Las Vegas Injury Lawyers Blog

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Nevada Fair Employment Practices Act (NV Rev. Stat. Sec. 613.310et seq.), Las Vegas employers with 15 or more employees may not discriminate against their employees on the basis of sex or sexual orientation/stereotyping. As of October 2011, Las Vegas employers also are prohibited from discriminating based on gender identity. For federal and state purposes, sexual harassment is sex discrimination. Two of the biggest obstacles in any sexual harassment case are 1) defining what sexual harassment is, and 2) sufficiently proving that sexual harassment occurred.

What is Sexual Harassment?
"I know it when I see it." These words, uttered by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in describing his test to determine what is and is not pornography, can also be aptly applied in describing sexual harassment - the person allegedly harassed knows it when they see or feel offended.

The victim can be the person directly harassed, or someone offended by the conduct. Additionally, the harasser can be a fellow employee - supervisor or co-worker - or someone who has a business relationship with the employer - agent or client.

Generally acts of sexual harassment fall into two categories:

Quid Pro Quo: A person in a position of power makes sexual demands on another person by or through direct or overt pressure.

Hostile environment: The work environment allows unwelcome sexual behavior that creates an offensive, hostile, or intimidating workplace, affects the victim's employment, or unreasonably interferes with the victim's work performance.

Sexual harassment generally includes the following type of behavior:
1) sexist statements or behavior that insult or degrade one's gender; for instance, making sexual comments about another person's body parts or appearance, telling lewd jokes, or divulging sexual anecdotes.
2) unwelcomed or inappropriate physical or verbal seductive behavior, such as sharing or posting sexually inappropriate images, making sexual gestures, touching, or asking questions about one's sexual history or orientation.
3) sexual bribery or coercion, which includes a promise of reward for engaging in or threat of punishment for not engaging in a sexual activity.

Proving Sexual Harassment
The burden of proof to prove sexual harassment occurs is always initially with the alleged victim. In addition to showing an act or acts of sexual harassment occurred, the victim must also demonstrate that they are part of a class protected against sexual harassment, a complaint (preferably in writing) was appropriately made to management or followed the employer's stated chain of command in such situations, and that the employer failed to act on the complaint. Once the victim meets this burden, to avoid damages, a Las Vegas employer must show the complained upon acts did not constitute harassment or were not sexual in nature, the victim was not a member of a protected class, no or an insufficient complaint was made, and the Las Vegas employer properly acted on the complaint.

While sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim, economic injury - firing, suspension, demotion, and relocation - and other forms of retaliation -ostracization, coworker harassment, and undesirable changes to job duties - towards the victim are also prohibited. A separate cause of action for retaliation is available to the victim, and if proven, can strengthen the victim's sexual harassment case.

Continue reading "Sexual Harassment is Sexual Discrimination" »

Written By Las Vegas based Law Clerk: Robert Maxey (Las Vegas, Nevada)

"Equal pay for equal work" has been the mantra for woman's work since the start of the feminist movement. In our current world, women are still making less than men for the same type of work. Women are only earning 77.5 cents for every dollar a man earns. Further, women who work harder to receive higher education levels actually have even more of a disparity in wages earned compared with men. This obviously doesn't seem fair when we have such a long history in our country fighting for what is right and just in the world. What is an even more staggering statistic is that in 99% of all occupations a woman has to choose from, they will make less than men.

These kinds of statistics and facts seem to fly in the face of reason and good faith. Recently within the city of Detroit, allegations have been made against the Detroit Water and Sewage Department on sex discrimination. The former director, Pamela Turner, had earned a salary of $130,000 when she first started working there. Although this seems like a healthy salary, she was in fact making approximately $100,000 less than the previous two directors who were male.

Turner, after receiving recognition for her hard work and pushing for a pay increase, was eventually was given a raise to $155,000. Despite this raise, it still paled in comparison to the $240,000 that her predecessors made. She eventually put in her resignation allegedly due to the refusal of the city to compensate her adequately. She claims that, after her resignation, the city has posted listings for her replacement at a compensation of $230,000.

That alleged facts of this case are indeed shocking. To this writer, it seems like an obvious case of sex discrimination; former and future heads of the department will be making around the same amount of money while Turner was paid considerably less. When they attempted to give her a raise, it was a paltry amount, possibly to appease her desire for equal pay.

The government and state agencies should always be leading the way in fair employment practices. Additionally, we hold the officials of our cities to a stricter code because we expect that as keepers of the city they will follow our laws. If people perform equal work then they should be receiving equal pay. To hold similar work to different standards, solely because of the sex of the person performing the work, deteriorates our system. If people are treated fairly, they will usually be happier than if they are discriminated against and happier workers are more productive. The system works as long as we work within the system.

A full article can be found here: Former Detroit water chief sues city, alleging pay discrimination

Continue reading "Equal Pay for Equal Work" »

Written By Las Vegas based Law Clerk: Robert Maxey (Las Vegas, Nevada)

In Las Vegas, we are guaranteed the right to work. At first this may seem like a readily accepted idea but when considering many countries prevent people from working, on the basis of discrimination, the reality of our privilege sinks in. We have progressive laws that allow individuals the liberty to pursue work and happiness. In Nevada, equity is a cardinal principal and treating others with the same respect, as everyone else, is essential. We may not all be born of the same race, religion or economic background but we interact on a level playing field.

The Nevada Department of Employment and Training, along with the EEOC, is like a referee patrolling this playing field and guaranteeing the rights of workers. When Nevada and federal authorities come across illegal practices, they intervene and step in to give Las Vegans a fair chance at enforcing their rights. Recently the EEOC hit a grand slam with its largest settlement regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act against Verizon Communications. Verizon has agreed to pay $20,000,000 in order to dismiss claims made against it by the EEOC.

Verizon has been firing employees who accrued a certain number of missed days a year regardless of the cause or reason. The system Verizon implemented was structured so that employees would earn a certain number of points on each absence. Once an employee had received so many points they were eligible for disciplinary action or termination. However, the EEOC says that such a policy is too broad and does not accommodate for individuals with disabilities. Verizon replied to the suit by saying it was settling to avoid further legal costs and that it feels it went above what was expected by law in its policy. It also said it would incorporate the concerns of the EEOC into its new company policy.

This is not at all uncommon in the field of law where it is not necessary to know the law in order to be found guilty of violating it. Verizon alleged that it intended to develop a generous absentee program for its employees allowing them more flexibility. Despite this avowed intention, the company was pursued for allegedly not addressing the needs of the hundreds of disabled employees who were fired due to the policy.

Every business requires some sort of oversight and accountability. The job of the Nevada Department of Employment and Training and the EEOC has guaranteed the rights of hundreds of thousands of workers who work for Verizon Communication. This however, would not have been possible had a couple employees from Maryland not filed charges. Your rights are important and legal counsel should always be sought when justice is at stake.

A full article can be found here: Verizon to pay $20 million to settle discrimination suit

Continue reading "Verizon Communications Pays $20,000,000 for Violating the Americans with Disabilities Act" »

Written By a Law Clerk for Parker Scheer Lagomarsino: Robert Maxey

The reason corruption is so lethal is because its premise is in direct opposition with the foundation of government. Governments serve the people whereas corruption is self-serving. The conflict of interest is obvious. In economics, growth and prosperity within a country is often tied to what is called the rule of law. The rule of law means that no one is above the law and the enforcement of it relies heavily upon how corrupt, apathetic or negligent a country is in enforcing its laws. It is therefore that an act of corruption is not just a moral tragedy but is in fact an attack on our purses and our prosperity. With an economic and moral interest in mind, the need to preserve moral rectitude is essential to our personal success.

The following facts have been alleged in a recent civil rights lawsuit:

On August 3rd, 2009 it has been alleged that police officers assaulted, accosted and accused LaMonte Simmons without cause and without reason. The officers had arrived at Simmons' neighbors house and put a boy who outside into a headlock. The boy's mother inquired as to why her son was being held and they threw her against a wall and held her there by pulling her arm behind her back. Simmons' who thought the force was unnecessary started complaining and he was instructed by officers to leave. After more police showed up however Simmons was confronted by an officer who put on his gloves, walked up and punched him across the face. A group of about ten officers then came up and beat him. Afterwards Simmons was arrested on charges of assaulting an officer and obstruction of justice.

What makes this incident so shocking, if proven, is that it plays out like a run of the mill gang attack, except the gang in this violent assault was the police! To add to the outrage, it is believed that the violence in this encounter was never reported by other officers present and no police officer was disciplined.

When the government has a monopoly on the use of force, those with whom we trust to use that force must do so appropriately. Our rule of law cannot protect us when malicious corruption, commonly found in third world nations, is running rampant in the United States. The state has an immediate responsibility to resolve the unraveling of our civilized society. An important point to make is that this level of corruption should never have arisen. Safeguards and policies should have been adequately placed to protect the citizens from such flagrant anarchy.

As was stated earlier this is not just a moral issue, it is an economic one that our country is reliant upon. We cannot thrive if people cannot trust our government and we live in fear of it. The result of the lawsuit that Simmons' has filed will hopefully bring the necessary changes. If it does not history will repeat itself and we will have a new tragedy to besmirch our government. People will graciously be given the opportunity to re-contemplate what had gone wrong.

A full article can be found here: Suit claims Chicago police punch first 'and ask questions later'

Continue reading "Alleged Corruption in Chicago Civil Rights Case" »

During the 1960's some of the most progressive legislature regarding civil rights was passed and new power was given to those laws. Before then racial tensions had been on a continuous rise and the government had seen itself out of the conversation with the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson. However after that ruling was over turned in the 1954 ruling of Brown v. Board of Education the government found itself as a new mediator in race relations.

Several laws were passed to protect civil rights, mainly the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prevented discrimination based on "race, color, religion or national origin." It was the hope of many that these laws would help end discrimination and once again turn our country into a place for the free and the brave. However in some cases resistance was strong and government intervention was necessary.

Through the past decades and numerous lawsuits citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the basis of the lawsuit discrimination has greatly been reduced although it is not completely eliminated. In Baltimore David S. Brown Enterprises Ltd. is being sued for violations of the Civil Rights Act. The owner of Cibo Bar & Grill claims that over the years their clientele has changed and when it started becoming predominately African American they were challenged with interference from Brown Enterprises.

These are not minor claims or allegations; owners for Cibo Bar & Grill say Brown Enterprises forced them out of business. Brown Enterprises owns the property that Cibo Bar & Grill was operating out of and the tactics they were charged with using to put them out of business include changing the lighting to make it look like the business was not open, prevented the business from using common areas like the patio, varying the amounts of rent, and refusing to let the business sell itself once it had become unprofitable because the buyer was an African American couple.

This blatant discrimination is not just wrong but it is protected against by the law. Every business has the opportunity to succeed or fail on its own merits without discrimination coming into play. The actions of Brown Enterprises has lead to a degradation in the lives of those who live in a post Civil Rights Act world whereby they are allowed to enjoy freedoms that all Americans should have. We all deserve the right to eat where we would like and to be patrons of businesses we approve of. For some to take actions to thwart that right is unjust, unethical and un-American. The suit is seeking damages for abuse of process, breach of contract, contract interference, civil rights violations and more.

A full article can be found here: Restaurant owners sue Baltimore Co. developer, claim racism

Our law firm does not represent anybody in this incident. The commentary is for educational purposes only. If you or someone you know has been the victim of discrimination and would like to be represented by a good Las Vegas Lawyer, contact our office for a free confidential case review and receive a response within hours. Call Toll Free 866-414-0400.