Detlef Sommerfield moved to Chicago from Germany in 1982 and was able to work his way up and become a Chicago police officer. While his job involved upholding the law and maintaining the peace, Sommerfield found himself victim to illegal action within the police department, reports the Chicago Tribune.
]]> For years, Sommerfield says he dealt with race and national origin discrimination from his sergeant, Lawrence Knasiak. Sommerfield claims that Knasiak frequently humiliated the immigrant by mocking his German heritage and Jewish religion with jeers of “Jew boy,” “stupid German,” and “Nazi,” reports the Tribune.This week, a jury agreed and awarded Sommerfield $30,000 in damages. In its ruling the jury found the City of Chicago liable. Employers are not always liable for the discriminatory acts of their employees. In fact, if an employer takes the proper steps and investigates a complaint and takes steps to stop it, the employer may be praised for its response and not penalized.
But in this case, Sommerfield made his initial complaint in 2004 and the police department did not investigate the complaint until 2007. When it did finally look into the complaint, investigators did sustain the allegations and recommend a suspension for Knasiak, though three years late.
The city offered as a defense that it was busy investigating 5,000 other complaints and could not look into Detlef Sommerfield’s complaint immediately. The jury did not buy this excuse and found the city liable in the Chicago police officer discrimination lawsuit.
Related Resources:
Basically, the restaurant is accused of having customers deal only with white staff in positions like waiters and bartenders, while minority workers were out of sight washing dishes and preparing food, reports Reuters.
]]> Capital Grille is a part of Darden Restaurants Inc. which is the largest restaurant operator in the U.S. and the named defendant in the lawsuit. Darden also owns Red Lobster and Olive Garden among other brands, reports Reuters.The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Capital Grille employees by Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, an advocate on industry wages and working conditions. The organization will likely attempt a class action for Capital Grille workers in Chicago, New York City, and Washington, D.C.
Capital Grille is not the first restaurant alleged to have engaged in the back-of-house, front-of-house distinction for minority workers. Recently, Panera Bread was also subject to a lawsuit when it allegedly engaged in a similar practice.
As you probably know, employers cannot consider race when making job decisions. Even if a restaurant is located in a white neighborhood primarily serving white customers, the company cannot hire a staff of only white workers. Employers must be color-blind both in hiring and job placement.
A Capital Grille discrimination charge was brought showing a disturbing trend of the service industry continuing to consider race when making job decisions.
Related Resources:
According to the study on overtime and health, people who worked more hours than normal were at much greater risk for depression, reports HealthDay News. In the study, researchers followed about 2,000 middle-aged British government workers and found that employees who worked 11 hours or more a day were twice as likely to suffer from depression as compared to those workers who only worked seven or eight hours a day.
]]> Given this down economy, workers are being asked to do more, work longer hours, and make less money. And if workers refuse job assignments or turn down overtime, they risk losing their jobs. Doesn’t sound too fair, does it?Unfortunately, most workers have no recourse. When an employer tells you to work overtime, you generally must comply or suffer the consequences. The law requires employers to pay more when employees work overtime hours, but the law does not make working overtime voluntary.
Employers generally control the schedules you work (within certain parameters) and can tell you to miss the family meal or work through a weekend. Unless you suffer from some disability that prevents you from working excessive hours — or have an employment contract that dictates what hours you work — you probably have to buck down and deal with the negative effects of depression and overtime.
Related Resources:
In addition, retaliation was once again the most popular violation, with 37,334 charges. Retaliation occurs when an employer takes negative action against an employee for complaining about discrimination. This charge is so common because it can be tacked onto almost any discrimination complaint.
For example, if an employee complains that he was passed over for a promotion due to his age, and then is subsequently fired, the employee may have a claim for both age discrimination and retaliation.
After retaliation, the most popular charge was race discrimination, followed by sex discrimination, disability discrimination, and age discrimination.
The EEOC announced their employment discrimination complaints statistics for the 2011 fiscal year. The EEOC was busy hearing a recording number of complaints and winning hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved employees.
Related Resources:
If you don't follow football, Kyle Williams is the most obvious scapegoat for the San Francisco 49ers overtime loss to the New York Giants over the weekend. Williams is also the son of Chicago White Sox General Manager Ken Williams, reports the Associated Press.
]]> In the fourth quarter of the game that would determine who would play the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, Kyle Williams made two critical mistakes on punt returns, one which put the Giants in field goal position to end the game. Now Williams is dealing with a peculiar workplace hazard for a pro athlete who plays before adoring -- and sometimes psychotic -- fans.When you screw up at work, you'll probably get reprimanded. In the worst case, you can get fired. But in almost no situation, will a multitude of total strangers get worked up into a lather and then threaten to kill you and your family. Yet that is the truth in the irrational world of the NFL.
So when there is a potential workplace hazard like being murdered at work, employers are generally required to take steps to prevent such harms. For example, if lab scientists work with dangerous chemicals, the employer may require the use of goggles and other protective gear.
In Kyle Williams' case, the San Francisco 49ers may want to take some simple precautionary measures as well. These can include removing any public mention of where Williams lives, limiting access to team facilities, and perhaps investigating particularly harassing conduct.
Kyle Williams death threats for a mistake made in a game are a bit extreme. As fans can be a bit extreme, the 49ers should take reasonable steps to prevent harm to its young receiver.
Related Resources:
Instead, you may be aware that certain behavior is okay in the workplace while other behavior clearly crosses the line. Sexual harassment is determined on a case-by-case basis, though you should know that there are some signs that you're being sexually harassed at work.
]]> The first type of sexual harassment, quid pro quo harassment, literally mean this-for-that harassment. This is when a manager or supervisor trades job favors in exchange for sex. So if you only get the promotion or raise if you sleep with the boss, this is illegal quid pro quo harassment. Other examples can include keeping your job only in exchange for sexual favors, being punished for not having sex, and being demoted or otherwise disciplined.Quid pro quo harassment is relatively easy to spot. Either a boss asked you for sex in exchange for a job favor or didn't. On the other hand, a hostile work environment is much more difficult to determine. It is also much more common.
A hostile work environment means having to suffer through demeaning or sexual comments, photographs, jokes, or threats at work. To qualify as illegal conduct, the behavior must be so pervasive as to create an intimidating and offensive work environment.
This means that receiving only a single degrading email or image at work may not be enough to qualify as illegal sexual harassment. Usually, the conduct must last for some time. So, if you sit next to a couple overgrown frat boys who talk about sexual conquests all day, every day, this likely qualifies as a hostile work environment. But if you only walk by a passing comment, this likely would not be.
Still in some cases, courts have found that particularly offensive conduct, only if done in a single instance, like hanging a noose over a cubicle wall, can qualify as a hostile work environment.
Whether offensive conduct actually is illegal is a complex determination left for lawyers to argue over. The point is that if you spot any of these signs you're sexually harassed at work, you should complain and put a stop to the behavior, even if not illegal. It will be good for you, and in the long run, good for your company.
Related Resources:
Sharon Smiley was fired from her job of ten years at a Chicago real estate company for working through lunch. There was nothing wrong with her termination, but an Illinois court found that the woman was entitled to unemployment benefits.
]]> Smiley worked as a receptionist and administrative assistant at Equity Lifestyle Properties Inc. About two years ago, the hard worker clocked out for lunch, but remained at her desk performing work for the company, reports ABC.While Smiley may have thought she was doing a good thing, she was in fact exposing her employer to a wage and hour lawsuit. Generally, non-exempt employees like receptionists and assistants must be paid for every minute they work. By clocking out, there was no way for Equity Lifestyle to track how much time Smiley was working.
Additionally, Illinois state law requires non-exempt employees to take 20 minute meal breaks if they work at least five hours in a day. By working through lunch, Smiley exposed Equity Lifestyle to the wrath of the Illinois Department of Labor.
Employees should know that when they are told to take a break or eat lunch, they should take a break and eat lunch. Employers have rules in place for a reason, and a single employee's decision to break these rules can expose an employer to significant liability.
Sharon Smiley was fired for working through lunch and rightfully so. But, at least she can collect unemployment benefits now.
Related Resources:
Rather than choosing to fight out the case in federal court, Pepsi agreed to pay $3.13 million to affected applicants, announced the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
]]> According to the EEOC, more than 300 black applicants were adversely affected when Pepsi applied an overly broad criminal background check policy that disproportionately excluded black applicants.Under the policy, job applicants who had been arrested pending prosecution were not hired for a permanent job even if they had never been convicted of any offense. Additionally, applicants were denied employment if they have been arrested or convicted of some minor offenses.
While conducting a criminal background check on employees is not illegal, employers must be very careful when adopting a uniform policy. The unfortunate fact is that in many areas of the country, blacks are disproportionately arrested and convicted of offenses. So when a company adopts a broad policy like Pepsi's that may seem race-neutral on its face, the policy may still be considered illegal if it has a disproportionate impact on minority groups.
Instead of adopting broad policies that exclude all applicants who have ever been arrested or convicted of petty offenses, the EEOC urges employers to take into consideration the nature and gravity of the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction, and whether the offense bears any relation to the job sought.
In the Pepsi race discrimination lawsuit, the company was accused of having a criminal background check policy that negatively impacted black applicants. The company ultimately decided to change its policy and pay affected applicants $3.13 million in damages.
Related Resources:
With the departure of Jerry Angelo, the Bears announced they are going to interview Phil Emery (Chiefs college scouting director), Jason Licht (Patriots director of pro personnel), Jimmy Raye III (Chargers director of player personnel), and Marc Ross (Giants college scouting director) for the position, reports the Chicago Tribune.
]]> The announced candidates fulfill two requirements in the GM search. First, all of them have a background in talent evaluation. Second, two of the candidates -- Marc Ross and Jimmy Raye -- are black, though that's not to say they are not independently qualified candidates as well.If you are a football fan, you're probably familiar with the "Rooney Rule." The rule, named after Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney, requires that teams interview at least one non-white candidate for head coaching and senior front office opportunities.
And if you are familiar with employment laws, you probably also know the axiom that hiring decision should be color-blind. So how does the Rooney Rule coexist with anti-discrimination laws which preach color-blindness?
The Rooney Rule is arguably an affirmative action programs. Such programs are a response to a sad history in America of excluding certain minority groups from jobs. Because of this history, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission permits affirmative action programs that "overcome the effects of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity." In effect, you're allowed to consider color if that helps overcome past discrimination.
However, affirmative action programs can be very difficult to implement and employers should work closely with an employment attorney if using such a program.
The Bears GM hire highlights the history of race discrimination in America. The Rooney Rule can be viewed as an affirmative action program and the Bears interviewing two black candidates can be viewed as the program working, (if Marc Ross and Jimmy Raye were selected only because of their race), or the program being outdated, (if they would have been selected anyway).
Related Resources:
]]>These former workers are now seeking to band together in a class to bring a Rolf’s Patisserie lawsuit, reports the Chicago Tribune.
]]> In happier times, Rolf's was a gourmet bakery serving several neighboring states. However, after an incident in 2010 where about a hundred people were sickened by eating its products, the bakery struggled, reports the Tribune.Last month, the bakery announced that it was closing for a day for cleaning. However, the next day, company president Lloyd Culbertson announced the bakery's closing on its website. In a letter to employees on January 4, the employees were finally officially told they were out of a job.
In these tough economic times, no one can blame a struggling company for closing its doors. But did Rolf's Patisserie owe a duty to its employees to provide advance notice it was closing?
Like with all legal questions, the answer is that "it depends." Generally, the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) requires employers to provide 60-day advance notice of plant closings and mass layoffs.
Employers are usually covered by the Warn Act if they have 100 or more employees. However, the calculation of 100 employees is not very straightforward. Instead, some employees such as workers who are temporary or part-time may not be counted.
The Rolf's Patisserie lawsuit claims that the bakery failed to give adequate notice of the business closing and failed to properly pay its employees. The employees are entitled to their pay, but it's not so clear if they are entitled to advance notice of the closing.
Related Resources:
]]>At the heart of the lawsuit is not something that Aguilera said, so much as something that he wrote, a memoir the former teacher wrote recounting his own relationship with an elementary school teacher when Aguilera was only 13, reports the Chicago Tribune.
]]> Aguilera says that a parent took issue with Aguilera's memoir, titled "Gabriel's Fire," and the school district fired him for it back in 2009.The former teacher is now seeking $300,000 in damages and his old job back, reports the Tribune.
If you are surprised that Aguilera is suing for his old job back, you are not alone. For most workers in the private sector, we enjoy no free speech rights from our employers. So, we can get fired for participating in Occupy protests, for writing a personal blog at home, or for saying something disagreeable (or even agreeable).
But what may set apart Luis Aguilera is that he is an employee of a public entity and so is probably protected by the First Amendment. Public employees are different than private employees because their employer is the government, subject to the government's rules and regulations like free speech rights. Private employers are generally not subject to these rules, unless they specifically choose to adopt them.
A former Chicago Public Schools teacher has sued the district for violating his freedom of speech rights. His lawsuit characterizes one of the key differences between a private and public sector employee.
Related Resources:
Here are our top five Chicago employment lawsuits from the past year:
]]>Aaron's Inc. Pays $95M for Sexual Harassment. A federal jury awarded Ashley Alford a whopping $95 million in what may be the largest sexual harassment payout ever. Alford, who worked as a sales representative, claimed that her male colleagues engaged in a campaign of sexual harassment against her like giving her inappropriate nicknames, making sexually charged comments, and even sexually assaulting her. After Alford complained, the company did not take her complaint seriously.
Chicago Fire Department to Pay $30M to Black Firefighters. The fire department instituted an entrance exam in 1995 that left out most black firefighters. Sixteen years later, the city finally agreed to settle the case with 6,000 bypassed black candidates.
Stroger Hospital Pays $7.6M to Former Doctor. A jury ordered the Cook County hospital to pay $7.6 million to a former physician for retaliation and discrimination. Dr. Vivian Renta successfully argued that she was fired from her job as senior attending physician in the county's pathology department for blowing the whistle on a high error rate at the hospital and the hospital's efforts to conceal the errors. The jury agreed, and said the hospital retaliated against the doctor for being outspoken.
AutoZone Pays $600,000 for Disability Discrimination. A jury returned the $600,000 verdict against AutoZone for failing to provide reasonable accommodations to a disabled sales manager. The sales manager was required to perform cleaning tasks that violated his medical restrictions, and the company would not reassign the tasks as an accommodation. AutoZone learned an expensive lesson that disabilities are to be accommodated, not ignored.
Town of Cicero Pays Sharon Starzyk $500,000. Sharon Starzyk was just one of several women who sued the Town of Cicero and its President Larry Dominick for sexual harassment. The town finally agreed to settle this lawsuit and paid Starzyk $500,000 to go away.
Like any other year, 2011 was not a good year to violate employment laws. These five Chicago employment lawsuits demonstrate just how costly it can be to violate the law.
Related Resources:
That’s because older workers tend to earn more, so when budgets are slashed, they’re often the first to be let go. The Chicago Board of Education is now dealing with a similar situation as two teachers on the verge of completing their 20th year in the school system have sued bringing an age discrimination lawsuit. In their defense, the Board of Education may can claim the terminations were for legitimate reasons like cost-savings or performance.
]]> In the federal class action claim, Barbara Ferkel and Adrienne Green-Katien both worked for the Chicago public schools for 19 years and consistently received excellent and satisfactory reviews until they were suddenly deemed unsatisfactory and released, reports Courthouse News Service.The plaintiffs say that it was no coincidence their reviews fell prior to completing 20 years. According to their employment contracts, the teachers stood to gain quite a bit in pension and other benefits at their twentieth year, reports Courthouse News. So the terminations made economical sense for the school district, but the teachers claim it didn't make legal sense.
Looking at it from an age discrimination perspective (ignoring any contract issues), employers are generally free to make personnel decisions like who to fire or hire so long as the decision is not based on age. The Chicago Board of Education can consider salary and costs-savings when deciding who to fire, but when their decision mostly impact older workers they can get into trouble if it can be shown that their true motivation is to make their workforce younger.
In this age discrimination lawsuit, a court will likely have to consider if the termination of Barbara Ferkel and Adrienne Green-Katien was due to monetary considerations, poor work, or for an illegal reason like age discrimination. The court will have the difficult task of guessing the employer's motives based on the evidence presented.
Related Resources:
Starzyk was fired in 2009 just a few months after she filed a sexual harassment claim against Dominick, reports MyFox Chicago. She later agreed to drop the sexual harassment claim, but she continued her wrongful termination suit against the town.
]]> Oftentimes, employers get in trouble not for sexual harassment or discrimination against an employee, but for the actions they take after a complaint has been made.For example, sexual harassment means a lot more than a single bawdy joke or overhearing explicit sexual conversation. Instead, harassing activities usually must rise to the level of a hostile work environment before they are illegal. This means that the harassing activities must be so pervasive as to create an intimidating and offensive work environment before it violates the law.
And so, in many cases, a worker's sexual harassment complaint may not rise to the level of illegality.
However, should an employer retaliate against an employee for bringing a complaint, (regardless of the legitimacy of the complaint), the employer could be liable for illegal retaliation or wrongful termination if it takes a negative action against the employee, like termination.
In the case of Sharon Starzyk, the former Cicero employee dropped her sexual harassment suit against Larry Dominick, but still collected $500,000 from the town for wrongful termination.
Related Resources:
The company has not yet been indicated how many employees will lose their jobs in the Sears store closings, reports the Chicago Sun-Times.
]]> While the short-term concerns are the loss of the stores and what happens to the hundreds of employees working at these stores, the long-term concern is the viability of Sears as a whole, reports the Sun-Times.Since merging with Kmart in 2005, retail experts have complained that Sears has let its stores become shabby as they lost business to competitors like Target, Walmart, and Macy's, reports the Sun-Times. And the company seemingly does not know how to stop this trend.
Until then, Sears employees may want to review their rights when it comes to terminations and layoffs.
Generally, no one has a right to remain at the job. This means that an employer can fire or lay off a worker for any reason or no reason, so long as the employee is not fired for a discriminatory reason. In other words, Sears can randomly lay off everyone whose first name begins with the letter "L", but the company cannot lay off employees based on age, race, or any other discriminatory reason.
In addition, employees covered by an employment contract may have greater rights to keep their jobs. Employment contracts often spell out the circumstances under which someone can be fired, and an employer cannot violate the contract without facing certain penalties.
Sears store closings portend layoffs and job losses. Most workers may not have a right to keep their jobs, but this does not mean that they have no rights at all.
Related Resources: