Discrimination Attorneys. Help Has Arrived!

Well, the latest update is that last Thursday our former employer accused me of acting on my own and not keeping my co-workers informed on the conciliation process. That did not go over well. For two years we have been fighting this fight. For two years they never questioned who was acting as spokesperson but now that they've been found guilty on all counts I guess this is just their latest feeble attempt to stall the process. Thankfully, the EEOC investigator wasn't having any of it. She got on the phone right away and asked all the ladies to fax in a statement stating that they were making all their own decisions, that they have been updated at every stage along the way, and that they have appointed me as spokesperson. All the women got the information in within 24 hours and within that same amount of time we hired a reputable firm to represent our interests.

I don't want you to think that finding an attorney to represent you is that easy, because it isn't. We have been putting together a file on reputable attorneys for over a year. We even interviewed a couple of them but either they didn't want us or we didn't want them. The attorneys we selected have both the experience and the passion we were looking for. Even when you have a case like ours where the EEOC has ruled in your favor on four counts of sex discrimination, four counts of retaliation, and violations of the ADA, you won't be able to retain representation if you can't verbalize the merits of your case. Just as the intake officer will drill you at the EEOC, attorneys will drill you as well. These are rapid fire questions to which you must answer without hesitation: Why do you think this was discrimination? What reason did your employer give for this action? What do you think is the real reason? What physical proof do you have? Did you inform anyone in management of your complaint? What proof do you have? etc. etc. If you cannot answer these questions intelligently, if you cannot answer them in accordance with what the law provides, you're a liablity and no reputable attorney will take you on. You are your strongest piece of evidence so be prepared to present yourself as such.

What Does Conciliation Mean When Dealing with the EEOC?

Well, for me it means I'm angry nearly every day. Though things are moving much more quickly here and we're hearing from our investigator nearly every other day, what I'm hearing is not good.

Conciliation, as a reminder, is what happens when the EEOC has made their final determination in the employee's favor; Both parties (Charging Party = employee and Respondent = employer)are highly encouraged to come to a settlement agreement. The problem in our case lies in that what we think is reasonable compensation and what our former employer thinks is reasonable compensation are two entirely different things. We are no where close to meeting in the middle.

Our investigator was set to fail conciliation (meaning, make the determination that no agreement could be reached) but our former employer wants to continue talks. They want to meet with us individually to discuss our claims. We are strictly opposed to this for several reasons:
1. The person who is negotiating on behalf of the company is a party to the lies that have been told during the investigation, part of the cover-up on behalf of the company and is merely an HR representative - not someone we believe to have any authority to negotiate.
2. We weren't born yesterday, we are aware of the old saying "divide and conquer." We have no reason to trust that our former employer will negotiate in good faith - they never have.
3. We are afraid our emotions are still way too much on the surface and that is never good in a negotiation.

We have also been advised by our investigator to continue to lower our requests and we have (signifcantly) but there is still no significant movement from our employer. I don't get it. I just don't get it. Make no mistake, you will feel as if you are alone in this fight. You will feel like the EEOC is not there to represent your interests, that they are not interested in pursuing what is just. But I want you to know that I don't believe the people working for the Commission would be in the business they're in if they didn't care. Yes, the EEOC is a government agency, underfunded and understaffed and you may feel like you are just another case on the desk-but you are only if you allow yourself to be.

Funny President Bush T-Shirt Any Feminist Will Love.

This shirt is hilarious and I had to share it with like-minded readers. You can purchase this shirt at one of my affiliate sites. The shirt is $14.95 and can be purchased here. Monkey see, monkey do. Enjoy!

Racial Discrimination. Jury Awards $61 million to two Fed-Ex Drivers.

On May 24th of this year a California jury awarded $50 million in punitive damages and $11 million in compensatory damages to two Palestian Fed-Ex Drivers who complained of a hostile work environment based on race and national origin. Though this is not a gender discrimination case I wanted to share this information with you as it speaks to the possibilities of a runaway jury. These gentlemen complained to management of the treatment they were receiving and management ignored them. The jury came down with a heavy-handed verdict.

This case is particularly noteworthy due to both the damages awarded (seen as out-of-the-ordinary and excessive) and because the Manager of that particular Fed-EX terminal was held personally responsible for the discrimination and hostile environment. Under California law, an individual may be held personally responsible for workplace harrassment. This particular manager was ordered to pay $1,000,000 to the injured parties.

The problem with excessive awards is that it can continue to tie up the case for years in appeals. And that's exactly what Fed-Ex intends to do, appeal the verdict.

So, if the EEOC's intention is to eradicate discrimination in the workplace, what then makes a punitive damage award excessive? Well, for example, in April 2003 the Supreme Court decided to take on a case (State Farm vs. Campbell - this is not an EEO case, rather an insurance/personal injury case) where the damage award ratio was 56 to 1. Meaning, a Utah jury awarded $145 million in punitive damages and $2.6 million in compensatory damages. The award was upheld in the Utah Supreme Court and went on to the U.S. Supreme Court. The higher court favors a 1 to 1 ratio meaning instead of $145 million and $2.6 million, they'd prefer to see $2.6 million in punitive damages and $2.6 million in compensatory. The worst case scenario in this instance, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, would be a 9 to 1 ratio. Meaning, at worst, $23.4 million in punitive and $2.6 million in compensatory. I tell you this here so you can keep these ratios in mind should you take your case to court.

Another way attorneys approach juries for punitive damage awards is to show the jury the company's financial statement, show them the company's profit for the past year and ask for 1% or less of that profit. The idea being, the company makes millions of dollars a year. 1% is merely a token.

Just some things for you to think about. Again, I'm not an attorney so I cannot offer you any legal advice. I'm just here to share with you the information I find as I journey through the EEOC process.

Gender Discrimination. Former Police Officer Awarded Nearly $2,000,000.

Former police officer, Suzzanne Barth, was awarded nearly $2,000,000 in a jury award for sexual harrassment and gender discrimination. Ms. Barth was the first female officer for the Village of Mokena, Illinois, a small community of 12,000 residents just 30 miles outside of Chicago. Ms. Barth was hired in 1998 and was, according to her complaint, subjected to endless sexual taunting and her life was put at risk when fellow officers refused to offer her back-up on calls. In 2002 Ms. Barth quit the department (this is what we call a constructive discharge - when you have no other choice but to quit) citing that she feared for her safety.

Discrimination in the Workplace. Our Letter from the EEOC!

It's here! This is a copy of my final determination letter. This is what you're hoping to get when you file your claim. Last year, over 23,000 sex-discrimination claims were filed with the EEOC but only 7.1% were found to have reasonable cause. This is my letter of reasonable cause. Our former employer was found guilty on four counts of sex discrimination, four counts of retaliation and yes, violations of the ADA (though not shown in my letter here). (Names have been x'd out for confidentiality.)

Determination

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission, I issue the following determination on the merits of the subject charge.

Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Timeliness, deferral, and all other requirements for coverage have been met.

Charging Party alleges she was discriminated against based on her sex (female), was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment based on her sex, and was retaliated against when she was discharged from her Sales Associate position on August 5, 2004.

Respondent denies the allegations and contends the Charging Party was discharged due to her conduct in conjunction with an e-mail she sent whereby she gave the company an ultimatum; and that the Charging Party never informed any management official of discrimination or harassment or utilized the internal hotline phone number to voice her concerns.

Evidence of record indicates the Charging Party and three other female employees held a meeting with a management official on July 30, 2004, to complain about the disparate treatment. There is no evidence that the Respondent made any effort to address the workplace concerns the four females brought forth during the July 30th 2004, meeting. However, soon after the meeting, Respondent discharged two of those female employees, and the other two were constructively discharged. There is no evidence that the Charging Party had any prior discipline related to her attitude or nature of conduct.

Based on the above, I conclude that there is reasonable cause to believe that Charging Party and similarly situated female employees were subjected to different terms and conditions of employment and disparate treatment based on sex, and that on August 5, 2004, Charging Party was terminated, based on her complaints of July 30, 2004, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of this matter. The confidentiality provisions of Sections 706 and 709 of Title VII and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation.

If the Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission.

Enclosed is a reply form for the parties to indicate their interest in participating in conciliation discussions. Failure to provide an affirmative response to the Commission within ten (10) days of receiving this Determination will indicate an unwillingness to engage in conciliation efforts.

On Behalf of the Commission:

XXXX
Field Office Director