Illinois Sexual Harassment Attorney Blog

The only thing worst than being subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation for either reporting the sexual harassment or rejected the advances is to not be able to prove your case and therefore be left holding the bag. It is very important to have either a witness or a tangile piece of evidence that will support your allegation. I won't spend much time on the witness because if you have one, that person can speak to what happened. One thing I would say about witnesses in general are that sometimes they are reluctant to come forward because they fear for their job. The point is, sometimes you think you have witnesses but when it comes right down to it, you won't.

The next best evidence are the words from the harasser. The best way to get his words are if he leaves a voice message or is he sends you a text or email. Remember in Illinois you can't record someone without their permission. On the other hand if the person leaves a voice message, he is consenting by leaving the message so saving his message is legal and you can utilize this at trial. If your harasser sends you a text message save it and get in touch with an attorney early on so he can show you how to properly save the text message for use later on. Your case will first be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and 90% of all cases settle so there is a good chance you will never have a trial.

Continue reading "Proving Your Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Chilbo Myunok USA LLC, a Korea-based food company which owns a Los Angeles restaurant and a chain of fast-food stores in Korea, pays $170,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of a class of waitresses. According to published reports the waitresses were sexually harassed at the Chilbo Myunok restaurant and four of them were forced to quit to escape the harassment--this is commonly referred to as a constructive discharge. When the harassment gets too severe and a person can no longer work because of the harassment they are forced to quit and this is a separate discriminatory act that is compensatable.

Details of the lawsuit include the victims facing continuous verbal and physical sexual harassment from the restaurant's manager. The manager, who has since been fired, repeatedly subjected the women to sexual touching with a sexual device and to unwanted hugging and kissing. The EEOC many times will take up cases where there are more than one victim and they can get more bang for the buck. If there were only one waitress the chances are the EEOC would issue a right to sue letter and the waitress would be left to hire a private attorney to continue the lawsuit. In Illinois I prefer to file directly with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") which automatically cross-files with the EEOC. I believe the IDHR does a faster and more thorough job than the EEOC of investigating individual charges.

"By working with EEOC this way, Chilbo Myunok has clearly shown its commitment to making needed changes to policies and practices to ensure equal employment opportunities for all of Chilbo Myunok's employees," said EEOC's Perry.

My website lasorsalaw.com generates many inquires about sexual harassment cases in Illinois and throughout the country. Even though I have videos on the website to walk people through the steps of filing a lawsuit or complaint regarding sexual harassment, people still have many of the same questions. I hope to answer a few here with this general post. The first decision a person must make is whether to file a complaint of sexual harassment with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). With the IDHR, a person has 180 days from the date of the last sexual harassment to file a complaint, with the EEOC the person has 300 days to file a complaint of sexual harassment.

Another factor to consider is whether or not you wish to file a lawsuit in state court, federal court or have an administrative law judge at the Illinois Human Rights Commission ("IHRC") decide your case. Having the IHRC decide the case is the least expensive but may take the longest. Federal court is the quickest route to take but it is also the most difficult, expensive and employment law on the federal level favors employers in my opinion. It is important to discuss all options with attorney Peter LaSorsa and see which one works best for your situation. Sometimes the amount of time since the last date of sexual harassment will dictate which way to proceed. For example if you wait 200 days to contact my office, we will have no choice but to file with the EEOC.

Continue reading "Filing A Sexual Harassment Complaint With The Illinois Department of Human Rights" »

Colleen Vesper filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Gary Moore and the Illinois Thoroughbred Breeders and Owners Foundation. According to the lawsuit Moore and the Foundation made Vesper work in a hostile work environment after she refused Moore's sexual and romantic advances. Vesper had been the business manager of Fairmount Park until she lost her job last year. She claims the underlying sexual harassment issue led to the loss of her employment.

Prior to filing a lawsuit in either federal or state court, a person must first file a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). It is nice to see people stand up and take a position and not let their bosses push them around. We wish Colleen Vesper the best.

Former Kendall County Illinois Sheriff's Department worker Lisa Easi will receive $188,000 to settle her sexual harassment lawsuit against Terry Tichava, the chief deputy in the Kendall County Sheriff's Department. Easi was a twenty year veteran of the department and was Tichava's secretary at the time she was fired.

This case was getting closer to trial and many times the defendant will start to look at the total amount it may have to pay if it losses at trial. Sexual Harassment lawsuits because of their emotional nature can produce large awards. Many times a defendant is not willing to risk the details of all the testimony coming out and the potential of a large jury verdict. With a settlement amount this large, the testimony must have been damaging and there was obviously something of substance to this lawsuit.

In Illinois before you file a sexual harassment lawsuit in fedearl court you must first file a claim of discrimination which includes sexual harassment with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") or the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). If you file with the IDHR they will automatically file with the EEOC.

Two employees of the Elmburst Holiday Inn filed sexual orientation discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). According to public documents in the case, both men received comments from their manager based on their sexual orientation.

Apparently the manager in question is no longer working for the company but that doesn't help the two men. In Illinois complaints of discrimination are filed with either the EEOC or IDHR and if filed with the IDHR, they are cross-filed by that agency automatically with the EEOC. The amount of damages that can be awarded by the IDHR (acutally the Human Rights Commission) are lost back wages, future lost wages, medical expenses, emotional distress, attorney fees and you can ask for reinstatement if you no longer work there.

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") the number of discrimination complaints filed with them related to depression, anxiety and other psychiatric disorders almost doubled between 2005 and 2009. These claims would be filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). These claims can be tough to prove because the person filing the claim must prove their disability substantially impairs their life and that the accommodation they are requesting does not cause an undue burden on the employer. Nationwide in 2009 3,837 ADA complaints were filed. There have been positive court rulings recently that have helped people who file claims under this form of discrimination.

In Illinois aside from filing a claim with the EEOC for ADA discrimination, an employee can also file a claim with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). The IDHR is tasked with investigating discrimination and in this type of case ADA discrimination would most likely violate
Article 5 of the Human Rights Act ("HRA") which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of disability. There are many advantages with filing with the IDHR as opposed to the EEOC. I prefer state court and the IDHR investigates charges in a timely fashion as opposed to the EEOC.

A lawsuit against Rend Lake College was dismissed by a federal judge because the plaintiff Salah Shakir was not able to provide evidence of unlawful activity by the Illinois community college. Shakir claimed discrimination based on national origin by an administrator who retaliated against Shakir because of his Muslim religion and Iraqi roots. The allegation included trying to ensure he would not be able to head the school.

In order to prevail in a lawsuit alleging nation origin discrimination, one would have to prove that but for the fact of the country of origin, the person would have either gotten a promotion, not been fired, or received a raise. If there are other non-discriminatory reasons why the negative job action or lack of positive job action took place, then the plaintiff will not be able to prove the case and it will most likely be dismissed.

“The board constantly strives to ensure that Rend Lake College is welcome to both employees and students of all backgrounds and cultures,” said the school’s attorney, Julie Bruch.

Continue reading "National Origin Discrimination Lawsuit Against Rend Lake College Dismissed" »

In Illinois if a person believes they have been subjected to sexual harassment then can file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") or the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). The following case illustrates one reason why I prefer to file a case with the IDHR as opposed to the EEOC. A federal judge ordered the EEOC to pay $4.56 million in attorneys' fees and expenses to a CRST after dismissing the EEOCs sexual harassment lawsuit. The EEOC filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against CRST on behalf of 270 female drivers. The drivers claim that CRST created a hostile work environment.

The problem for the EEOC was that a Judge ruled against the EEOC and in favor of CRST in a motion for summary judgment thereby dismissing the sexual harassment lawsuit. In federal court, a Judge can award attorney fees to a defendant who wins their motion for summary judgement thereby increasing the risk of litigation for a plaintiff. Another words, if you file a sexual harassment lawsuit in federal court and it is dismissed prior to a jury trial, a Judge could make you pay the attorney fees of the defendant, which in this case were a little more than $4.5 million.

Victims of sexual harassment should consider this ruling before deciding to undertake a lawsuit in federal court because of the potential for paying the attorney fees of the defendant. In Chicago average attorney fees for employment lawyers defending companies can range from $250-$850 per hour.

"The EEOC believes the court's decisions in the case were wrongfully decided and the agency will be appealing," said EEOC Deputy General Counsel James Lee.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") can be faxed instead of filed in person or through the mail. If you have a charge of discrimination, whether based on gender, race, religion or sexual harassment you have to file the charge within 180 with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or 300 days with the EEOC. The IDHR has always allowed for complaints to be filed by fax but the EEOC never recognized fax filings. In Laouini v. CLM Freight Lines, Inc. the Seventh Circuit held that a receipt showing a fax was sent to the EEOC is sufficient to prove the date of filing.

It is always very important to remember that there are very strict time limits to filing a charge of discrimination. You must not procrastonate and let too much time slip away. In some instances an employer may drag out the internal investigation so that by the time you receive the internal findings of the company, more than 180 days has passed and you can't file a charge with the IDHR.

Continue reading "EEOC Complaints Can Be Faxed" »

Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp. will pay $110,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. According to court documents the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleged management and workers made crude remarks about women's bodies, grabbed at one female employees breasts, persistently solicited females for sexual favors and sexually assaulted at least one female employee. When the women cmplained to management in an effort to stop the sexual harassment, the females were either demoted, disciplined or fired--all forms of retaliation.

The lawsuit also alleges that management told some female employees that women should not be in the auto business. This type of behavior is not acceptable and the females stood up for themselves and made management pay. It is very important to document behavior like this and to contact an employment attorney who can file a complaint on your behalf with either the EEOC or in Illinois, the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). The IDHR will cross-file with the EEOC but by law only one agency will take the lead in investigating the complaint.

“The women in this case sought to earn a living selling cars and rightfully expected to do so while being treated with dignity and respect,” said Anna Park, regional attorney for the EEOC.”

Continue reading "Chevrolet Car Dealer Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit With EEOC For $110,000" »

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") settled a retaliation lawsuit with Rock Concrete Construc­tion Corporation for $31,000. In addition Rock Concrete Construction will also provide workers with discrimination training and allow employees access to a company hotline for reporting work place discrimination. The basis of the lawsuit was the company stopped providing work to Eric Bufkin who filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

Details of the lawsuit include Eric Bufkin’s filing a charge of discrimination against a company that Rock Concrete Construction did a good deal of work with. When Rock Concrete Construction found out, they asked Bufkin to drop his charge and told him that if he did not it would impact him in a negative way. Bufkin refused to drop the charge of discrimination he filed with the EEOC and Rock Concrete stopping providing work for him. What Rock Concrete Construction engage in was retaliation. Retaliation occurs when a company threatens you with a negative job action if you file a charge of discrimination or if you won't submit to their demands and drop a charge of discrimination.

“Employers are simply not entitled to punish employees for complaining about discrim­ination,” said Laurie A. Young, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Indianapolis District Office.

Continue reading "EEOC Settles Retaliation Lawsuit With Rock Concrete Construction For $31,000" »

Aaron Rental Inc. which operates more than 1500 stores nationwide settled a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").
According to the lawsuit a general manager of Aaron’s Fairview Heights, Illinois store made sexually explicit comments to a female employer. The young female employee was also solicited for sex on a regular basis by the general manager. The EEOC would not disclose the amount of the settlement which also provides what is known as remedial relief. Remedial relief usually includes training for management and the establishment of a hotline for reporting discrimination.

Also alleged by the EEOC is the manager repeatedly attempted to force the female employee to have sex with him and that the sexual harassment culminated when he assaulted her in the store’s warehouse. Many times older members of management prey upon young female workers because they believe the young workers will not know how to respond to the sexual harassment or will be too afraid to report it. Warehouses are usually isolated and there may not be witnesses around so they could become dangerous places. It is very important to let management know as soon as possible that you are being sexually harassed and seek the advice of an experienced sexual harassment attorney.

Continue reading "Aaron Rentals Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit With EEOC" »

Allstate Insurance company settled an age discrimination lawsuit the the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ('EEOC") for $4,500,000. The lawsuit was filed by the EEOC on behalf of 90 claimants. The EEOC alleged that Allstate violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). Allstate which is based in Illinois is said to have treated a class of older workers negatively during a companywide reorganization. In particular Allstate adopted a plan called Preparing For The Future Reorganization Program. The program was part of Allstate’s reorganization from employee agents to what the company considered independent contractors. That program had a disproportionate impact on employees over the age of 40 because more than 90 percent of the agents subjected to the hiring moratorium were 40 years of age or older.

Of course Allstate denied that its hiring moratorium violated the ADEA, however the $4.5 million dollar settlement says different. Companies cannot institute policies that disproportionately affect older workers. There are many reasons why companies would like to get rid of older workers, namely they can pay younger workers less money, and younger workers are less likely to have large medical bills. Also, younger workers are less likely to challenge the policies of a company.

“We at the EEOC are now bringing more and more lawsuits like this one to challenge company-wide policies or practices which discriminate against a large number of workers,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “Make no mistake: As this settlement shows, we will insist on significant compensation and meaningful injunctive relief to resolve these cases.”

Continue reading "Allstate Pays $4.5 Million To Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Six women who claim they were sexually harassed by Barry Stauffer, a former security guard for Lafayette College settled their sexual harassment lawsuit for $1.2 million. According to the terms of the settlement each women will receive $200,000. All of the women allege they Stauffer grabbed the women's breasts and buttocks, looked inside their shirts, rubbed their shoulders and tried to kiss them. The women also allege Stauffer made sexually lewd comments and sent his co-workers sexually explicit material and pornography by e-mail.

This type of behavior is not acceptable in the work place and more and more of this seems to be taking place in colleges. This case was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on behalf of the six women. The EEOC investigates claims of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination. In Illinois a person who believes they are the victim of sexual harassment can file with the EEOC or the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). Both agencies have the same role, with the EEOC being on the federal level and the IDHR the state level. I prefer to file with the IDHR and have them cross-file with the EEOC.

“In this case, we took immediate action, in accordance with our published procedures, in response to any complaint of sexual harassment that was received. The College has a zero-tolerance policy with respect to sexual harassment" said Roger Clow Lafayette College Spokesman.

Continue reading "Lafayette College Settles Sexual Harassment Lawsuit for $1.2 Million" »

22 female teachers who claimed in a federal lawsuit that they were the victims of gender discrimination settled their lawsuit for a total of about $1 million. $460,000 will go to the teacher and the remainded will cover attorney fees and costs. According to the lawsuit, the female teachers claimed that they were not treated the same as their male counterparts for things like prior teaching experience outside the district which resulted in lower wages.

The teachers are located in the Richland school district in Pennsylvania. This type of behavior is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in Illinois a charge could be brought before the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR.")These types of cases are expensive because discovery is usually need to determine things like the difference in pay between females and males. The good thing about a case like this however is that it is hard to destroy evidence of discrimination because the pay records are things which can't be destroyed and covered up.

A woman, named Jane Doe to protect her identity, sued the University of Nebraska alleging she was fired because she is a witch. In her religious discrimination lawsuit she alleges she was hired directing the youth program and did her job satisfactory but an associate dean terminated her after learning she was a witch. The University agreed to settle the lawsuit for $40,000 without admitting liability. This type of discrimination violates an employees constitutional rights.

The case was fired filed with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission ("NEOC") which is similar in Illinois to the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"). Jane Doe alleged the University of Nebraska violated her free speech and freedom of expression rights as well as her freedom to practice the religion of her choice. The NEOC found reasonable cause to believe religious discrimination had taken place in this case.

Continue reading "University of Nebraska Woman Fired For Being A Witch Turns Broom on School and Receives $40,000" »

Massey Energy and its subsidiary Spartan Mining Company settled a lawsuit alleging age discrimination for $8.75 million. The lawsuit was a class action led by five minors who alleged that Massey failed to hire workers over 40 years old in violation of the West Virginia Human Rights Act. In all the lawsuit involved more than 200 job applicants. Under the terms of the settlement, 82 miners will each receive $38,000 in back pay and general compensatory damages with 141 job applicants each receiving $19,000.

In Illinois charges of age discrimination can be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). I file charges with both agencies but prefer to file with the IDHR because I believe the state investigates better and in a more timely fashion. Many times a company that engages in this type of behavior does it on a large scale.

Continue reading "Massey Energy Pays $8.75 Million To Settle Age Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Kathy Rogers and Lisa Theberge who are two female firefighters filed a lawsuit against Westbrook's fire department, mayor and city administrator, claiming they failed to address sexual harassment that was documented in complaints to the Maine Human Rights Commission ("MHRC"). The MHRC is similar to the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") and is where I file most of my sexual harassment complaints. Both women are on paid administrative leave and are alleging obscene sexual harassment and discriminatory behavior in their lawsuit.

According to the allegations in the lawsuit several male firefighters, including the deputy chief, lieutenants and captains, engaged in incidents ranging from masturbation and pornography at the station to a sexual affair and sex at a fire department gathering. In one particular instance it is alleged that the deputy chief once approached Theberge and began stroking her hair. He was put on unpaid administrative leave for two weeks and, the lawsuit says, ''allowed to take it a day each week for his convenience.'' Some male firefighters groped female victims in the rescue vehicle and bragged about it afterwards. They were put on unpaid administrative leave for two weeks, discipline that Webber, one of the attorney's for the two firefighters called ''disproportionate to their conduct.''

''Sexual harassment is alive and well in the city of Westbrook at a level that's shocking to imagine,'' Webber said.

Continue reading "Firefighters File Sexual Harassment Lawsuit" »

Melvine Davis filed a charge of sexual harassment against her former employer, the House of Gyros, Inc., with the Decatur Human Relations Commission in 2007. In many towns you can file a complaint with the local commission as opposed to the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("

The House of Gyros appealed the decision to the Macon County Circuit Court seeking a reversal of the Commission’s decision which the Judge did. That decision was appealed and the Illinois Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court and reinstated the $17,400 award by the City’s Human Relations Commission.

“Our only goal with this case was to see that justice was served and we believe that it was,” said Barthelemy.

Continue reading "House Of Gyros Ordered to Pay $17,400 In Sexual Harassment Case" »

Tomayo Financial Services, based in Chicago Illinois was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for sexual harassment and retaliation. Tomayo has four offices in Chicago and is a mortgage lending organization. According to the lawsuit female employees were sexually harassed and subjected to retaliation when they complained about the sexual harassment.

The EEOC claims numerous men employed at Tomayo, including executives, were part of continuous and widespread sexual harassment of women. The men referred to women with sexual epithets, engaged in threatening physical and verbal sexual conduct. The women reported the sexual harassment but nothing was done by Tomayo to stop the conduct and it only increased.

John Hendrickson, EEOC regional attorney for the Chicago District, said, “It does not matter what industry is involved—whether it’s automobiles, household products, mortgages—sexual harassment and retaliation are non-starters from both a business and a legal perspective.

Continue reading "Chicago's Tomayo Financial Services Sued For Sexual Harassment" »

The Illinois Human Rights Act ("IHRA") also known as, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 will now offer protection to individuals who have an order of protection. Starting at the first of the year it will be considered unlawful discrimination, based on order of protection status, to take any negative job action on an individual if they have an order of protection and there is no legitimate business reason for the negative job action.

This new law adds order of protection status to the current protected classifications of religion, age, race, national origin, gender, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, military status, and unfavorable discharge from military service. The initial charge would be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights in either Chicago or Springfield.

Continue reading "New Illinois Law Takes Affect January 1, 2010 Adding Additional Discrimination Protections" »

Four female doctors alleged sexual harassment by Medical Superintendent Dr. Vinod Kumar of Gandhi Nagar Hospital. Some inside the hospital believe the sexual harassment complaint was filed because the hospital and in particular Dr. Kumar have been very strict with the doctors regarding employment issues. To date not many facts have been alleged and both sides seem to be keeping tight lipped.

In Illinois allegations of sexual harassment must be filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The complaint must be filed within 180 days and 300 days respectively. It is very important to speak with an attorney early to make sure you don't miss those important periods.

“We don’t believe that Dr Vinod can do such an act” an old female employee of the Hospital on the condition of anonymity.

Continue reading "Four Female Doctors Sue Hospital For Sexual Harassment" »

Under the Illinois Human Rights Act 775 ILCS 5/2-102(D)), sexual harassment in Illinois is any unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature is sexual harassment when:
1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment;
2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for an employment decision affecting such individual; or
3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with the employee’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

There are two basic types of sexual harassment: Hostile Work Environment and Quid Pro Quo.

A hostile work environment is created when unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other type of conduct of a sexual nature that is intimidating, offensive or hostile substantially interferes with a person’s work performance. Examples of hostile environment sexual harassment, include, but are not limited to: unwanted deliberate or repeated sexual behavior; sexually suggestive objects, signs, or pictures; unwelcome sexual gestures, touching, or pinching; sexual innuendos or stories; unwelcome hugging, kissing, patting, or stroking; unwelcome sexual teasing, telephone calls, or materials of a sexual nature.

Quid pro quo means “something for something”. Quid pro quo sexual harassment occurs when submission to unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or any conduct of a sexual nature is made, explicitly or implicitly, a condition of employment or promotion. Examples of quid pro quo sexual harassment include, but are not limited to: suggesting to an individual that it is possible to be hired, promoted, or be advanced in the job if that person allows sexual favors; asking a person to submit to unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors as a condition of hiring, promotion, or advancement in the job; denying hire, promotion, or advancement in the job because the person has refused dates, sexual advances, or requests for sexual favors.

The Flordia State Attorney’s Office settled three sexual harassment lawsuits for $75,000 each for a total of $225,000. The three women, Brenda Keys, Gena Duncan and Barbara Chase alleged that former State Attorney Steve Meadows sexually harassed and retaliated against them because of their complaints. Meadows is no longer the State's attorney as he was defeated in last Novembers election.

Keys’ and Duncan’s claims were investigated by the Florda State Human Relations Commission ("FSHRC") last year, which found evidence to support their allegations and cleared the way for the lawsuits to be filed. The commission’s investigative report mentioned Chase, which allowed her to also file her own lawsuit. The FSHRC is analagous to the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") in that it investigates claims of employment discrimination and determines if there is substantial evidence to allow the employee to file with either the state court or Illinois Human Rights Commission for trial.

“We looked at the individual claims, the HRC report and things we learned as we were investigating these claims,” Hess said. “We felt that the claim of a sexually oppressive workplace was going to be difficult to defend. We reached a settlement that we felt was fair to those women in the harassment claims and which we could live with.”

Continue reading "Florida Settles Three Sexual Harassment Lawsuits For $225,000" »

Laura Valenziano an 18 year employee of United Healtcare filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") against United Healtcare alleging they discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation and also that they retaliated against her for reporting the discriminatory conduct of her manager. It all started when Valenziano received a new manager and met the manager in person. The new manager began to make inquiries into Valenziano's personal life and ask about her female partner. After these non-job related inquires, Valenziano began to be treated different.

As reported in the Windy City Times, "within two weeks of the performance review, Valenziano was put on corrective action, which meant that she had 30 days to improve whatever had been listed on her evaluation as poor or she faced termination. The mention of a demotion was removed from the copy of the evaluation she received after protesting the corrective action." This is usually how discrimination in the workplace happens. The manager will start to put the employee on some sort of "corrective action" or "improvement plan", shortly after the employee complains about discriminatory conduct.

“It was one of the worst performance evaluations I've ever had. Along with that I received the largest bonus I've ever received,” said Valenziano. “The evaluation mentioned my devotion to the job.”

Continue reading "United Healthcare Sued For Sexual Orientation Discrimination" »

Although the title suggests damages in a sexual harassment case, these damages are also available in most discrimination cases.
1. Economic Damages--consist of back and front pay plus incidentals. Included in this calculation are benefits. Back pay is the amount of money equal to wages an employee would have earned, including all benefits from the date of discharge through the date of final judgment. Front pay is an amount of money equal to wages and benefits the employee will lose in the future because of a lower paying job or no job at all. Incidentals may be relocation costs, education costs for retraining and costs for tools if required at a new position.

2. Emotional Distress Damages--There is new specific formula for this calculation and there are many factors to consider including, the credibility of the employee, length of employment, believeability of witnesses, prior or pre-existing similar injuries, nature and extent of counseling or other medical treatment, and strength of the underlying case.

3. Punitive Damages--Under Title VII and ADA violations punitive damages may be awarded. In order to recover the employee must prove the employer engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the employee, but also that liability for the punitive damages should be imputed to the employer.

4. Attorneys' Fees--All federal anti discrimination statutes and those in Illinois provide for the recovery of attorney fees by the prevailing party. Discretion as to the amount is up to the Judge.

Continue reading "Damages In A Sexual Harassment Case" »

I recently came across a sexual harassment case involving a multi-international company who does business in Illinois. The Illinois employee was required to sign various documents as part of the employment process, including a document whereby the employee was giving up her rights to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") and instead agreeing to go through mediation with some third party. Of course the employee did not have an opportunity to negotiate this issue and in fact it was a "take it" or "leave it" approach by the company. Either sign all the documents in front of you or work somewhere else.

I believe this policy is unconstitutional, in clear violation of both state and federal law and may afford employees of this company additional causes of action against the corporation including fraud, violation of 740 ILCS 23 the Illinois Civil Rights Act of 2003, and violation of the Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 among others.

For example in Illinois the five elements of fraud are:

1. A material misrepresentation of a presently exisiting or past fact;
2. Knowledge by the defendant of its falsity or a reckless disregard as to whether it is true or false;
3. Intention that the other person rely on the statement;
4. Justifiable or reasonable reliance thereon by the other person; and
5. Resulting damage.

Clearly, subjecting an employee to sign away his/her rights is a misrepresentation and against the public policy of Illinois. If you have been forced to sign such an agreement you may have a remedy against your employer.

The Illinois Supreme Court in Blount v. Stroud, 2009 WL 153862 ( Ill Sup Ct. 2009), rules the Illinois Human Rights Act does not stop a party from filing an employment or civil rights action in state court. The Court held that the Department of Human Rights and the Illinois Human Rights Commission only administer the Illinois Human Rights Act not federal law. The case involved Jerri Blout who filed a multi-count complaint in Cook County alleging retaliation under 42 USC Section 1981 and a common law claim of retaliation. The gist of her claim was that her employer wanted her to perjure herself in a discrimination case they were involved in and when she would not, she was fired. A jury awarded her $3 million plu $1 million in attorney fees and costs.

This case is good for plaintiffs as it gives one more arrow in their quiver against employers who discriminate against them and subject them to retaliation and other forms of discrimination.

Blount's lead attorney Robin Potter said " this case is monumental, particularly given the 2007 amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act that now permits those claims to be adjudicated in state court."

The Illinois Supreme Court held in Blount v. Stroud, 2009 WL 153862 (Ill Sup Ct. 2009) that the Illinois Human Rights Act ("Act") doesn't preclude employees who file a claim under the Human Rights Act from bringing other claims based on common law, or federal statutes in state court.

Background

Jerri Blount filed a multicount complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against her former employer Jovon Broadcasting Corporation and the owner and general manager. The two counts of interest to his analysis were her common law retaliatory discharge and retaliation under 42 USC Section 1981. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss claiming the Act precluded her from filing in the circuit court. The court rejected the motion to dismiss and she was ultimately awarded over $3 million dollars by a jury. The appellate court reversed holding the Act deprives Illinois Courts of subject matter jurisdiction. The Illinois Supreme Court heard the case and ruled that whether facts giving rise to a civil rights violation as defined under state law might also give rise to a civil rights violation under definitions found in federal statutes was not relevant and Blount had a right to pursue her claim under federal law in state circuit court.

Stephanie Chiafos, a former employee of St. Paul restaurant supplier Restaurant Depot has accused two of her former supervisors of sexual harassment in an eleven page lawsuit filed in federal court. The lawsuit alleges that when one supervisor, John Ruhulessin was fired after having a number of complaints made against him by female employees, the man who temporarily replaced him , Tommie Brown continued the sexual harassment. Chiafos alleges the replacement supervisor even sexually assaulted her while on the job.

According to the lawsuit, the company did not take the accusations being made against the first supervisor serious until Chiafos hired an attorney. The lawsuit was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Minnesota Human Rights Act and based on negligent supervision and retention. The Minnesota Human Rights Act is analogous to the Illinois Human Rights Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Brown put his hand down the front of Chiafos's shirt, touched her breasts, and made propositions for oral sex. In fact, according to the lawsuit, on the day Brown fired Ruhulessin for his inappropriate sexual comments, Brown told Chiafos

"blow him for lunch" because he had a bad headache from having to fire Ruhulessin.

A complete copy of the lawsuit is available by clicking on 09-cv-00499

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Restaurant Depot" »

According to the lawsuit Captain Ed Murray, 63, sent an explicit text to 29-year-old Rachel Quinn after they travelled together on a business trip. Quinn said she was reading a book in her hotel when she received the message in which Murray said:

"I cannot wait for you to go down on me."

Quinn said she was unfairly fired from her job with the private charter jet company Gama and that she had been a victim of sexual harassment and retaliation. Tribunal chairman Keith Bryant rejected both of Quinn's claims saying the court could not consider the sexual harassment claim because it had been made more than three months after the alleged incidents.

This was a United Kingdom case, in Illinois an employee has 180 days to file a sexual harassment complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights or 300 days to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. As you can see from the case above, waiting too long can be fatal to a good case.

The Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") act that bans sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination went into effect three years ago and here is an update on the act. According to the Director of IDHR Rocco Claps, a snapshot of fiscal year ‘09 ( from July ‘08 to today ) , shows there have been 89 sexual-orientation charges and, of those, 11 are related to gender identity, 2 based on bisexual, 67 on homosexualality, 2 on heterosexuality and 3 based on perceived orientation.

In Illinois, the IDHR investigates charges of sexual harassment, as well as sexual-orientation. Known as Public Act 093-1078 the new act makes it is unlawful in Illinois to discrimination on the basis of sex, age, race, gender, sexual harassment, sexual orientation, and religion. The other basis of discrimination besides employment include real-estate transactions; public accommodations; sexual harassment in higher education; and financial credit.

Continue reading "Illinois Human Rights Act Amendment That Bans Sexual-Orientation and Gender-Identity Discrimination: Three Years Later" »

A former Ambassador East Hotel worker Juana Sallis ("Sallis") filed a complaint against Defendant Portfolio Ambassador East, LLC, ("Portfolio"), owner of the Ambassador Hotel in Chicago, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment while employed at the Ambassador East Hotel in Chicago when she was sexually harassed by two supervisors in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); and that Portfolio discharged her in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 because she complained about the sexual harassment.

According to her complaint Sallis was employed as a housekeeper at the Ambassador East Hotel in Chicago, Illinois, since May 3, 2000, and had satisfactorily performed the duties of her job. On November 23, 2005, Sallis was notified by a co-worker that another employee, Larry Cason, accused her of engaging in sexual acts with him. Sallis reported the incident to human resources director Elvia Munoz. Munoz and other members of the hotel management staff, including general manager Paul Lauritzen and executive housekeeper Bill Smith, "failed to take any action against Cason to have him cease and desist from engaging in his sexually offensive and derogatory behavior. Sallis alleges that as a result her work environment became hostile, egregious, outrageous, and offensive and severely affected her ability to perform the essential duties of her job.

On December 30, 2005, Sallis was discharged from her job as a housekeeper at the Ambassador East Hotel by Paul Lauritizen, Bill Smith, and Portfolio human resources director Linda Noriega. Sallis was told she was being discharged because she left work early on December 23, 2005. Plaintiff did not receive any documentation validating the reason for her discharge. On April 4, 2006, Sallis filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). On March 1, 2007, the EEOC issued a "right to sue" letter authorizing Sallis to sue under Title VII within ninety days. Sallis filed her lawsuit against Portfolio on May 24, 2007 and it is still pending.

Continue reading "Illinois Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Filed Against Ambassador East Hotel in Chicago" »

After a verified answer is received by the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"), the investigator from the IDHR will call and schedule a client interview. The interview will either take place at the Thompson Center in Chicago, the Springfield Office or via telephone. The Complainant is allowed to have her attorney present during the client interview although the attorney is there to advise not to answer questions. Having a skilled sexual harassment lawyer present during the interview can mean the difference between a successful and unsuccessful case.

The purpose of the client interview is for the investigator from the IDHR to learn about the case. The investigator wants a first person account of what happened, who witnessed what happened, who if any you reported the harassment to and the location of documents or other witnesses that may help the investigator obtain a complete picture of what took place.

It is important for the complainant and attorney to work together to make sure any names, location of documents or other relevant information are gathered and given to the investigator during the client interview. As the investigator has the ability to require the employer to produce documents and witnesses at the fact-finding conference, it is extremely important to get all of the information to the investigator at or prior to the client interview.

Continue reading "Illinois Department of Human Rights Client Interview" »

Once a charge is filed with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"), and the company is served with the charge and responds a client interview will be conducted. After the interview a fact-finding conference will be conducted by the investigator for the IDHR and will include the

Complainant and her attorney, the Respondent and their attorney and any witnesses that the investigator wishes to invite.

All documents or other non-testimonial evidence submitted by any party in support of their position must be submitted to the investigator prior to the fact finding conference.
At the conference, any party may be accompanied by an attorney, however the attorney is not allowed to ask questions directly as the fact finding conference is not an adversarial proceeding.

The attorney may only advise his client at the proceeding. Investigators however will allow the attorney to write questions and pass them to the investigator. If the investigator deems the question relevant, the investigator may ask it.

As of November 1, 2001, the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR") has been under a federal-court injuction that among other things, orders the IDHR to "cease permanently from relying on credibility determinations made without affording the rights of confrontation and cross-examination." Cooper v. Salazar, 98 C 2930 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois at page 26. This case was followed closely by Illinois Sexual Harassment lawyers.

The purpose of the injuction is to deny the Department the ability to assess the credibility of witnesses where there is conflicting testimony. This applies to all witnesses whether they are for the complainant or respondent. In short, if the determination of substantial evidence turns on issues of credibility, the IDHR must make a finding of substantial evidence so the trier of fact may resolve the issue of credibility.

The Illinois Human Rights Act defines substantial evidence as "evidence which a reasonable mind accepts as sufficient to support a particular conclusion and which consists of more than a mere scintilla but may be somewhat less than a preponderance." 775 ILCS 5/7A-102(D)(2).

Conflicting evidence exists when there are statements of a person with material first hand knowledge contradicted by statements of a different person with marerial first hand knowledge; or business records contradicted or oral statements of a person with material first hand knowledge; or business records of one person contradicted by business records of another person.

Continue reading "The Illinois Cooper v. Salazar Injunction: A Relief for Illinois Sexual Harassment Lawyers" »

Since 2001 the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR")has been under a federal-court injunction that among other things orders the IDHR to "cease permanently from relying on credibility determinations made without affording the rights of confrontation and cross-examination."

Previously, the IDHR would make a finding of lack of substantial evidence based on its' investigation which would include interviewing witnesses during the fact finding conference or interviewing witnesses via telephone. The complainant and their attorney were not allowed to cross examine the witnesses during the fact finding conference and were not even allowed to participate when the investigator interviewed witnesses on the telephone.

In 2001 the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Cooper v. Salazar, addressed the issue of lack of the ability of complainant to cross examine witnesses and ordered the IDHR to not make credibility of witness determinations. In short, if there is conflicting evidence, the investigator for the IDHR must find substaintial evidence and allow the case to move forward to the Human Rights Commission for trial or with the local circuit court for trial.

Continue reading "Federal-Court Injunction Regarding the Illinois Department of Human Rights" »