Although fearful that she might lose her job is she complained, Maria gathered her courage and complained to ABM about the harassment and assault. Instead of dealing with her complaint in a straightforward way, the company swore her and other potential witnesses to secrecy, requiring them to sign a “Confidentiality Agreement” that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) later determined to be unlawful. Instead of protecting Maria while investigating her complaint, the company transferred her to a shorter-term position and then terminated her employment within months of her making the complaint, while the foreman was allowed to stay on the job

ERA began representing Maria shortly after ABM let her go. With help from ERA, Maria filed timely charges of discrimination and retaliation against ABM with the EEOC and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). On April 23, 2009, the EEOC issued a Determination and found that there was reasonable cause to believe that ABM discriminated against Maria because of her sex, and retaliated against her for complaining about sexual harassment by not recalling her for work.

On May 17, 2012, a San Francisco Superior Court jury ultimately agreed with the EEOC, awarding Maria $812,001 in damages in a sexual harassment and retaliation suit brought against ABM and its subsidiary ABM Janitorial Services-Northern California. ERA and the San Francisco law firm of Talamantes Villegas Carrera LLP represented Maria in the lawsuit. The case is Bojorquez v. ABM Industries Incorporated, et al., Case No. CGC-10-495994, San Francisco Superior Court. Read ERA’s press release about Maria’s victory here.

At least a half a dozen other sexual harassment lawsuits have been brought against ABM by female janitorial employees within the past several years, including two class action lawsuits brought by the EEOC. One of these class actions, U.S. E.E.O.C. v. ABM Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-01428 LJO JLT, was brought in federal district court in the Eastern District of California in 2007 against the same defendants named in Maria’s case. As in the present case, the EEOC found evidence that the 21 female employees included in the class were subjected to severe, pervasive sexual harassment at worksites in the Central Valley in California, up to and including sexual assault. The case settled in 2010 for $5.8 million.

Working in a safe, secure environment free of sexual harassment and assault is critical to the survival and economic empowerment of low-wage women workers and their families Maria’s case and the cases of these other female janitors highlight how sexual harassment against immigrant women in the workplace has become a national epidemic. “Injustice on Our Plates: Immigrant Women in the U.S. Food Industry,” a report recently issued by the Southern Poverty Law Center, notes that 80% of the Mexican immigrant women surveyed said they had experienced sexual harassment while working in the fields. That compares to roughly half of all women in the U.S. workforce who say they have experienced at least one incident.

This country’s two and half million female domestic workers (many of whom are immigrant women) similarly face repeated and severe sexual harassment without recourse because they are excluded from most labor protections. Poverty, cultural constraints, language barriers, undocumented status, fear, shame, lack of information about their rights, and a dearth of resources to assist them have made it incredibly challenging for these women to come forward to speak up about the sexual harassment that they suffer on the job.

With the assistance of ERA and co-counsel, Professor Bhattacharya filed charges with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, and sexual orientation.  After receiving ERA’s complaint, Pitzer College reversed its previous position and awarded Professor Bhattacharya tenure.  ERA continues to work with co-counsel from Campins Benham-Baker, LLP to resolve Professor Bhattacharya’s pay discrimination claims.  Professor Bhattacharya alleges that she experienced ongoing pay discrimination from the outset of her employment at the College. She asserts that, despite having four years of prior tenure-track experience, the College placed her in an entry-level pay grade, and has paid her less than male professors with similar experience and qualifications throughout her employment at Pitzer.

According to Professor Bhattacharya: “I am surprised that a college that so strongly articulates a commitment to social responsibility would not be more concerned with investigating and addressing unequal treatment and would not work harder to maintain a fair, consistent, clear, and transparent process with respect to faculty promotions. I hope that changes will be made so that all junior faculty at the institution, particularly women and women of color, are not subjected to what I have gone through.”

ERA is continuing to take on gender discrimination in schools and colleges and the workplace in collaboration with sister organizations across the country, including the American Association of University Women.

A pesar de que María tenía miedo de perder su trabajo si se quejaba, decidió juntar valor y quejarse ante ABM sobre el acoso y la agresión sexual. En vez de procesar la queja de forma directa, la compañía le hizo prestar juramento de guardar secreto a Maria y a otros testigos potenciales y les hizo firmar un “Acuerdo de confidencialidad.” Posteriormente la Comisión Estadounidense de Igualdad de Oportunidad en el Empleo (EEOC, por sus siglas en inglés) determinó que ese acuerdo fue ilegal. En vez de proteger a Maria mientras se llevaba a cabo la investigación de su queja, la compañía la trasladó a un puesto de corto plazo y luego la despidió unos meses después de que ella presentara la queja. A la vez, le permitieron al jefe de Maria que mantuviera su trabajo.

ERA comenzó a representar a Maria un poco después de que ABM la despidiera. Con la ayuda de ERA, Maria presentó una demanda por discriminación y represalias dentro del período legal permitido en contra de ABM anta la EEOC y ante el Departamento de Igualdad en el Empleo y la Vivienda de California (DFEH, por sus siglas en inglés). El 23 de abril de 2009, la EEOC emitió una decisión y determinó que había motivo razonable para creer que ABM había discriminado a Maria debido a su sexo y que había tomado represalias en su contra por haberla despedido del trabajo porque Maria se quejó por el acoso sexual.

El 17 de mayo de 2012, el jurado en la causa ante Tribunal Superior de San Francisco estuvo de acuerdo con EEOC, y le otorgó a Maria $812,001 en daños por acoso sexual y represalias por el juicio en contra de ABM y la sucursal de servicios de limpieza llamada Janitorial Services-Northern California. ERA y el estudio jurídico de San Francisco Talamantes Villegas Carrera LLP representaron a Maria en el juicio. La causa se llama Bojorquez contra ABM Industries Incorporated, et al., Causa Nro. CGC-10-495994, Tribunal Superior de San Francisco. Lea el comunicado de prensa sobre la victoria de Maria aquí.

Durante los últimos años, las empleadas de limpieza de ABM han entablado al menos una media docena de juicios por acoso sexual en contra de ABM. Estas causas incluyen dos juicios de demanda colectiva entabladas por EEOC. Una de esas causas de demanda colectiva es E.E.O.C. de EE.UU. contra ABM Industries Inc., et al., Causa Nro. 1:07-cv-01428 LJO JLT, que se presentó ante el tribunal federal del distrito este de California en 2007 en contra de los mismos acusados mencionados en la causa de Maria. Tal como en la causa actual, EEOC determinó que las 21 empleadas que formaron parte de la demanda colectiva fueron sometidas a un acoso sexual grave y generalizado en los sitios laborales de Central Valley en California, y que hubo pruebas que demostraron tal acoso e incluso la existencia de una agresión sexual. La causa se resolvió en el año 2010 por 5.8 millones.

Trabajar en un ambiente sano, seguro y libre de acoso y agresión sexual es esencial para la supervivencia del empoderamiento económico de mujeres trabajadoras de bajos ingresos y sus familias. El caso de Maria y los casos de otras mujeres que trabajan en la limpieza y mantenimiento resalta cómo el acoso sexual en contra de las mujeres inmigrantes en el ambiente laboral se ha convertido en una epidemia nacional. “Injusticia en el plato: las mujeres inmigrantes de la industria alimenticia en los Estados Unidos” es un informe publicado por Southern Povery Law Center. En este informe se menciona que un 80% de las mujeres inmigrantes mexicanas encuestadas asintieron haber sufrido acoso sexual en el trabajo en los campos de cultivo. Eso re refiere aproximadamente a la mitad de todas las mujeres que pertenecen a la fuerza laboral de los Estados Unidos que dicen que han sufrido al menos un incidente.

De manera similar, los dos y medio millones de mujeres trabajadoras domésticas de este país (muchas de las cuales son inmigrantes) enfrentan situaciones de acoso sexual grave y frecuente sin ser remediadas debido a que son excluidas de la mayoría de las protecciones laborales. La pobreza, las limitaciones culturales, las barreras idiomáticas, la condición de ser indocumentadas, el miedo, la vergüenza, la falta de información sobre sus derechos, y la escasez de recursos para ayudarlas hacen que sea increíblemente difícil que estas mujeres se presenten ante las autoridades y hablen sobre el acoso sexual que sufren en el trabajo.

The settlement provides monetary and non-monetary relief for Amira to resolve claims that ERA filed on her behalf last year with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, alleging that Amira’s employer, a national operator of residential facilities and communities for seniors, had subjected Amira to harassment, other forms of discrimination, and ultimately terminated her because she was pregnant and sought to exercise her right to take pregnancy-related leave. Amira also alleged that the company discriminated against her and other caregivers based on their race and national origin.

Amira’s case is unfortunately not unusual.  ERA has seen a sharp rise in pregnancy discrimination and accommodation complaints in recent years, a trend mirrored at the federal level. (Click here to see ERA’s May 2012 report, Expecting a Baby, Not A Lay-off:  Why Federal Law Should Require the Reasonable Accommodation of Pregnant Workers, noting a 54% rise in pregnancy discrimination claims filed with the EEOC between 1997 and 2010.)  ERA Staff Attorney Mia Munro is proud to have represented Amira and observes that, “It takes real courage and determination for women like Amira to come forward and complain about these injustices.  We are very pleased that the matter has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.”

ERA Legal Director Jennifer Reisch further added that, “This case shows how discrimination against pregnant workers and the failure to provide reasonable accommodations that would enable women to keep working during pregnancy are particularly acute problems, and have especially devastating economic consequences, for women in low-wage jobs and industries.”

ERA fights for women like Amira because we believe that providing pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations on the job is essential to fulfilling the promise of equal opportunity in employment.  This is also why ERA is a strong supporter of the federal Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), a bill which would require employers to provide pregnant workers with reasonable accommodations.  Learn more about this important issue and take action to support the PWFA.

*Not her real name

Michelle came to ERA for help. On November 13, 2009, after a closely-watched sex discrimination trial against the City of Fresno, the jury found in favor of Michelle, awarding her $2.46 million in damages. ERA and the Oakland law firm of Siegel & Yee represented Michelle in the lawsuit. The case is Maher v. City of Fresno, et al., Case No. 08-CV-00050-OWW-SMS, United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Read ERA’s press release about Michelle’s victory here.

After the verdict, one juror hugged Michelle and said, “If my son were trapped in a burning building, I would want you to be the fire fighter to save him.” Michelle was overjoyed at the verdict: “I felt numb, for the past few years I have been telling my story over and over again. Now I can finally move on with my life.”

Unfortunately, decades after many fire departments have opened their doors to female firefighters, fire service still remains a male-dominated profession. According to a October 2011 article in the San Jose Mercury News, nationally, only 3.7% percent of firefighters and paramedics are women.

Working in an environment free of sex discrimination and sex-based stereotypes is crucial to the entry, retention and promotion of women in male-dominated professions like fire service. ERA needs your support to combat hiring barriers and glass ceilings for women who work in majority-male industries.

Earlier this year, ERA settled Flori’s claim against her employer and secured her the back-wages and overtime compensation she was owed.  ERA continues to monitor the employer’s wage and hour policies and practices for its current employees.

Getting paid for work performed is absolutely necessary to the survival and economic empowerment of low-wage women workers and their families.  Flori’s case highlights the injustice of wage theft among low-income immigrant workers who are marginalized by their national origin and limited English proficiency.

According to a recent report from UCLA’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, nearly 75 percent of workers in the hotel and restaurant industries in large U.S. cities are not paid for work they have performed “off-the-clock.”  The report also showed that close to 80 percent of low-income Latina immigrant workers in major cities across the country are not paid overtime.

While the case, Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, continued long after the graduation of Arezou, Christine and Lauren, the women racked up a series of victories for Title IX culminating in the settlement of the case in February 2012.

In August 2011, the three women scored a major win after a three-week bench trial on the issue of whether UC Davis violated Title IX when they were students. A federal district court in Sacramento found in their favor, ruling that UCD dropped more than 60 intercollegiate sports opportunities for women without replacing them – soundly defeating the University’s claim that it had been expanding opportunities for women to satisfy Title IX.

Other legal milestones included a landmark win at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which rejected the imposition of procedural hurdles to Title IX suits challenging athletic participation inequities and creation of a fund that has awarded over $70,000 in grants to developing female athletes on the UC Davis campus. More information about the legal victories here: http://www.equalrights.org/media/2012/MansourianPressReleaseFinal.pdf

Shortly the lawsuit was filed, women’s wrestling made its Olympic debut in 2004 and today thousands of girls now participate in wrestling across the country.

Christine: “All we ever wanted was to represent UC Davis in sports. We litigated this case for nearly 10 difficult years and missed that opportunity. It should not have to take that long to achieve justice, but we are happy that the lives of many young women attending UC Davis after we did have benefited and will benefit from our fight for Title IX.”

Lauren: “The case paved the way for so many girls who wanted to wrestle or participate in other non-traditional sports. For that, we are proud.”

Arezou: “I have fought for women’s rights in college athletics for the past 10 years and the change it has brought for the future of women athletes has been worth the battle.”