Sexual Harassment Lawyer Blawg

During the Civil Rights Movement advocates used a combination of lawsuits, sit ins, protest marches, and boycotts, to fight institutional racism. Newspaper reporting of these protests played an important role in changing public opinion, which in turn forced institutions to change.

Lawsuits combined with protests, reported by the media, continue to be effective means of fighting discrimination. Making the public aware of evidence of discrimination produced during lawsuits puts pressure on defendants to stop discriminating, encourages other victims and witnesses to come forward, and helps to protect plaintiffs and witnesses from retaliation. It also informs government prosecutors and agencies charged with enforcing civil rights laws of areas which may require attention.

Defendants in discrimination cases routinely seek court protective orders, prohibiting plaintiffs from sharing with the media any evidence the defendant marks "confidential."

The New York Athletic Club tried something similar, in a sexual harassment case brought by an employee, but the Court refused. The plaintiff took the deposition of one former and one current employee of the New York Athletic Club, who testified under oath that Club members made racially and sexually offensive comments to Club employees, and one member called a guest of a member the N word.

After their testimony, the Athletic Club sought a protective order, noting correctly that "the New York Post has already found . . . this action to be newsworthy," and that plaintiff's counsel "intends to offer the material to the media." Plaintiff countered that the Athletic Club was going to mark almost everything confidential so that virtually nothing could be shared with the press, and that media attention would help protect witnesses from potential retaliation.

The Court rejected the Athletic Club's attempt at secrecy, and noted that "Defendants contends that because plaintiff stated that this case may be 'newsworthy,' defendants have grounds for seeking the within relief in order to restrict dissemination of 'sensitive document concerning [defendants] employees and customer, would result in undue prejudice and disadvantage, and a violation of New York State law.'" The Court held that "defendants have not set forth entitlement to the within relief sought." Following the decision, the NY Post published the article above. Joshua Friedman, the attorney for Ms Ballenilla, said "We are pleased that the court rejected the Athletic Club's attempt to keep this secret. If there are other victims, this will help them."

My town has wonderful open-minded people and great schools. It's, a lovely community. So, the fact that young, African-American woman, had to bring a lawsuit against a local restaurant for employment discrimination, tells you that racial discrimination can rear its ugly head anywhere.

Abby, who is African-American, and Becca, who is white, are friends. This took place when they were seniors in high school. Becca was leaving her position at the Japanese restaurant where she worked as the Greeter. She had promised her manager she would bring someone in to replace her. When she introduced Abby to her manager, he said he could not use her because she was black. Abby filed suit for race discrimination, represented by Law Offices of Joshua Friedman.

At the same time she filed suit, the she organized a protest in front of the restaurant, which was reported in the press. Some of the signs carried by the protesters called for a boycott.

As reported by another local newspaper, business dropped 60%, and the restaurant soon settled. In the settlement the restaurant agreed proactively seek to hire persons of color, and consented to a court order prohibiting it from discriminating in the future. It also paid the victim $25,000, which she was able to use towards her college tuition.

Seventeen magazine did a very sweet story about the case.

As the NY Post reported, Stanley Katz, the "Upper West Side landlord who knowingly employed a child rapist as his building super will cough up $2 million to settle . . ." this sexual harassment lawsuit.

Law Offices of Joshua Friedman represented the victims in this sexual harassment suit, working together with federal prosecutors. In the settlement, the defendants consented to a Court Order prohibiting Stanley Katz from managing his buildings, prohibiting all defendants from sexually harassing tenants in the future, and requiring meaningful procedures for tenants to report any future sexual harassment. The victims in the case, including Ms Engle who was photographed for the Post article, showed enormous courage and determination, by facing down their child rapist super and landlord. As Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York noted, "The $2,058,000, agreement represents the largest recovery ever in a sexual harassment suit brought by the United States under the Fair Housing Act."

As reported in Vermont Today, Michael Davis, a former corrections officer for the state of Vermont, has filed a lawsuit against the state's Department of Corrections alleging sexual harassment, discrimination based on disability, and retaliation. The lawsuit, filed by sexual harassment attorneys Law Offices of Joshua Friedman, on June 23, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for Vermont, seeks damages for Davis' emotional distress and lost wages, as well as punitive damages.

The lawsuit describes the facts of the case as follows:

Davis began working for the Department of Corrections at the Southern State Correctional Facility in Springfield, Vermont in 2005. In 2007, an inmate punched Davis in the groin. A year later, Davis was still experiencing pain in his groin area, so he took a two-week leave from work. He returned to work in January 2009 still in pain, and he found the beginning of a pattern of harassment and abuse that would continue until he left his employment there. First a supervisor e-mailed Davis information on sexually-transmitted diseases, which he took as a reference to his groin pain. Soon after, he received as e-mail with a photograph of a nude male doll holding its groin area. Subsequent e-mails included photographs showing Davis' face placed on nude male bodies and other images Davis found highly offensive.

The Vermont Rutland Herald reported that the suit alleges that the two shift supervisors who created these images then circulated printed copies to other employees, both male and female. Copies were placed in areas where both employees and inmates could view them. In February 2009, Davis took leave for hernia surgery. While on leave, he made a complaint to his union representative.

When Davis returned from leave, he found the work environment had become hostile. He received threatening notes in his mailbox at work. Inmates approached him asking for money in exchange for information on who was disclosing Davis' medical information to the inmates. Other inmates began mocking Davis openly.

Davis was eventually transferred to a higher-security area within the prison, where the inmates have no contact with the rest of the prison population. He found that even the inmates there knew about his medical condition. Harassment from both coworkers and inmates continued through the summer of 2009, causing Davis increased anxiety and distress. At one point a medical provider wrote a letter to the Vermont DOC explaining how damaging the inmate harassment was but the employer failed to correct the problem.

In September 2009, Davis suffered a shoulder injury during a Use of Force training. He eventually found a position in the state's Agency for Transportation.

Continue reading "Former Vermont Corrections Officer Files Suit for Harassment" »

A civil rights lawsuit has received some assistance from the federal government. The United States Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit brought by racial discrimination attorney Joshua Friedman on behalf of a group of Michigan high school students.

The plaintiffs, all of whom are black at a high school where only about 3% of the student body is black, endured a constant pattern of insults, abuse, and harassment from other students based on their race. This included insults, threats, physical altercations, and vandalism of the students' property. The plaintiffs complained to teachers and school administrators but received little to no support. The school enacted a racial discrimination policy in 2005, but the harassment continued.

The matter came to a head in the spring of 2006, when Assistant Principal Marla Philpot found a textbook in her office containing a "hit list" of black students with a series of threats. Philpot was the school's only black administrator at the time. In response to Philpot's discovery, the administration hired a team of consultants to evaluate the school's racial climate. After the 2005-06 school year, 15 black students transferred to another high school and several more dropped out.

The school's response was too little, too late for the plaintiffs and their parents, who hired the Law Offices of Joshua Friedman to pursue a discrimination claim. He filed the lawsuit on their behalf in October 2006. The suit claims that the school board violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race by organizations receiving federal funding, as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, which allows individuals to sue government officials for constitutional violations. Specifically, the suit alleges that the school board and school officials greeted the plaintiffs' complaints with deliberate indifference.

Continue reading "Michigan High School Students Suing School District for Racial Discrimination Get Help From the U.S. Government" »

Five women have intervened in a lawsuit brought by the United States attorney general against Stanley Katz and William Barnason for sexual harassment constituting multiple violations of the Fair Housing Act. The women, who are represented by New York sexual harassment attorney Joshua Friedman, were residents of apartment buildings in Manhattan's Upper West Side owned by Katz. Barnason served as superintendent of the apartment buildings.

The Today Show reported on this story in February 2010 and interviewed several of the residents who intervened in the lawsuit:

The government's lawsuit alleges that Barnason engaged in a years-long pattern of behavior that created an atmosphere of sexual hostility and harassment for the buildings' female residents. Katz is alleged to have ignored this conduct at best and facilitated it at worst. Living under conditions of near-constant harassment, the lawsuit says, constituted discrimination under the Fair Housing Act and deprived the residents of their rights to the property protected by that law. While the attorney general's lawsuit is brought on behalf of the American people, the claim brought directly on behalf of the residents may allow them to present their case and recover damages directly.

The intervenor complaint filed by the Law Offices of Joshua Friedman provides more detailed factual allegations. Each resident tells a part of her story in the complaint, including an allegation that Barnason accepted a $2,000 security deposit from a resident and threatened to keep it and deny her access to her apartment if she did not have sexual intercourse with him. While Katz initially agreed to keep Barnason away from her, harassment coninued from both Katz and Barnason. One resident alleges that Barnason drugged her late one night and tried to take her to a vacant apartment while she was impaired. Another resident witnessed this and intervened, and was able to get her away from Barnason. Multiple residents allege that Katz would steal their unemployment or welfare checks from their mailboxes, then harass them once they got behind on rent. Barnason would also offer to pay rent for certain residents in exchange for sex.

The intervenor complaint filed by the five women supplements the complaint filed by the government and adds additional claims. The women claim violations of the Fair Housing Act due to Barnason's repeated demands for sexual favors in exchange for ordinary superintendent services, other inappropriate sexual advances, sexual assaults, and harassing behavior and statements, as well as Katz's support of this conduct. They also claim violations of Title 8, Chapter 1 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, which offers more generous protections than the Fair Housing Act.

Continue reading "New York Attorney Joshua Friedman Intervenes in Apartment Sexual Harassment Suit on Behalf of Tenants" »

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against Stanley Katz, the owner and manager of three apartment buildings on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and William Barnason, the former superintendent of those buldings. The suit alleges violations of the Fair Housing Act in the form of an ongoing and pervasive campaign of sexual harassment and sexual assault against multiple female residents of the apartments over a period of years.

Barnason is a Level III registered sex offender who served fourteen years in prison for the sexual assault of several children and one adult. Katz employed Barnason as the superintendent of at least three apartment buildings for several years. The lawsuit complains of an atmosphere of sexual harassment fostered by both Katz and Barnason, and of specific acts of sexual harassment and even assault committed by Barnason.

Barnason is alleged to have demanded sexual relations with female residents in exchange for ordinary maintenance services, reductions in or forgiveness of rent, or even simply cessation of verbal abuse. Several residents allege that Barnason drugged a female resident and attempted to take her to a vacant apartment late at night until another resident intervened. Both defendants are said to have engaged in frequent verbal harassment of residents, referring to them as "hookers" and "whores."

The government's lawsuit asks the court to find that the defendants' condict constitutes multiple violations of the Fair Housing Act, and that the conduct specifically amounts to a deprivation of rights guaranteed to the residents by the Fair Housing Act. The suit further asks for an injunction against further discrimination, and requests monetary damages, including punitive damages, and civil penalties against the defendants.

The Fair Housing Act, enacted as part of the civil rights laws in 1968, protects tenants, homeowners and home buyers from discriminatory practices by landlords, sellers, property managers, and lenders. The law prevents discrimination based on race, national origin, religion, gender, family status or handicap. It covers, among others, refusal to rent or sell a house or apartment based on those criteria, refusal to lend money, or setting different terms for sale or rental of a property. A person claiming damages resulting from discrimination covered by the law may recover their actual damages, and the court may subject a defendant found liable to civil penalties. The law also allows punitive damages, but courts tend to only do so in extreme and unusual circumstances, defined in at least one case as "when the defendant's conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others." Smith v. Wade, 461 U.S. 30, 56 (1983).

Continue reading "Department of Justice Sues New York Apartment Owner and Superintendent for Years of Sexual Harassment" »

We discussed a peer racial harassment case that we were taking to trial in late 2009. The case was against the Lenape Valley Regional Board of Education in Sussex County, New Jersey. It involved a multi-racial teen named "E.L." who was subjected to racial slurs during his 13 months at Lenape Valley Regional High School. E.L.'s parents, Edward and Leeann Lee, claimed that even after the harassment was reported, the school did almost nothing to discipline the harassers or prevent future harassment. After E.L. was expelled from school for fighting with one harasser, his parents sued the school board for money damages, a finding that E.L. was expelled without due process, and a finding that the school board failed to remedy the racial harassment.

Since that time, the plaintiffs and defendants have reached a settlement.

Prior to the settlement, the defendants tried to have the case dismissed through a motion for summary judgment, however, the Court rejected their arguments, and ordered the case to trial.

Hopefully the settlement will allow E.L. and his family to move on with their lives, and E.L. to enroll in a school where he will not face racial harassment. E.L.'s case is far from the only one in which the school administrators failed to protect students from harassment and bullying. With an increase in the ways in which students can hurt one another -- through social media websites and Twitter, for instance -- it remains a challenge for an experienced school racial harassment attorney to determine whether to hold the school accountable for the students' behavior. In E.L.'s case, the harassment took place largely on school grounds, but future cases could involve conduct that is entirely online.

If you or someone you know is experiencing racial harassment, sexual harassment, don't hesitate to contact a seasoned school harassment attorney to help you file a claim against the offenders. No one should have to fear going to work or school every day.

In May, two female employees of the Washington County Sheriff's Office in Arkansas received the biggest settlement in Washington County history: $395,000. Lori Schmidt, a former sergeant, and Stephanie Guenther, a former corporal, sued the Sheriff's Office for sexual harassment in November 2009. They claimed that Sheriff Tim Helder and his subordinates permitted open discussion of sexual practices and that the strip search of female inmates was ordered in front of video cameras.

This blog has discussed some of the past humiliations Schmidt and Guenther had to endure before achieving this victory. Sheriff Helder called them "liars" on television. Transcripts of witnesses were filled with criticisms of Captain Osburn, whom they said liked to discuss breast augmentation and preferred to have women prisoners strip searched in the hallway instead of the women's showers so that he could watch on the monitors in his cubical. When Schmidt voiced a complaint, she was transferred to the night shift, even though with her seniority, she could have remained on the day shift. After she sued for sexual harassment and retaliation, she was moved to an even worse shift that prevented her from seeing her family.

In September 2009, Schmidt and Guenther filed claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Two months later, they filed their complaint in the Western District of Arkansas pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various laws of the state. The specific allegations included Captain Osburn making inappropriate remarks about the type of breast augmentation that two coworkers intended to get, crude descriptions of sexual practices involving chocolate syrup and peanut butter, and telling one coworker whom she could and could not have sex with. Although Osburn's "wife swapping" parties were widely known--he "invited" junior officers and deputies in his office--he was not disciplined. One senior officer also knew about a photo of Guenther's breast that Captain Osburn shared with the rest of the office without Guenther's knowledge.

Schmidt and Guenther might have received more had they gone to trial, said an attorney for the county. Nonetheless, they were very satisfied with the $395,000 settlement. They felt vindicated for all they had to put up with over the past few years. Schmidt and Guenther, who were terminated from their jobs after reporting the harassment, will now be listed as "resigned," which may make it easier for them to find new employment.

Both women stated that they hope the settlement leads to changes in the Sheriff's Office. Schmidt hoped that this would show women that they could "come forward and they will be heard, and just keep going until you are heard." Guenther stated that she hoped that they "opened up doors at the Sheriff's Office" and made them realize that there were problems that needed fixing. The Sheriff's Office has received a taste of what can happen when women come forward with the help of a sexual harassment lawyer.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Suit Results in Largest Settlement in Washington County History" »

What do you do when you report sexual harassment, your employer does an investigation, the evidence clearly shows that you were sexually harassed, and then you employer issues a report stating your allegations were "not sustained." And commences to retaliate against you. And gets on TV and calls you a liar.

This is exactly what happened to Sergeant Schmidt and Corporal Guenther of the Washington County Sheriff's Office, in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment was Just the Beginning of Their Ordeal: Their Boss Calls them a "Liar" on TV" »

We are in the final days before our pretrial conference in this peer racial harassment case heading to trial in Newark, New Jersey. In this case, against the Lenape Valley Regional Board of Education, and Lenape Valley Regional High School Principal Douglas deMarrais, our clients Edward and Leeann Lee sued to recover damages to their then-teenage multi-racial son, who was harassed at school. They brought claims under federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination in school.

In the lawsuit, the defendants admitted much of the conduct the plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint. In fact, the principal admitted that E.L. (the student) was subjected to "an inordinate number of incidents [of racial slurs]" during his 13 months at Lenape Valley Regional High School, where he was one of only a small percentage of minority students. During discovery in this case, Mr. deMarrais admitted that between November 2004 and January 2006, Leeann and Edward Lee complained of racial slurs made to their son on multiple occasions, many of which the school confirmed. Defendants admitted the Lees complained that during his Freshman year (November 2004 thought June 2005) their son "E.L." was called the "n" word on the school bus on at least three occasions by three different students, another racial slur by a student on the basketball team, and another racial slur by three girls; and between September 2005 and January 2006, their son was called "ghetto or gangster" by a student who had called him the "n" word the previous year, called the "n" word by a girl who had used the word towards their son the previous year, was told he would be "picking [the] cotton" of a Caucasian student, called the "n" word by that same student a week later, and called the "n" word by another student shortly after.

Continue reading "New Jersey school racial harassment case heading to trial" »

Harassers abuse the positions of power they occupy, such as supervisor, or professor. Most of us are too afraid of the consequences to speak out. Those who do may be ostracized, disbelieved and face retaliation. But if we do not find the courage to speak out about civil rights violations, they continue.

Without people like Cameron Aulner who find the courage to fight we would have no civil rights. By standing up to a powerful adversary Cameron has made things better for all Edinboro University students. Read the Complaint.

Our practice is limited to hostile work and school environment cases based on sexual harassment, gender harassment, racial harassment, sexual orientation harassment, disability harassment and harassment based onother protected categories such as religion, national origin and age(over 40).

An example of offensive language or conduct which is probably not illegal is the typical screaming boss who has something disparaging, mean or disrespectful to say to everyone.

Some state laws protect additional categories of victims and/or prohibit other types of conduct.

Law Offices of Joshua Friedman has three attorneys, Daniela Nanau, Esq., Rebecca Houlding, Esq. and Joshua Friedman, Esq. The Firm's practice is limited to hostile work and school environment cases.

Mr. Friedman is a graduate of Columbia College ('81) and Columbia Law School ('85). More information about the firm, its attorneys and their accomplishments is available on its website.