Discrimination News
Revelations of Discrimination and Harassment Extend Even to the Halls of Justice
San Jose, CA: The wide-ranging #MeToo movement that has seen scores of women calling out men for harassment, discrimination and other allegations of deplorable behavior has gone beyond media, entertainment and the hallowed Halls of Congress to encompass the judiciary. While there remain no harassment or discrimination lawsuits in the offing, two respected California news sources – including the Los Angeles Times (12/11/17) – nonetheless reveal various examples of behavior towards women, one wouldn’t expect to see in the Halls of Justice.
Transgendered Corrections Officer Sues for Workplace Discrimination
Sacramento, CA: A corrections officer in the California State Prison, Sacramento who refuses to quit her job is suing The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) for discrimination and for not responding to what plaintiff Meghan Frederick claims is a hostile work environment.
The issue is centered on Frederick’s transgender from male to female, which the plaintiff commenced in 2012 after working at the prison for ten years. Since her decision to transgender – which she has done successfully – Frederick claims she has suffered discrimination, abuse and isolation by her peers. It translates, she told KQED Television (08/29/17), into an unsafe work environment. And she claims prison officials are doing little, if anything to support her.
“I am isolated by my peers and that is quite scary,” Frederick told KQED. “Within a maximum-security prison we need and depend upon each other, my fellow officers, for support and camaraderie. And I seem to have lost that because of the transphobic environment that’s endemic within this institution and in this department overall.”
On numerous occasions, Frederick claims she has actually been locked in stairwells and sally ports by fellow corrections officers.
Her employer’s response?
“I had a direct supervisor that told me that I was being overly sensitive,” she said. “And I find that very difficult to take because here’s my direct supervisor who’s charged with making sure the other officers adhere to our zero-tolerance policy stating that Officer Frederick is overly sensitive. It sort of gives a green light to the other officers to continue with their hateful discriminatory behavior.”
Frederick, in her discrimination lawsuit, also asserts CDCR management at the prison failed to discipline corrections officers who allegedly mocked her. Frederick also notes in her complaint that threats on Frederick’s life from inmates that occurred in 2014, were not revealed to Frederick by prison staff, or management.
“The kite [note] expressly named Plaintiff and stated that Plaintiff was to be killed on the yard,” the complaint states. “Defendant’s protocol was to immediately notify the subject of such a threat in order that they could protect themselves, then to conduct an immediate investigation to ensure that the threat was not carried out. Such threats are supposed to be taken seriously because they often occur quickly, leaving little or no time for defense. However, Plaintiff did not learn about the threat for many weeks after it was made.”
Frederick told KQED that she enjoys her job managing a maximum-security housing unit within the prison, and is good at it. She has no intention of leaving. She admitted to KQED, however that the bullying and discrimination she alleges to have encountered has taken an emotional and financial toll, and Frederick is seeking damages for emotional distress and lost wages.
“I am constantly mis-gendered by individuals that have known me for quite some time or whom I’ve corrected on a number of occasions,” she said. “They delegitimatize [sic] my female gender. They don’t recognize it. They don’t respect it and I’m not treated like the other female officers. I’m constantly called sir.”
The CDCR would not comment to KQED on pending litigation beyond releasing an excerpt from the California Code of Regulations Title 15, Crime Prevention and Corrections:
“3005. Conduct. (a) Inmates and parolees shall obey all laws, regulations, and local procedures, and refrain from behavior which might lead to violence or disorder, or otherwise endangers facility, outside community or another person. (b) Obeying Orders. Inmates and parolees must promptly and courteously obey written and verbal orders and instructions from department staff and from employees of other agencies with authorized responsibility for the custody and supervision of inmates and parolees.
“3391. Employee Conduct. (a) Employees shall be alert, courteous, and professional in their dealings with inmates, parolees, fellow employees, visitors and members of the public. Inmates and parolees shall be addressed by their proper names, and never by derogatory or slang reference.”
The CDCR is on record as denying Frederick’s charges and has moved to have her discrimination lawsuit dismissed.
The California discrimination lawsuit is Meghan Frederick v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al, Case No. 34-2017-00213234, in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
California Discrimination Lawsuit Filed Against Sports Agency
Los Angeles, CA: A California discrimination lawsuit that was filed back in May alleges discrimination and retaliation suffered by plaintiff Joyce Li, a former employee of Independent Sports & Entertainment (ISE, which used to be known as Relativity Sports). Li, who alleges she was terminated from her job, asserts that the work environment at ISE was blatantly discriminatory.
According to Forbes (05/05/17), Li had worked with the firm since March of 2013 when it was known as Relativity Sports. Her eight-count discrimination lawsuit alleges that her former employer subjected the plaintiff to discriminatory work policies, excluded her from sports division retreats and paid Li less than her male counterparts at the firm.
The Complaint, according to Forbes, attempted to illustrate the behavior and events behind Li’s allegations. “For example, Human Resources and upper management made issue of Li’s office attire,” states the Complaint. “She was admonished for supposedly violating the office dress code when she wore walking shorts (mid-thigh length) to work. Yet, all the male employees came to work in casual and beach attire, such as board shorts, flip-flop sandals, sweats, T-shirts and work out gear. Men were not similarly reprimanded for unprofessional attire.”
Li seeks monetary, non-monetary and punitive damages in her eight-count Complaint, which was filed May 4 in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
ISE released a statement that suggested, in their view the lawsuit was without merit. ISE also characterized the lawsuit as having been orchestrated by another former employee of the firm, a basketball agent, who was terminated from ISE last year. ISE itself filed a lawsuit against the agent, identified in the Forbes story as Dan Fegan, in an effort to prevent Fegan from poaching ISE clients, agents and employees from ISE following his termination from the firm.
Li, it was reported, worked with Fegan while at ISE, and during ISE’s previous incarnation as Relativity Sports. The latter had previously purchased Fegan’s existing business and brought Fegan into the firm, together with the various National Basketball Association (NBA) players Fegan had as clients.
Li, the plaintiff in the discrimination lawsuit, noted that Fegan was supportive of Li when they were both employed by the firm, and had voiced her concerns to Fegan with regard to alleged discrimination. Fegan, according to Li’s discrimination lawsuit, advocated on her behalf but ISE executives allegedly ignored his advocacy.
Both Fegan and Li are no longer with ISE.
Specific case information for the discrimination lawsuit was not available.
Former Venture Capital Employee Asserts Discrimination, Harassment
San Mateo, CA: A discrimination lawsuit launched June 28 in California state court alleges discrimination and harassment suffered while employed at a Golden State venture capital firm. The plaintiff, identified as Ann Lai, claims in her lawsuit that Binary Capital Management LLC (Binary Capital, Binary) was found to be an inappropriate workplace for women. Lai also cited confidentiality provisions she alleged to be stifling.
Binary Capital is listed as a co-defendant in the case, along with the co-founder of the firm.
According to court documents the plaintiff commenced her employment at Binary in 2014. Lai asserts that soon after joining the firm she encountered various instances of what was characterized as discriminatory behavior in the workplace. Lai claimed there were comments with regard to her attractiveness and that of various founders of the firm who were also female. Lai claimed to have also encountered inappropriate behavior towards female employees at company outings.
According to her discrimination lawsuit, Lai raised the issues with her superiors, but there was no response.
As a result, Lai announced in November, 2015 that she intended to resign from the firm. However, Binary co-founder Jeff Caldbeck – who is also the co-defendant in Lai’s discrimination lawsuit – convinced Lai to stay on, according to Lai’s complaint.
However, with no apparent resolution to issues that proved to be a continuing concern for the plaintiff, Lai made the decision to actively start looking for new employment and announced to co-defendant Caldbeck that she wished to resign her position with Binary.
Caldbeck, according to court documents, suggested that were Lai to leave the firm “she would never work again,” according to court records associated with Lai’s discrimination complaint. Lai resigned anyway, three days later. In her complaint Lai cited various allegations, including threats to her reputation, suspicious lines of questioning about ongoing projects and a declined expense reimbursement check.
In her discrimination and harassment lawsuit Lai asserts that in spite of her best efforts to secure other employment, no other employer in the Bay area proved willing to hire the plaintiff. In her complaint, Lai asserted that co-defendant Caldbeck and others “falsely told [potential employers] she had been fired or [was] asked to leave Binary for poor performance,” according to Lai’s complaint.
Lai eventually found employment in New York.
In her complaint, filed in concert with her discrimination lawyer, Lai claims that Binary “was not gender-neutral and evidenced a sexist and sexual environment prohibited by the anti-discrimination laws,” her complaint noted, referencing a female-specific dress code and remarks about female employees’ level of attractiveness.
The plaintiff also asserts that Binary forced workers to sign employee agreements that carried confidentiality, non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions that were overly broad.
“These illegal provisions – to put it mildly – make it hard for employees to ‘speak up’ about inappropriate or illegal conduct, both during their employment and forever after,” her complaint says. “Employees are instead led to believe that it is illegal to do so, and that disclosing information about their working conditions will lead to ruinous litigation.”
Lai cites violations to the California labor code, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff also brings a claim under the Private Attorney Generals Act over the confidentiality and non-disparagement agreement.
The case is Lai v. Binary Capital Management LLC, Case No. 17CIV02882 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.
DOL Still Searching Google for Documents Over Compliance
Mountain View, CA: An administrative lawsuit over allegations of pay disparity and gender discrimination against women involving the California-based Google Inc. (Google) translates to a feud between the search engine juggernaut and the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (DOL, OFCCP).
Google has allegedly been dragging its feet in the required provision of data and evidence as requested by the DOL and the OFCCP. Google counters that recent statements to the media by a member of the federal agency’s legal counsel suggest the federal agencies have all they need.
According to Court documents, the trouble began in September, 2015 when Google, which maintains headquarters at Mountain View in the Golden State, was randomly selected by the DOL and OFCCP for a compliance evaluation. Enterprises providing services to government under contract are required to abide by a robust basket of rules and regulations, in order to remain in compliance as a federal contractor. Federal agencies routinely conduct random checks to ensure compliance, with formal requests for documentation as standard practice.
The feds had given Google until the first of June, 2016 to comply. Google, according to Court records associated with the discrimination lawsuit not only missed the deadline, but communicated with the DOL on June 17 of last year that it would be refusing to provide the requested documents.
Thus the DOL turned to the Courts, filing an administrative lawsuit against Google in an attempt to force Google to comply, on December 29 of last year. In announcing the lawsuit this past January, the DOL stressed that the release of requested documents is a mandatory aspect of the random selection process for compliance review under the law.
A hearing, conducted on April 7 of this year, served to inflate the rhetoric even further. At the hearing, according to Court records, DOL Pacific Region Regional Director Janette Wipper reportedly said in comments to the Court that the DOL found systematic compensation disparities against women. Google denied the allegation, indicating it conducted regular and thorough analyses of pay equities and had found no gender-based pay gap within their organization.
Wipper’s comments were reported in The Guardian, which reached out to Regional solicitor for the DOL, Janet Herold, for additional comment. The Guardian subsequently reported Herold’s statement that the OFCCP had “received compelling evidence of very significant discrimination against women in the most common positions at Google headquarters,” at Mountain View.
Herold added that the ongoing analysis on the part of the government, “at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry.”
Google, which had moved to have the administrative lawsuit thrown out, pointed to the comments made at the hearing and subsequent comments given to the media, and suggested the agencies had all the information they needed to proceed with a compliance review, thus no further information was needed, and the lawsuit was meritless.
However, in a recent ruling Administrative Law Judge Steven B. Berlin disagreed.
“Google asserts that OFCCP wants to use the broad investigative authority it is accorded in compliance reviews to circumvent the more constrained access to Google’s information it will get in formal discovery,” Judge Berlin opined.
He added that while it may have been misguided to make statements to the media while an ongoing administrative court case was active – and admonishing those individuals for doing so – he nonetheless found no ethical infraction involved, thus any efforts to push back against the federal agency’s entitlement for additional information, was without merit.
The case is In the Matter of Office Federal Contract Compliance Programs, US Department of Labor v. Google Inc., Case No. 2017-OFC-0004, before the US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges.
Demanda por discriminación en contra de la Orden Ejecutiva Presidencial entablada en California
Oakland, CA: No tomó mucho tiempo para que las demandas por discriminación comenzaran a fluir después de la orden ejecutiva del Presidente Donald Trump anunciada el 27 de enero de este año, prohibiendo que ciudadanos de siete países predominantemente musulmanes entraran a los Estados Unidos. Por esta razón, la Unión Americana de Libertades Civiles (ACLU) ha presentado una demanda por discriminación en nombre de tres estudiantes universitarios y otros afectados en California, citando a la orden ejecutiva de Trump como inconstitucional.
La demanda, presentada con la ayuda de un abogado de discriminación, también incluye entre los demandantes a la organización de la Familia Judía y Servicios Comunitarios (JFCS) de East Bay. La demanda se propone como un recurso colectivo y declara a la prohibición de viajar como ilegal, así como un intento de discriminar innecesariamente a los musulmanes y establecer una preferencia por una religión sobre otra, esto de acuerdo a sus alegatos.
Los tres estudiantes demandantes poseen visas de estudiante F-1. A pesar de poseer esos documentos, los estudiantes no pueden viajar. El demandante Wasim Ghaleb, un estudiante yemení en el colegio Grossmont en San Diego, había viajado a Arabia Saudita el 15 de enero - 12 días antes de la prohibición - para visitar a su familia. Ghaleb había planeado regresar a California para el semestre de primavera.
Hadil Al-Mowafak es una estudiante de primer año de la Universidad de Stanford con una visa de estudiante F-1 que originalmente no pudo viajar para visitar a su marido en Yemen debido a la orden ejecutiva.
Ha habido diversos acontecimientos desde que se inició la demanda. Una juez federal colocó una suspensión temporal a la prohibición de viajar el pasado viernes, bloqueando efectivamente la orden ejecutiva de Trump.
La Administración Trump, en respuesta, anunció inmediatamente que lucharía contra la suspensión de la prohibición de viajar y lanzó una apelación. A principios de este fin de semana los expertos en inmigración opinaban que si bien la suspensión temporal de la prohibición de viaje permitiría, en teoría, a los inmigrantes con visas válidas de los siete países destinatarios ingresar a los Estados Unidos, la situación seguía siendo tenue. Las autoridades estaban aconsejando a las personas específicas que viajaran "lo antes posible", en modo de una advertencia ya que aún no había garantías.
En las primeras horas del pasado domingo por la mañana Los Angeles Times informó que la Corte de Apelaciones del Noveno Circuito de Estados Unidos en San Francisco negó una solicitud del Departamento de Justicia de los Estados Unidos (DOJ) para ejecutar la prohibición de viajar emitida el 3 de febrero - abriendo efectivamente alternativas para aquellos que fueron afectados por la prohibición cuando la orden ejecutiva de Trump fue firmada el 27 de enero.
El gobierno, sin embargo, al tiempo que indicaba que respetaría la decisión del Noveno Circuito, señaló que seguiría buscando cualquier medio dentro de su jurisdicción para reinstaurar la prohibición de viajar.
En resumen, los individuos originalmente afectados por la prohibición de viajar - incluyendo a los tres estudiantes demandantes - ahora deben estar en condiciones de viajar, por el momento. Se desconoce si la demanda por discriminación se detendrá, o si seguirá adelante, dado que la situación legal sigue siendo complejo.
"El gobierno federal ha dejado claro que tiene la intención de favorecer a los inmigrantes cristianos sobre los musulmanes en la toma de decisiones sobre quién detener, interrogar, deportar o rechazar durante la entrada al país", dijo Julia Mass, abogada de la ACLU del norte de California. Durante una declaración el 2 de febrero de este año, Mass afirmó: "Somos una sociedad diversa. Los musulmanes estadounidenses, los inmigrantes y los nacidos en Estados Unidos por igual, son parte del tejido de esta nación".
Una portavoz de JFCS East Bay, Avi Rose, expresó sentimientos similares. "Esta orden ejecutiva está deshonrando nuestra historia, está deshonrando nuestros valores, y está trayendo caos y desesperación a las vidas de la gente común", dijo Rose, que sirve como Directora Ejecutiva de JFCS East Bay.
Las demandas por discriminación pueden extenderse desde la discriminación por edad, hasta la desigualdad de género. La discriminación racial y religiosa tampoco carece de precedentes. En este caso, la demanda por discriminación alega que las acciones del gobierno federal violan la Primera Enmienda, así como los derechos de protección y debido proceso concedidos bajo la Quinta Enmienda, la Ley de Inmigración y Nacionalidad y la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo.
Más de 60 demandas de discriminación federal se han presentado desde que el Presidente Trump firmara su Orden Ejecutiva el 27 de enero.
La demanda de California, alegando discriminación, es: Al-Mowafak et al. V. Trump et al., Caso No. 3: 17-cv-00557, en el Tribunal de Distrito de los Estados Unidos para el Distrito Norte de California.
Former Blogger with the Los Angeles Times Alleges Age Discrimination
Los Angeles, CA A discrimination lawsuit alleging age discrimination and ‘failure to hire’ on the part of the Los Angeles Times is headed for arbitration following a ruling by a California Superior Court judge who found that discrimination and failure to hire claims fell outside the bounds of the freelance agreement signed by, and governing the activities of, the plaintiff.
Plaintiff Stephen Dilbeck launched a discrimination lawsuit against the Los Angeles Times, claiming that his former freelance employer failed to consider him for a promotion to staff writer from freelance blogger in spite of frequent overtures and requests on the part of the plaintiff, who covered the Los Angeles Dodgers as a blogger for the LA Times.
Dilbeck, who is 64, claimed that instead of a promotion, he was eventually terminated based on his age. Dilbeck is alleging discrimination.
Legal teams for his former employer argued that Dilbeck’s freelance agreement signed by the plaintiff included an arbitration clause that compelled Dilbeck to arbitrate any issues with his employer. The use of arbitration agreements is a growing trend, compelling plaintiffs to arbitrate disputes outside the courts. A growing number of arbitration agreements contain language that, when signed, does not authorize or allow the signatory to fight a dispute in a court of law.
Dilbeck’s discrimination lawyer argued that his client’s ‘failure to hire’ claim was a legitimate claim to bring to a court as it fell outside the bounds of the arbitration agreement due to the fact, so said the plaintiff, that the claim relates to employment discrimination, while provisions spelled out in the independent contractor agreement and subsequent arbitration clauses were specific to the freelance assignments Dilbeck, at one time, penned for the LA Times.
Judge Teresa A. Beaudet of the Los Angeles County Superior Court was somewhat sympathetic, opining that “your argument is not frivolous that’s certainly true and reasonable minds might differ,” she said during proceedings in early February.
“But I don’t think calling [Dilbeck] a freelancer limits the scope of the agreement on what he’s going to arbitrate,” adding that the freelance agreement and accompanying arbitration clauses were broad, covering “any and all claims, disputes, or controversies” between the parties.
Dilbeck asserted not only age discrimination in his failure to secure a full time position with the paper, but also that he was retaliated against for testimony he gave in an unrelated age discrimination lawsuit brought by another individual, against the LA Times.
“Plaintiff believes that defendants never hired him to a permanent, full-time position because of his age, participation in protected activities, and good faith complaints,” the operative lawsuit states.
According to claims asserted by the plaintiff in his discrimination lawsuit, a former sports editor at the LA Times – since retired from that position – retorted to Dilbeck in 2013 that the average age of the staff was 53, and “we have to get younger,” according to court documents.
Dilbeck also noted that two other individuals were let go when their blogs were eliminated by the LA Times, although a 27-year-old blogger affected by the termination was hired on as a full-time writer a week later.
The complaint brings age discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation against a protected employment activity under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act.
Dilbeck filed his discrimination lawsuit in November of last year. The case is Stephen Dilbeck v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, et al., Case No. BC641273, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Discrimination Lawsuit against Presidential Executive Order Launched in California
Oakland, CA: It didn’t take long for discrimination lawsuits to begin flowing following President Donald Trump’s January 27 Executive Order barring citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US. To that end the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a discrimination lawsuit on behalf of three university students and others in California, citing the Trump executive order as unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, filed with the help of a discrimination lawyer, also includes amongst the plaintiffs the Jewish Family and Community Services (JFCS) organization of East Bay. The lawsuit is proposed as a class action and casts the travel ban as unlawful, as well as an attempt to needlessly discriminate against Muslims and establishing a preference for one religion over another, or so it is alleged.
The three student plaintiffs carry F-1 student visas. In spite of possessing those documents, the students are now unable to travel. Plaintiff Wasim Ghaleb, a Yemeni student at Grossmont College in San Diego, had traveled to Saudi Arabia on January 15 – 12 days before the ban – to visit his family. Ghaleb had planned to return to California for the spring semester.
Hadil Al-Mowafak is a Stanford University freshman with an F-1 student visa who was originally unable to travel to visit her husband in Yemen because of the executive order.
There have been developments since the lawsuit was launched. A federal justice on Friday placed a temporary stay on the travel ban, effectively blocking Trump’s executive order. The Trump Administration, in response, immediately announced it would fight the stay of the travel ban and launched an appeal. Earlier this weekend immigration experts were opining that while the temporary stay on the travel ban would, in theory allow immigrants holding valid visas from the seven targeted countries to enter the US, the situation remained tenuous. Officials were advising targeted individuals to travel ‘as soon as possible,’ amidst a caution there were still no guarantees.
Early yesterday, The Los Angeles Times (02/05/17) in the wee hours of Sunday morning, reported that the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco denied a request by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for a stay on the travel ban issued February 3 – effectively opening ports for those who were affected by the ban when Trump’s executive order was signed on January 27.
The government, however while indicating it would respect the decision of the Ninth Circuit, nonetheless signaled it would continue to pursue any means within its jurisdiction to re-instate the travel ban.
In sum, individuals originally affected by the travel ban – including the three student plaintiffs – should now be in a position to travel, for the time being. It is unknown if the discrimination lawsuit will pause, or move ahead given a situation that continues to be tenuous.
“The federal government has made it clear that it intends to favor Christian immigrants over Muslims in making decisions about who to detain, interrogate, deport, or entirely refuse entry,” Julia Mass, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, said in a statement on February 2. “We are a diverse society. American Muslims, immigrants and US–born alike, are part of the fabric of this nation.”
A spokesperson for JFCS East Bay, Avi Rose, expressed similar sentiments. “This executive order is dishonoring our history, it’s dishonoring our values, and it’s bringing chaos and despair to the lives of everyday people,” said Rose, who serves as Executive Director of JFCS East Bay.
Discrimination lawsuits can run the gamut from age discrimination, to gender inequality. Racial and religious discrimination is also not without precedent. In this case, the discrimination lawsuit alleges that the federal government’s actions violate the First Amendment, as well as equal protection and due process rights granted under the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
In excess of 60 federal discrimination lawsuits have been filed in the days since President Trump signed his Executive Order on January 27.
The California lawsuit, alleging discrimination, is Al-Mowafak et al. v. Trump et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00557, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Oracle Hit with Federal Discrimination Lawsuit, Allegations Stem from California
Redwood City, CA: A software and tech juggernaut has come under fire from the US Department of Labor (DOL) for alleged discrimination against women and minorities. The allegation, which is backed by a lawsuit against Oracle America Inc., accuses the defendant of paying women and minorities less than their counterparts.
The discrimination lawsuit also alleges that Oracle discriminates against qualified non-Asian applicants, in favor of Asian candidates for certain roles.
Even though the discrimination lawsuit has national scope, the litigation has a founding in California, which is where the multinational tech giant maintains its headquarters. The discrimination complaint grew out of findings gleaned from a routine compliance review at Oracle’s head office in Redwood Shores conducted in 2014. Alleged discrimination may have occurred prior to that time, however the DOL is using January, 2014 as the starting point for alleged discrimination which, in the DOL’s view, has been going on at the Redwood Shores facility from at least January, 2014 to present day.
The DOL found that women who worked in the areas of information technology, product development and support services were paid less for their work than their male counterparts working in comparable roles.
Minorities also suffered from discrimination, the DOL asserts in its discrimination lawsuit. The review found that Oracle paid qualified African-American workers, and employees of Asian descent, less than their Caucasian counterparts performing similar work in similar roles.
The DOL also found California discrimination within the communities of minorities working at Oracle’s Redwood Shores headquarters. Court records suggest that Oracle snubbed qualified Caucasian, Hispanic and African-American applicants in favor of Asian candidates for jobs in the technical and product development realms.
The Department of Labor asserts that such favoritism towards Asians, and particularly South Asians, was going on since at least January of 2013.
Oracle is no slouch as an employer, with in excess of 45,000 full-time staff across the US. Of those 7,000 are employed at the Oracle headquarters in Redwood Shores. It should also be noted that Oracle has been the recipient of millions of dollars’ worth of government contracts, which is another reason why the DOL is taking such allegations of California employment discrimination – and similar discrimination across the country – very seriously.
“Federal contractors are required to comply with all applicable anti-discrimination laws,” Thomas M. Dowd, the acting director of DOL’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, said in a statement. “We filed this lawsuit to enforce those requirements.”
Oracle responded with a statement, and notes that in its view the discrimination lawsuit is without merit.
“Oracle values diversity and inclusion, and is a responsible equal opportunity and affirmative action employer,” a company spokeswoman said. “Our hiring and pay decisions are non-discriminatory and made based on legitimate business factors including experience and merit.”
The discrimination lawsuit was filed during the dying days of the Obama Administration, prior to the transition to President Donald Trump.
The case is Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, United States Department of Labor v. Oracle America Inc., Case No. R00192699, US Department of Labor Office of Administrative Law Judges.
California Discrimination Alleged Against Iconic Bel-Air Hotel
Los Angeles, CA: The Hotel Bel-Air, a facility that has risen to iconic status since it first opened its doors in 1922, closed for extensive renovations in 2009. That process took two years to complete. At some point, however, prior to its re-opening in 2011 the hotel is reported to have undertaken a hiring drive. In so doing, the hotel operators are alleged to have snubbed existing employees who were members of a union. Union members alleged California discrimination.
According to court documents the union, identified as Unite Here, brought the matter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The regional office of the agency, located in Los Angeles, brought a formal complaint against the hotel operators, alleging California discrimination in hiring practices.
However, the NLRB waited more than four years to issue the complaint. The hotel, in turn, filed a California lawsuit against the director of the Los Angeles office of the NLRB, Mori Pam Rubin in September of this year, arguing that Rubin violated due process by waiting for so long to bring the complaint forward.
The NLRB responded by indicating that it had to wait until a related unfair labor case had run its course. That case concluded earlier this year, at which point the NLRB issued its complaint against the operators of the Bel-Air hotel citing discriminatory labor practices.
The hotel responded with a lawsuit, citing undue process. Operators of the iconic hotel filed a motion with the US District Court for the Central District of California to block the ongoing investigation by the NLRB.
However, in late October US District Judge Phillip S. Gutierrez dismissed any attempt by the hotel to block the investigation, noting further that Kava Holdings LLC, the operator of the hotel, is in no position to sue the NLRB since only circuit courts possess the necessary jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the NLRB beyond the issuance of a final order.
The Court maintains it does not have jurisdiction to influence the NLRB and thus, the hotel’s lawsuit can’t proceed.
The NLRB, in its reply to the hotel’s lawsuit, asserted that the complaint by Kava was an attempt to derail the Board’s investigation of California hiring discrimination against the hotel operators.
“The hotel’s patent effort to circumvent the exclusive procedures established by Congress by seeking injunctive relief in this court must be rejected under the controlling authority set out by the US Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit,” the NRLB’s motion said.
“It has been settled law for almost 80 years that federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to review or enjoin NLRB unfair labor practice proceedings”.
The judge agreed.
The case is Kava Holdings LLC et al. v. Mori Pam Rubin, Case No. 2:16-cv-6955, in the US District Court for the Central District of California.
About . TOS . Privacy . Disclaimer . Contact . Advertise . Member Login
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License ©2026 Online Legal Media. All rights reserved.
Visit other Online Legal Media Websites:
