$4 Million
Racial Harassment Settlement
$2 Million
Sexual Harassment Settlement
$3.4 Million
Sexual Harassment Settlement
$3 Million
Racial Harassment Settlement

| by

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 Friedman & Houlding LLP, 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.
Continue reading

| by

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.
Continue reading

| by

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.
Continue reading

| by

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.”
Continue reading

| by

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.

Continue reading

| by

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.
Continue reading

| by

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

| by

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

| by

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.

Professor Chandler had been the subject of sexual harassment, racial harassment and retaliation complaints at Edinboro University since the mid-1990s. Although the university received these complaints it did not stop Professor Chandler from sexually harassing students. Some students who made complaints faced waits of years for a response and then were told that unless they testified in a formal hearing there was nothing the university could do. By then they had graduated and just wanted to forget their nightmare, so nothing changed,

Cameron Aulner is no ordinary young man.

Continue reading

| by

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).

Not all hostile work and school environments are illegal. The abusive conduct must be motivated by the victim’s sex, race, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability, age or membership in someother protected category. Examples of hostile work environments which are illegal are:

  • The use of racial, religious, or national origin slurs. Such conduct makes clear that the harassment is motivated by racial, religious or national origin prejudice. The use of harassing symbols may make motive equally clear, such as showing an African-American the confederate flag.
Continue reading
Contact Information
230 Park Ave 3rd Floor West
New York, NY 10169
Phone: 888-369-1119 Ext: 1Fax: 866-731-5553Email: attorney@friedmanhouldingllp.com
Attorney Advertising
Mr. Friedman and Ms. Houlding are licensed by the State of New York. The firm is located in New York. If you work outside of New York and you would like us to evaluate your case please email or call for a free consultation. If we are able to represent you we make the necessary arrangements to appear in your state. We frequently represent clients located in other states by affiliating with local attorneys in other states. We will not represent a client outside of New York unless we are in compliance with all laws which regulate the practice of out of state attorneys. States in which we have appeared in court or administrative proceedings include CT, NJ, VA, PA,MI, AL, TN, GA, AR, TX, WY, UT, and NV. When we represent clients outside of New York we make all court appearances for the client, take all depositions and try the case ourselves. The local attorney's role is ordinarily limited to insuring that we are fully briefed on local law and in compliance with local practices.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2021, Friedman & Houlding LLP
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design