<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Illinois Sexual Harassment Attorney Blog</title>
      <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/</link>
      <description>Published by Peter M. LaSorsa   </description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:23:07 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=3.33</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>Two Illinois Holiday Inn Employees File Discrimination Lawsuit</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Two employees of the Elmburst Holiday Inn filed <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1463238.html"target="_blank">sexual orientation </a>discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("<a href="http://EEOC.gov"target="_blank">EEOC</a>") and Illinois Department of Human Rights ("<a href="http://www.state.il.us/dhr/"target="_blank">IDHR</a>").  According to public documents in the case, both men received comments from their manager based on their sexual orientation.</p>

<p>Apparently the manager in question is no longer working for the company but that doesn't help the two men.  In Illinois complaints of <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093268.html"target="_blank">discrimination</a> 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.<br />
</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2010/03/two_illinois_holiday_inn_emplo.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2010/03/two_illinois_holiday_inn_emplo.html</guid>
         <category>Sexual Orientation</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2010 09:23:07 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>EEOC Report Shows Increase in Discrimination Lawsuits</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("<a href="http://EEOC.gov"target="_blank">EEOC</a>") released its' report for 2008 and it shwos there were 16,752 complaints alleging employment discrimination– up 2.4 percent from the prior year. These complaints are allegations against government agencies only and do not include complaints against private companies.  The complaints were filed against federal agencies on the basis of <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093473.html"target="_blank">retaliation</a>, <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093479.html"target="_blank">gender</a>, race, national origin, religion and age. </p>

<p>Other interesting statistics in the report include of 7,538 cases closed on the merits, 2.5% resulted in findings of unlawful discrimination. Both parties entered into settlements in 19.5 % or 3,249 complaints. Agencies awarded a total of over $50 million in monetary benefits to complainants for unlawful discrimination.</p>

<blockquote>“Federal agencies must step up their efforts to improve complaint processing time, while also focusing on quality results,” said EEOC Acting Chairman Stuart J. Ishimaru. “</blockquote>
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/09/eeoc_report_shows_increase_in.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/09/eeoc_report_shows_increase_in.html</guid>
         <category>EEOC</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 11:48:45 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>New Illinois Law Takes Affect January 1, 2010 Adding Additional Discrimination Protections</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>The Illinois Human Rights Act ("<a href="http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2266&ChapAct=775%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A05/&ChapterID=64&ChapterName=HUMAN+RIGHTS&ActName=Illinois+Human+Rights+Act."target="_blank">IHRA</a>") 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.</p>

<p>This new law adds order of protection status to the current protected classifications of religion, <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093266.html"target="_blank">age</a>, race, national origin, <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093479.html"target="_blank">gender</a>, marital status, disability, <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1463238.html"target="_blank">sexual orientation</a>, 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.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/09/new_illinois_law_takes_affect_1.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/09/new_illinois_law_takes_affect_1.html</guid>
         <category>Illinois Department Human Rights</category>
         <pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 11:28:20 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>United Healthcare Sued For Sexual Orientation Discrimination</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Laura Valenziano an 18 year employee of United Healtcare filed a complaint with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("<a href="http://www.state.il.us/dhr/index.htm"target="_blank">IDHR</a>") against United Healtcare alleging they discriminated against her based on her <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093272.html"target="_blank">sexual orientation </a>and also that they <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093473.html"target="_blank">retaliated</a> 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.</p>

<p>As reported in the <a href="http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=21800"target="_blank">Windy City Times</a>, "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.  </p>

<blockquote>“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.”</blockquote>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/07/united_healthcare_sued_for_sex.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/07/united_healthcare_sued_for_sex.html</guid>
         <category>Sexual Orientation</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:50:15 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Hayward Police Department Settles Gender and Sexual Orientation Lawsuit For $5 Million</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>Fourteen female Hayward police officers said they had faced systematic harassment based on their <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093479.html"target="_blank">gender</a> or sexual orientation announced today the case has been settled for nearly $5 million.  The lawsuit stated that women were subjected to sexual harassment and those who accepted such advances were favored for promotions, and that a rumor mill churned out demeaning stories about female officers having sexual relations with multiple men in the department, often men whose advances had been rebuffed.</p>

<p>Lesbian officers were seen as targets for "conversion," the suit stated. Harassment against one officer included making her privy to a videotape that showed her husband, also an officer, having sex with a dispatcher.  The women claimed that those who complained about the workplace conditions were <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093473.html"target="_blank">retaliated</a> against via demotions or denial of promotion, and in four cases were fired.</p>

<blockquote>Casper said the amount of the settlement indicated the insurance companies "recognized the problems the city has historically had with women being treated fairly at the police department. Close to $5 million is not an amount paid unless someone has recognized years of wrongdoing."</blockquote>
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/07/haywood_police_department_sett.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/07/haywood_police_department_sett.html</guid>
         <category>Sexual Orientation</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:32:50 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>United States Supreme Court Gives Union Workers The Shaft</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>The United States Supreme Court in <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-581.pdf"target="_blank">14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett</a>, 129 S. Ct. 1456 (2009) by a 5-4 vote held that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement ("Agreement") which clearly and unmistakeably requires employees to arbitrate their statutory discrimination claims is enforceable and precludes employees from asserting their statutory claims in state or federal courts.  In laymans terms what this means is that if you are in a union and through bargaining the union agrees to settle all employment claims through arbitration, your sole remedy as a union employee is to arbitrate the claim.  You will be forever barred from filing a claim in any federal or state court.  </p>

<p>This decision does not affect employees who are not in a union as they have not bargained through their representatives the terms of their employment.  The types of claims involved could include <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093481.html"target="_blank">sexual harassment</a>, gender discrimination, <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093266.html"target="_blank">age discrimination</a>,<a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093469.html"target="_blank"> racial discrimination</a>. Americans with Disabilities, age discrimination, religious discrimination, retaliation claims and sexual orientations claims.  </p>

<p>The Court did hold that the Agreement to arbitrate must be "clear and unmistakable".  One issue the Court did not address is what happens if the Union does not take the employees claim to arbitration?  There are two ways to interpert the Court's decision in Pyett, one the employee would have no further remedy or in that case the employee court take the case to state or federal court, however the latter seems less likely under Pyett.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/06/united_states_supreme_court_gi.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/06/united_states_supreme_court_gi.html</guid>
         <category>Employment Discrimination</category>
         <pubDate>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:08:37 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>California School Settles Sexual Orientation Discrimination Claims By Lesbian Student for $25,000</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>A lesbian student's complaint that teachers harassed her over her sexual orientation has led to a California school agreeing to pay the student $25,000 and revamp the schools anti-discrimination policies.  The student, Rochelle Hamilton, now 16, was a sophomore at Jesse Bethel High School in the fall of 2007, when teachers allegedly verbally harassed her and forced her to attend a counseling session for gay students. Gill said the counselor tried to discourage Hamilton and other students in the session from being gay.  Hamilton's standard dress was stereotypically male, with baggy jeans.  This is a form of <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093477.html"target="_blank">school sexual harassment</a>.</p>

<p>The alleged harassment included a staff member telling Hamilton she was "ungodly" and "going to hell" as she embraced her then-girlfriend. The alleged comments transformed the "social butterfly" into a teenager on the verge of suicide, according Hamilton's mother.  Hamilton, who came out as a lesbian when she was 13, said Monday she became depressed because of daily negative comments from teachers and staff about her sexual orientation and her appearance.  Hamilton complained to school officials but nothing was done to stop the harassment.  Hamilton's grades suffered and her social life suffered as a result of the harassment.</p>

<blockquote>According to a letter dated Jan. 17, 2008, from the ACLU to Bull, staff members made comments to the girl such as, "Remember, you're a girl, not a boy," and, "You can get HIV/AIDS from being gay and messing with females."</blockquote>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/05/california_school_settles_sexu.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/05/california_school_settles_sexu.html</guid>
         <category>Sexual Orientation</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 10:36:34 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Illinois Supreme Court Update--Illinois Human Rights Act Doesn&apos;t Bar Federal and State Claims</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>The <a href="http://www.state.il.us/court/"target="_blank">Illinois Supreme Court </a>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.</p>

<p><strong>Background</strong></p>

<p>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 <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1093473.html"target="_blank">retaliation</a> 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.</p>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/04/illinois_supreme_court_updatei.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/04/illinois_supreme_court_updatei.html</guid>
         <category>Age Discrimination</category>
         <pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:01:03 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Gay employee files discrimination lawsuit against Easton Hospital</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<p>A Lower Saucon Township woman, Suzanne Cornish, filed a civil lawsuit against Easton Hospital claiming she was targeted by her superiors because of her sexual orientation and subsequently fired, according to her lawsuit. Cornish claims because she is gay she was harassed at work and hospital officials attempted to coerce her resignation through a "campaign of harassment", which constituted a <a href="http://www.lasorsalaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1402443.html"target="_blank">hostile work environment</a>.</p>

<p>Cornish who worked at the hospital in Wilson Borough as the director of the cardiology pulmonary unit, filed the lawsuit in federal court last week seeking lost salary, damages and attorney fees and to have her position reinstated, according to court records.  Cornish alleges hospital officials found out about her sexuality at the end of May 2008 and she was fired Oct. 31. Cornish also claims she was given inaccurate performance reviews that led to her firing according to the <a href="http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/index.ssf?/base/news-0/123614311629920.xml&coll=3"target="_blank">Lehigh Valley News</a>.</p>

<p> </p>]]></description>
         <link>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/04/gay_employee_files_discriminat.html</link>
         <guid>http://www.illinoissexualharassmentattorneyblog.com/2009/04/gay_employee_files_discriminat.html</guid>
         <category>Sexual Orientation</category>
         <pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 08:03:33 -0600</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
