Sexual harassment in the workplace can quickly contribute to a hostile work environment. On top of this injustice, those who report such misbehavior are many times retaliated against in many ways. This is when it is time for employment law experts such as Ty Hyderally to step in and take action. Both of these actions, sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting are in violation of employment laws that are in place. When these types of injustices occur, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) steps in to litigate. In order to avoid such a big mess in the workplace, expert lawyers like Tayeb Hyderally work to inform businesses and workers of their rights and responsibilities as they pertain to employment law.
A jury just awarded $350,000 to three women who used to work at Endoscopic Microsurgery Associates which is a medical practice located in the Baltimore area. The women alleged that they were exposed to unwanted and unsolicited sexual advances by the company’s CEO. The EEOC’s suit states that Linda Lux, the company’s receptionist was repeatedly suffering unwanted sexual advancements which was creating a hostile environment in which she had to work. The company’s CEO, Dr. Mark Noar and its CFO, Martin Virga continually made sexually motivated advances toward Ms. Luz who kept on refusing the advancements. The practice then began to retaliate against her by disciplining her for nonexistent infractions in behavior and rescinding leave that had been approved before. Eventually these built up until she was terminated. Study coordinator Jacqueline Huskins and Nurse Kimberly Hutchinson both reported that they also suffered similar experiences and advances from both Virga and Noar.
The company and the EEOC could not reach a suitable settlement through the conciliation process. It went before a jury of 9 Baltimore residents who found unanimously that the ladies were entitled to compensatory damages in varying amounts from $4,000 to $110,000. Each of the women also received $110,000.
This is a very significant verdict as it sends a message to those in high positions. It lets them know that just because they work at a high level in a reputable company; it does not mean that they are exempt from employment laws. They must continue to treat other employees in a professional manner. Cases such as these help remind companies how important it is for sexual harassment policies to be in place in their company. Their employees should know how, where and to whom these types of behaviors must be reported. They must also realize that retaliatory actions for reporting an incident such as this will be penalized.
The EEOC is the government agency which has the responsibility of enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They work with lawyers such as Tayeb Hyderally to prepare companies for these types of situations. Employment law specialists such as Ty Hyderally can help companies develop policies which inform employees of their rights and responsibilities in dealing with sexual harassment and retaliatory actions for reporting in the workplace.
sexual harassment in the workplace
Expert lawyers are often called upon to represent victims who have been subjected to sexual harassment in the workplace. To make matters worse there are many cases in which the victim also suffers retaliatory actions simply for reporting the incident. Tayeb Hyderally is an employment law expert who has many years of successful litigation in cases involving employment law including sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting.
It is imperative that companies have a solid plan of action in place for instances in which these types of allegations are made. Attorney Ty Hyderally offers companies his expertise on the matter and can help them develop appropriate policies which can protect both employees and employers in these types of instances. Companies which do not have policies in place can have a very complicated situation on their hands which could have been avoided if policies had been created to intervene.
Recently one such case involving both sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting reached a settlement. Three women were employed by Holiday Inn Express located in Simpsonville, South Carolina. They alleged that one of the general managers had sexually harassed all three women. The harassment included inappropriate sexual remarks, unsolicited and unwanted advances and improper touching. This had created a hostile work environment for the women. One of the women filed a complaint with the hotel chain but they failed to take proper steps in responding in a timely manner to the complaints. The company neither investigated nor tried to put an end to the ongoing harassment.
After the woman complained about the sexual harassment, she was terminated. The firing was done by the general manager who was the subject of the harassment allegations. The EEOC maintained that this termination was retaliatory in nature. The EEOC also brought suit against two more companies who are responsible for managing and operating the hotel. These two companies settled with the EEOC and as part of the settlement the companies must make a monetary payment of $90,000 to the victims which will split the money amongst themselves. The companies are also agreeable to taking appropriate steps so that sexual harassment will be prevented in the workplace. As part of the agreement the companies must redistribute their policies on sexual harassment and require annual training on sexual harassment as well as retaliatory actions. All of the hotel’s managers, employees and supervisors must attend this training each year. The companies also have to report any further complaints or allegations of sexual harassment directly to the EEOC.
Sadly enough these types of cases happen frequently. Companies are forced to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which declares that retaliation for reporting an incident is unlawful. Tayeb Hyderally prepares for speaking engagements in which he informs companies and employees how these types of situations can be completely avoided. He also shares his legal expertise to inform them of how to prepare policies that will protect company officials and employees in such cases. Companies should not only have policies regarding sexual harassment in place but also ensure that these policies are easily available to employees at any time.
Many times as part of a settlement on a sexual harassment case, a company will have to make positive improvements to the way they handle and resolve these types of allegations. Sometimes it means revised or additional training that is mandatory for their workers; or it may be revision of policies regarding how allegations are handled. It’s hard to believe that today there are entities who fail to recognize the seriousness of these types of situations. Ty Hyderally is an employment law attorney whose expertise is in handling cases where rights have been violated. Mr. Hyderally also travels and is often invited to speak to various groups and companies to help them be better informed on matters concerning employment law and how a hostile work environment can be avoided altogether.
Mid Valley Labor Services, Inc. is a California based company which has hundreds of employees. The company is a statewide farm labor contractor who provides services for farmers such as workers for vineyards. They recently settled a sexual harassment and retaliation case for $150,000. According to the lawsuit filed by the EEOC, two of their female employees was subjected to sexually explicit language and sexual propositions by her crew supervisor who is male. When the two women objected to the sexual harassment and advances, they were terminated from their jobs. The EEOC cited this as a retaliatory action toward the women for reporting the sexual harassment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits both sexual harassment and retaliation for reporting or complaining about it.
The provisions of the settlement include $150,000 to be paid to the workers in damages. Mid Valley will also provide annual sexual harassment training to its employees. These sessions will be conducted by out outside professional. They will also make some revisions to their sexual harassment policy as well as their procedures for filing complaints. Supervisors will also be properly trained in preventing sexual harassment and retaliation. The company will also report regularly to the EEOC regarding any harassment complaints that may be received.
Employment laws are in place to protect workers from sexual harassment as well as retaliation for reporting such infractions. The government agency which is responsible for enforcing employment discrimination is the EEOC. The EEOC received this case form the Mexican Consulate. The outcome of this case and others like it helps companies understand that they must take the responsibility of properly training employees as well as those in supervisory positions on the proper procedures for sexual harassment. Hopefully, the revisions made in the company’s policies regarding sexual harassment and retaliatory actions for reporting will serve as a stark reminder that these types of actions will not be tolerated in the workplace. Workers who are trying to make a living for their families should not be subjected to such harassment. And they certainly should not be subjected to retaliation simply for reporting a wrong that has been done them. The company did not confirm or deny the allegations which were made against the supervisor; they simply tried to reach a settlement quickly to save time and money.
It is somewhat like adding insult to injury when a termination follows a sexual harassment complaint. These discriminatory actions are prohibited by employment law and businesses who do not comply by addressing a situation properly when sexual misconduct. It is the responsibility of the worker to report the sexual harassment or hostile work environment, and then it is the company’s responsibility to investigate and take appropriate measures to protect their workers. Company’s who do not adequately protect employees can be sued by employees who have been discriminated against. Sadly, some companies retaliate against the person reporting the misconduct. Employment lawyers such as Tayeb Hyderally educate businesses and their employees on employment law. When companies do not comply or fail to properly protect their employees, expert employment law attorneys like Ty Hyderally are prepared to successfully litigate.
A recent employment law case involving sexual harassment and retaliation occurred in Southeast Texas. A woman was working at Excel maintenance Services Inc. where she states that she was constantly subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile environment along with illegal retaliation. Ruby Thomas stated in her suit which was filed in a Galveston federal court, that she was the object of verbal and physical actions involving harassment while she was employed as a bagging operator at the facility.
Ms. Thomas alleged that the foreman requested sexual favors, touched her inappropriately and made many lewd comments. However, the company took no immediate action in order to correct, prevent or in any way address the alleged misconduct. She stated that she reported the abuse to her superiors in 2010 and she was immediately placed on a paid leave of absence so that an investigation could be conducted. Stated in her original petition is that the supervisor who was accused of the inappropriate sexual actions began to retaliate against her when she returned to work by assigning her to work in undesirable, remote or dangerous locations which also secluded her from her fellow employees.
On April 119, 2011 Ms. Thomas was terminated for an alleged accident while operating a forklift. Her suit claims that it is in retaliation and a “pretext for illegal discrimination.” The suit also states that other workers were in similar “accidents” and in violation of safety regulations but were not treated as severely. Ms. Thomas states that she had maintained a spotless work record before her termination and she is seeking for monetary damages as well as a jury trial.
Ty Hyderally and other employment law attorneys will be waiting to see the outcome of this case which involves two alleged infractions of employment law. It is important that employees retain their right to report a hostile work environment, sexual harassment or other abuse in the workplace without fearing retaliation from those who are responsible for protecting these rights and maintaining a safe workplace for all workers. If the allegations are accurate the company will likely be penalized and pay damages to Ms. Thomas. Employers should be held responsible for the actions of employees and take immediate action to investigate in the event abuse is reported.
Attorney Tayeb Hyderally spends much time educating many establishments on matters concerning employment law. He shares his expertise in hopes that knowledge of the laws will reduce the occurrences of discriminatory practices in the workplace. The knowledge of employment law is essential for both employee and employer. Cases of sexual harassment are commonly committed by one in a supervisory position, but not always. Therefore it is important for all workers to remain adequately informed about preventing sexual harassment in the workplace.
Missoula Mac, Inc. owned 25 McDonald’s franchises in south-central Wisconsin. Recently they were involved in a sexual harassment suit in which female employees who worked at the franchise in Reedsburg, Wisconsin alleged that they had suffered sexual harassment as well as retaliation in the workplace. The female workers complained that co-workers who were male had made many sexual comments along with unwanted and unsolicited physical contact. They also stated that they were forced to kiss and touch the male workers in inappropriate ways. The female workers reported their co-workers harassment but nothing was done to address it or stop it. Complaints continued and then the female workers were terminated. The company’s statement about the case filed with the EEOC did not deny that the inappropriate conduct occurred and actually Missoula Mac officials said that they agree that “improper workplace conduct” did occur but were unsure of the extent. They stated that the company’s employees are encouraged to report any form of sexual harassment.
Rather than continue litigation indefinitely, Missoula Mac chose to settle the case. They figured that the time and finances which a case would consume would be more costly than making a settlement offer. The former owner agreed to pay $1,000,000 to almost a dozen former employees in order to settle the federal sexual harassment suit.
The settlement that the EEOC and the Poynette-based Missoula Mac, Inc. reached included requirements for the corporation to create a position that is specifically created just to handle complaints involving sexual harassment. They also had to create a sexual harassment hotline that would remain available for employees and also train both workers and managers concerning employment rights and the proper way to handle situations should harassment occur.
The company, who stated that they sold the Reedsburg facility last year, had to also create a new position which will be responsible for monitoring, resolving and soliciting complaints about the working environment in their restaurants. The person who holds the position has visit each of the company’s restaurant at least two times per year in order to be available to employees who are encouraged to voice any concerns. Managers are now required to attend a minimum of two hours training on harassment, employment rights, retaliation and how to handle these types of complaints appropriately and efficiently. Hourly employees must also receive training on their rights and responsibilities as well as the proper procedures to report harassment, retaliation or discrimination. The company also created a video which employees must watch before the training sessions. The video contains a message from company President John Orr stressing the importance of zero tolerance toward sexual harassment in the workplace.
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.
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.
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.
Ty Hyderally maintains law offices in two states. He litigates various cases dealing with employment law in New Jersey and New York. Tayeb Hyderally pursued a career in employment law because of the diversity it represented. He has successfully litigated many cases and also speaks on these issues to keep employees and employers aware of their rights and responsibilities. The broad scope of employment law brings up cases such as this one in which the EEOC sued Arizona Logistics.
Arizona Logistics, Inc. and its management company were doing business as DSI Arizona. They agreed to pay a settlement in a sexual harassment case where five former employees were subjected to sexual harassment in the work place.
The Regional Director, Mark Berault subjected female employees to offensive sexual harassment. EEOC alleged that he had sexually assaulted some of the women involved in the case as well as engaged in indecent exposure, and unwelcome touching of said individuals. He had made sexually explicit remarks to them as well as showing them photos of his private parts. Although DSI Arizona was informed about the sexually hostile work place the company did not take prompt or effective action.
The EEOC filed the suit against the company after first trying to reach a settlement before beginning litigation. There was eventually a settlement that was reached which required DSI Arizona and Norlyn to pay compensation to the victims in the amount of $175,000. The company is prohibited from ever rehiring Mark Berault and must immediately investigate any other complaints of sexual harassment. As part of the settlement, DSI Arizona also agreed to provide adequate training for all managers or supervisors on how to conduct an investigation when there are sexual harassment allegations. The company must also create and post a zero tolerance policy stating that sexual harassment of employees will not be tolerated. They also had to provide a letter of regret to each of those who were victimized in this case.
EEOC Regional Attorney Mary J O’Neill stated about this case, “This was an outrageous case of sexual harassment involving a supervisor who preyed upon vulnerable female employees, subjecting them to some of the most extreme forms of sexual harassment. We hope this settlement sends a message to employers that the EEOC will act to ensure compliance with the law.”
The EEOC is the organization responsible for enforcing employment discrimination laws.
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.