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.

After the U.S. Supreme Court moved to decertify a class of more than 1 million women workers at the retail giant in 2011, ERA and its co-counsel filed a new suit against Wal-Mart in San Francisco on behalf of thousands of women at store locations across the West alleging that the company’s pay and promotion practices discriminate against women because of their sex. That suit was given the greenlight to proceed by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer last year. Read more about Breyer’s decision here.

In the coming months, ERA and new co-counsel Hadsell, Stormer, Richardson & Renick intend to file a motion to certify the class before Judge Breyer.

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.”

The suit for sexual harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and discrimination arose from the sexual harassment and assault of the plaintiff by her direct supervisor while she worked as a janitor for ABM in the San Francisco Ferry Building in 2004. When she complained to the company, ABM responded by swearing Ms. Bojorquez to silence, transferring her to a shorter-term position, and then terminating her.

Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), a national non-profit law firm dedicated to representing the rights of women and girls at work and at school, and the San Francisco law firm of Talamantes Villegas Carrera, LLP represented Ms. Bojorquez in the suit. The case is Bojorquez v. ABM Industries, Incorporated et. al., Case #CGC-10-495994, San Francisco Superior Court.

“The sexual harassment and assault of immigrant women at work is a national epidemic,” said Monali Sheth, staff attorney at ERA. “This case puts a spotlight on the problem and on companies like ABM which shamefully foster these terrible working conditions. What Ms. Bojorquez went through is outrageous and ERA will not stop its advocacy until the workplace is safe for all women.”

“TVC is extremely proud to have represented such a courageous woman as Ms. Bojorquez, who was willing to step forward and fight for her rights in spite of the serious hardships and obstacles she faced,” stated Virginia Villegas of Talamantes Villegas Carrera, LLP. “This case should put employers who do not take seriously their responsibility to prevent and address sexual harassment on notice that low-wage workers will not be deterred from coming forward and demanding that their rights be respected.”

Like many female janitors employed by ABM, Plaintiff worked alone at night, cleaning isolated office areas to which she was assigned by her foreman. Instead of providing her with a safe, discrimination-free workplace, ABM fostered a sexually hostile work environment in which Ms. Bojorquez’s foreman and direct supervisor was emboldened to sexually harass her on a regular basis. As she testified at trial, during Ms. Bojorquez’s first two months of employment with ABM, she was subjected to a barrage of unwelcome comments, requests for sexual favors, and unwanted touching by the foreman, her direct supervisor. This sexual harassment escalated to the point that on the night of October 4, 2004, he forced Plaintiff to the ground and raped her on the floor of an office she was cleaning.

After Ms. Bojorquez complained to ABM about the harassment and assault, the company swore her and other potential witnesses to secrecy, requiring them to sign a “Confidentiality Agreement” that the EEOC later determined to be unlawful. Instead of removing or disciplining Ms. Bojorquez’s supervisor, ABM retained him. Instead of remedying the sexually hostile work environment to which Plaintiff was subjected, Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff by removing her from the worksite and later terminating her employment.

Ms. Bojorquez filed timely charges of discrimination and retaliation in 2005 against ABM with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). DFEH issued a right-to-sue letter on May 31, 2005. On April 23, 2009, the EEOC issued a Determination and found that there was reasonable cause to believe that ABM discriminated against Plaintiff because of her sex, and retaliated against her for complaining about sexual harassment by not recalling her for work.

At least half a dozen 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, No. 1:07-cv-01428 LJO JLT, was brought in California in 2007 against the same three defendants named here. 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, up to and including sexual assault. The case settled in 2010 for $5.8 million.

Media Contacts:
Monali Sheth, Staff Attorney, Equal Rights Advocates
msheth@equalrights.org 415-621-0672 x387 (office) 510-290-6544(cell)
Virginia Villegas, Partner, Talamantes Villegas Carrera, LLP
virginia@e-licenciados.com 415-989-8000 x 22 (office) 415-810-8195

About ERA
Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), founded in 1974, is a national civil rights organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. Through its campaign approach—incorporating public education, legislative advocacy, and litigation—ERA seeks to assist women and girls throughout a life-long continuum: ensuring equality in their educational experience, combating sex discrimination in the workforce, and advocating for workplaces hospitable to working families. To learn more about ERA’s work, visit www.equalrights.org.
About TALAMANTES VILLEGAS CARRERA, LLP
Talamantes Villegas Carrera, LLP is a San Francisco based, plaintiff-side law firm dedicated to representing the rights of immigrant and low-wage workers. Since 1999, we have zealously represented workers and have won significant victories for some of the most vulnerable and exploited workers, including janitorial, farm, domestic, restaurant, and factory workers. TVC regularly collaborates with non-profit civil rights legal organizations throughout the State of California, such as Equal Rights Advocates, by providing resources, litigation support, legal clinic support, and man/woman power. Holding ourselves to the highest standards as lawyers, we work from the principles of honesty, fairness and candor. The attorneys of TVC have integrity and take seriously our obligation to represent our clients to the best of our abilities. To learn more about TVC’s work, visit www.e-licenciados.com.
Equal Rights Advocates
www.equalrights.org
Advice & Counseling Hotline: 1-800-839-4372

The damages phase of the trial on the Title IX claim was scheduled to start on March 5, 2012. The parties chose instead to resolve all remaining issues, including any possible appeals, with payment by the University of $1,350,000 to plaintiffs’ counsel for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred during the lengthy case.

“This settlement is the final chapter in a precedent setting Title IX case brought by three brave young women who were denied the opportunity to play college sports, but through their determination and fighting spirit paved the way for the women who are playing sports at the University of California and other institutions today,” stated Plaintiffs’ counsel Noreen Farrell of Equal Rights Advocates. Plaintiffs were also represented by the Sturdevant Law Firm, Equity Legal, and Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, with support from the American Association of University Women. “We are saddened that the University chose to spend millions to defend and settle this case rather than give our clients a chance to wrestle. But this case ensures that UC Davis will provide equal athletic opportunities in intercollegiate sports as Title IX requires,” added Jim Sturdevant.

Arezou Mansourian, Christine Ng and Lauren Mancuso were dedicated wrestlers and still students when they filed suit in 2003 demanding that UC Davis provide female students an equal opportunity to play intercollegiate varsity sports. All three were pioneers in a male-dominated sport. Mansourian placed at North Coast sectionals in high school. Ng was a high school team captain. Mancuso was a nationally ranked high school champion. Each was recruited to come to wrestle at Davis but then cut from the program after the University refused to continue the contract of a supportive coach.

As noted by Mansourian: “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.” While the case continued long after the graduation of these Plaintiffs, they racked up a series of victories for Title IX, including:

Landmark Ninth Circuit Win Removes Hurdles To Title IX Suits

In May 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal weighed in on the Mansourian case on an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in the case on the Title IX claim on the grounds that the Plaintiffs had not provided UC Davis of sufficient notice of the precise nature of their claims before filing a suit for damages. In strongly worded decision that set important guidance for Title IX claims across the country, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that students need not provide a school “notice” of its own institutional decision to provide female students fewer opportunities to play sports. Instead, as the Court found: “[Title IX] requires continuous progress toward the mandate of gender equality that Title IX has imposed on funding recipients for the past thirty years.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel Kristen Galles from Equity Legal, a Title IX expert who has litigated many Title IX cases, emphasized the important precedent also set by the Ninth Circuit on the merits of a defense raised by the University in this case and by many universities across the country: “The Ninth Circuit opinion in this case emphasized that a school must have both a history and continuing practice of expanding opportunities for women. They can’t just wait and let decades of unmet interest build up until someone files a legal complaint. They have affirmative, independent obligations to expand opportunities. Schools have had 40 years to expand their women’s programs to catch up with the already existing men’s programs. Unfortunately, many schools just haven’t done it. Hopefully, the decision in this case will wake schools up to their obligations.”

Trial Victory For Plaintiffs Finding Title IX Violation By University

In August 2010, Plaintiffs scored another win after a three-week bench trial on the issue of whether UC Davis violated Title IX when Plaintiffs were students. A federal district court in Sacramento found in Plaintiffs’ favor on the claim, ruling that the University dropped more than 60 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.

Taking stock of the settlement announcement, Plaintiff Christine Ng stated: “All we ever wanted was to represent UC Davis in sports. We litigated this case for nearly ten 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.”

Women’s wrestling also scored a win from the case. Plaintiff Lauren Mancuso stated: “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.” Shortly after Plaintiffs filed suit, women’s wrestling made its Olympic debut in 2004 and today thousands of girls now participate in wrestling across the country.

Injunctive Relief Resulting in Much Improved Gender Parity in UC Davis Athletics and WISE Fund Support of UC Davis Female Athletes

The Mansourian suit led to the filing of a related suit on behalf of a class of current female students at UC Davis, Brust v. Regents, which resulted in a settlement in 2008 that required UC Davis to improve gender parity in its athletic participation ratios. Monetary proceeds from the settlement were used to create a fund to help developing female athletes at UC Davis. In the past two years, the Women In Sports Equity (WISE) has awarded over $70,000 in grants to female athletes at Davis.

WISE Fund recipient and Co-President of UC Davis’s Lacrosse Club Jessica Dresser hailed the fund: “The WISE fund allows for women who may not have the financial means to play collegiate sports to do so. By eliminating barriers to skilled competition such as lack of funding to travel or even being able to afford to participate, more women have the opportunity to learn and further the growth of the sport.”

For more information about the case, see www.equalrights.org.

About ERA

Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), founded in 1974, is a national civil rights organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. Through its campaign approach—incorporating public education, legislative advocacy, and litigation—ERA assists women and girls throughout a life-long continuum: ensuring equality in their educational experience, combating sex discrimination in the workforce, and advocating for workplaces hospitable to working families. To learn more about ERA’s work, visit www.equalrights.org.

The Ninth Circuit allowed the case, brought by former women students who were intercollegiate wrestlers at the University of California, Davis, to proceed against the University and certain of its officials for discrimination under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause.  Plaintiffs Arezou Mansourian, Christine Wing-Si Ng, and Lauren Mancuso are represented by Noreen Farrell of Equal Rights Advocates, Monique Olivier of the Sturdevant Law Firm and Kristen Galles of Equity Legal.

The Ninth Circuit reversed a decision by the district court that found that Plaintiffs had not provided the University adequate notice of their claims before filing suit for monetary damages, as is typically required in Title IX cases involving sexual harassment by a rogue employee. The Ninth Circuit also reinstated Plaintiffs’ constitutional equal protection claim.

In a comprehensive opinion, the Ninth Circuit rejected the imposition of a pre-litigation notice requirement in Title IX cases alleging unequal athletic opportunities, finding that no notice is required because UC Davis’ own decisions are at issue. The Court stated: “Institutions, not individual actors, decide how to allocate resources between male and female athletic teams. Decisions to create or eliminate teams or to add or decrease roster slots for male or female athletes are official decisions, not practices by individual students or staff. Athletic programs that effectively fail to accommodate students of both sexes thus represent ‘official policy’ of the recipient entity …’”

The Court further found that forcing plaintiffs to provide pre-litigation notice would be inconsistent with a school’s “affirmative obligations to provide nondiscriminatory athletic participation opportunities and continually to assess and certify compliance with Title IX.” See http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/opinions/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000010277

The Ninth Circuit also found that UC Davis had failed to prove its compliance with Title IX, noting the wealth of evidence suggesting that UC Davis had not provided adequate opportunities for women athletes as the federal civil rights law requires. Plaintiffs are now free to pursue their claims back in the district court.

“We are thrilled,” stated Plaintiff Christine Ng. “We wanted our day in court, not only for us, but as an opportunity to stand up for all girls and women trying to participate in contact sports where stigmas against women remain strong.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel Monique Olivier applauded the results: “T he Ninth Circuit decisively removed a barrier the district court had set when it imposed a notice requirement on women athletes seeking relief under Title IX.”

Noreen Farrell, Plaintiffs’ counsel from Equal Rights Advocates, hailed the Ninth Circuit decision: “This is a decision of national importance for students across the country. Some 37 years after Title IX’s passage, a school cannot just sit back and wait for complaints. The decision confirms that schools must proactively ensure gender equity in its athletic and other educational programs. Only when this is obligation is met will we stand a chance at finally meeting the important goals of Title IX.”

The University entered into a settlement last year in a re lated case brought by current students at UC Davis which provides an agreed set of standards for female participation rates in intercollegiate sports and also provides additional financial support for club sports on campus.