to the complaints filed by women who had filed regarding the harassment. EEOC pursued the case to stop the harassment and also to obtain some compensation for the women who had been harassed.

Mitsubishi tried to argue that there were time constraints on some of the older cases and therefore they were not eligible to be included in the class action law suit. However, the court rejected the argument stating that there is not a statute of limitations and that EEOC did not unduly delay their actions.

On June 10, 1998, the EEOC and Mitsubishi reached a settlement. Mitsubishi agreed to pay $34 million in compensation to the workers who had been affected. The company also agreed that they would revamp their sexual harassment policies and adapt a “zero tolerance” policy toward sexual harassment. This meant that they would revise the company’s existent policies and commit to setting up a proper complaint procedure as well as sexual harassment training for its employees. Mitsubishi would also be under review by an independent panel which would monitor the progress at the Normal, Illinois plant. Mitsubishi did become vigilant in their stand against sexual harassment in the workplace and hired Lynn Martin, former Secretary of Labor to help overhaul the system. They now boast a zero tolerance policy.

Sexual harassment is unfortunately part of the day to day life of many workers around the country and makes going to work difficult for many, fortunately there are employment law attorneys such as Tayeb Hyderally who are there to fight vigorously for the rights of all employees.

Harassment Claims Against the Church

Cases all across the nation can set precedents for rulings in other states. New Jersey employment law is affected by cases such as this one which was heard in the state of Kansas. It is interesting cases like this one that has kept Tayeb Hyderally involved in employment law as it pertains to sexual harassment. What makes this case so interesting is that it involves a sexual harassment case in a church setting. Before the case could be heard by the courts it first had to be deemed that it would not in any way violate the separation of church and state. In this case, it did not as the alleged sexual harassment was job related yet the secular ruling had no bearing on the religious standings of the church. The court also found that Title VII could be applied to the work setting without entangling the government in religion.

Sue Ann Dolquist was ordained in the Presbyterian Church and served as pastor. She alleged that during her tenure the choir director, who was also a church elder, made vulgar comments and touched her inappropriately. She reported the conduct to her supervisor who threatened to fire her. The situation was not addressed properly by authorities. When the work environment became unbearable she decided to quit. She then filed suit in federal court against the churches which had employed her stating that the church and its supervisors where in violation of Title VII. The defendants tried to argue a “ministerial exception” but the courts denied this motion.

Miller subjected Dolquist to oppressive, degrading, emotionally upsetting and sexually inappropriate behavior from 1996 to 2001. He was also engaged in such inappropriate behaviors with other women in the church during this same time frame. He finally resigned from his position as music director in June of 2000, but remained in the position of a church elder. When members tried to rehire Miller as the church music director in 2001, Dolquist objected and referred to his past sexual misconduct. In September of 2001 the church advised her that she had also been accused of engaging in behavior similar to Miller’s. In October, 2001, she was fired even though her job performance was satisfactory.

She filed five counts against the Heartland church sexual discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, negligent infliction of emotional distress and outrage and failure to supervise. Two of these cases were dismissed, infliction of emotional distress and claim for negligence.

This case was very important in setting precedents to protect employees of religious institutions against sexual harassment in the workplace.

Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

The legal world is vast, especially when one begins to study employment law and sexual harassment. Ty Hyderally is an experienced lawyer who has been intrigued with the complexity of this legal area. Actually, this complex world is what first made it appealing to him. He has been successfully litigating cases of employment law and various forms of discrimination for many years. He also has offices in both the New York and New Jersey areas.

There are both state and federal laws which are created to protect employees against sexual harassment in the workplace. Federal laws are centered on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These laws apply to employers who employ 15 or more persons. Most of the time employees who work for smaller businesses are still covered by state level anti-discrimination laws. While state laws may vary some on issues of same sex harassment, federal law supports claims against an employer for same sex harassment.

There are two types of sexual harassment as it occurs in the workplace. Quid Pro Quo Harassment is where an employee is required to tolerate some level of sexual harassment so that they can keep their job, obtain benefits, raises or promotions. And a Hostile Work Environment Harassment is a situation in which the harassment interferes with the work performance of an employee, or creates an offensive or abusive work environment.

One incident could be considered a quid pro quo harassment claim, but usually to establish a hostile work environment there will be a pattern of abusive conduct. There are several types of behaviors that can be classified as sexual harassment. Any time there are unwelcome sexual advances, verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature or requests for sexual favors it can constitute a sexual harassment claim. There are certain situations where an employer can be held liable for misconduct of non-employees, if they do not take any form of appropriate or corrective action to detour the behavior.

To bring a claim for sexual harassment the plaintiff will have to establish that they found the conduct to be offensive, abusive or hostile. To file a complaint against a workplace for sexual harassment does not mean that one has to be a victim. Usually prior to filing a suit in a sexual harassment case, the complainant will have to file a complaint with the employer or their administrative agency. To file a federal complaint, it will have to be filed with the EEOC first. And there are local and state agencies to which persons can file complaints.

Title VII will also provide protection for employees who file a sexual harassment case, who are testifying in these types of proceedings, or are participating in an investigation or litigation that is associated with a sexual harassment complaint. An employee may lose a sexual harassment claim, but still win against the employer on the grounds of retaliation.

Discrimination laws in the United States

on any of these factors. Employees and applicants cannot be classified by any of the above mentioned matters. He has successfully litigated cases regarding discrimination in the workplace for many years.

Enforcement is in place for companies who employee more than 15 individuals. These businesses are prohibited from discrimination according to Title VII regulations. There are several public offices that also fit into this category. State and local governments as well as educational institutions must all abide by Title VII rulings. One exception can be religious educational facilities if they set forth requirements of employment regarding the institution’s religious beliefs and make it a bona fide qualification for the occupation.

Under Title VII a person’s religion, gender, and race are protected rights. This also includes protecting employees from being discriminated against based on sex stereotyping, harassment and pregnancy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 also helped specify the proper procedures for Title VII and the Pregnancy Disability Act set pregnancy under the same guidelines as discrimination that is based upon a person’s gender. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 set the precedent that allows for jury trials in some cases of discrimination.

Even though there are many areas of discrimination covered under Title VII laws, the two types of cases that most frequently come up for litigation are sexual and religious discrimination. Title VII is used many times in cases where employers are punished for creating a hostile work environment, or harassment that stems from some sort of tangible action. Using Title VII in such cases began in 1971 when the US Supreme Court maintained that Title VII forbids practices which have a disparate impact on a class that is presently protected.

Three federal laws, Title VII, The Americans with Disabilities Act and The Age Discrimination in Employment Act must be followed by each company’s hiring procedures. They are free to hire those who are most qualified for the position as long as they do not violate any of these laws. Each company should have their own checks and balances so that discriminatory practices do not occur during the hiring process.

Ellerth v Burlington Industries (Employment Law Cases)

Discrimination and employment law is undergoing constant change. The cases heard before the Supreme Court each year increase as well as set the precedent for further similar cases. The wide variety of the ever changing world of employment law is what drew Attorney Tayeb Hyderally to pursue the area of law. Mr. Hyderally is an expert on employment law on the national and local levels. He has many years of successful litigation in employment law in the New Jersey area. There are many cases such as Ellerth v Burlington Industries which define liability in sexual harassment cases. Such cases help to define laws and provide clarity.

Ellerth v Burlington Industries

Kimberly Ellerth was employed by Burlington from March 1993 to May of 1994. Her immediate supervisor, Theodore Slowik subjected her to harassing comments, acts and also issued threats of retaliation if she did not submit.  He suggested that he could make her life at work miserable or pleasurable based on her ability to gratify him. He made other solicitations to which she would not submit.

Mr. Slowik repeatedly made remarks concerning women’s bodies, including Ms. Ellerth’s. He subjected her to unsolicited bodily contact and many offensive jokes. Before he refused to authorize a special project for a customer of Ms. Ellerth he asked, “Are you wearing shorter skirts yet Kim, because it would make your job a whole heck of a lot easier?” She resigned shortly after this incident. She also reported the incidents to Slowik’s supervisors informing them that she had resigned because of his harassment. She did not report it while she was still employed because she feared retaliation.

When Ms. Ellerth filed the Title VII action in the District Court, they made a judgment for Burlington stating that they were not liable for sexual harassment. However, upon appeal, the US Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the District Court. They found Burlington liable for the sexual harassment under Title VII.

Employment Law Cases – Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services

The topic of employment law has been battled in the  courtroom for years and will most likely continue for years to come. Ty Hyderally has been listed among the Top Ten Employment Litigators in Northern New Jersey. Cases such as Oncale v Sundowner help to set the precedent for our employment laws today.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services was a case for sexual discrimination in which the Supreme Court held that workplace discrimination as applied to harassment in the workplace pertains to instances between members of the same sex. The case was filed by a male who worked on an oil rig. His claim was that he was repeatedly exposed to sexual harassment from other male coworkers, with the full knowledge and agreement of his employer.

Joseph Oncale worked with an eight man crew on an oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico.  Oncale was repeatedly forced to sex related and humiliating actions by his coworkers while the rest of the crew was present. His complaints to personnel who were supervising resulted in no remedial actions. He was rather labeled as “homosexual” and made fun of further. Eventually, Oncale quit and requested that his pink slip reflect that his voluntary termination was due to sexual harassment as well as verbal abuse.

His original complaint filed against Sundowner Offshore Services stated that he was discriminated against because of his gender. The district court following previous precedents granted the judgment to the defendant stating that because Mr. Oncale was male, he had no case of action under Title VII that protected him from harassment from other male workers. When Oncale appealed the case the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit also supported this decision. However, the Supreme Court did not agree and reversed the decision.

The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision in Oncale’s favor and set a new precedent for future cases dealing with same sex discrimination. The Court’s decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services is pertinent to cases which deal with same-sex harassment and other actions of sexual harassment that do not deal with any kind of motivation for “sexual desire.” The Court’s conclusion was that any type of discriminations based on sex can be actionable if it puts the victim in a position of objective disadvantage in the workplace. This is true without regard to the gender of the victim or the harasser. Because this case set the precedent for same sex harassment, it has been acclaimed as a landmark case concerning “gay rights” cases.

WalMart Sexual Discrimination Case

Many questions come to mind as a class action suit continues against corporate giant WalMart. The sexual discrimination case began over a decade ago and is presently being heard by the Supreme Court. The retailer is being accused of systematically discriminating against possibly millions of employees. The chief complaint lies in regard to female employee’s terms of promotions and pay rates.

The primary issue to be decided before the suit can proceed is if the plaintiffs have a valid class action suit or must each file their cases separately. Legal representatives for Walmart claim the cases are too diverse to be tried together in a solitary class action case. However, the plaintiffs argue that single cases would be too expensive and difficult. A trial court, as well as the U. S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco has given the go ahead with the case.

The impact of this case may be enormous. It may literally redefine discrimination law in the U. S. Other corporate giants such as General Electric and Microsoft are watching the case closely as they may potentially be directly affected.

The case began in 2000 when Betty dukes claimed she had been denied proper training for possible promotions. Her legal representative, Brad Seligman, states that Walmart has methodically discriminated against female employees. Women are drastically underrepresented in management positions throughout the company. The case also sites that female employees are paid less than their male colleagues for fulfilling the same job requirements and positions.

There is no doubt that the result of this case will have resounding repercussions no matter which way it is decided. A win for Duke will no doubt incite the rise of many other sexual discrimination law suits. Should it be decided in her favor it will also spur other types of discrimination suits for other minorities and for those with disabilities. However, should Walmart win the case it will make it much more difficult for legitimate sexual discrimination suits to argue that various positions in different stores can have enough in common to be considered a class.

Walmart’s enormous size can actually work against them in this particular suit if the class action should proceed. Statistics is one of the most useful means to proving a discrimination suit in the workplace. This is usually only effective if the company is large enough to have the numbers to do a valid statistical analysis.

No matter which side wins discrimination law could potentially be altered. Corporate America is keeping their eyes on the outcome as are the vast minorities.