The luncheon, which attracts more than 800 lawyers and community leaders, is anticipated all year. This year, we’re thrilled to welcome equality activist Lilly Ledbetter, our keynote speaker, as well as a group of gender justice activists we’ll be honoring for their continued work.  Sponsor or purchase a table/ticket now!

Ledbetter, who sparked national legislative change after she sued her employer Goodyear Tire & Rubber for gender discrimination in 1998, will appear as a keynote speaker. ERA is proud to support the continuing efforts of activists like Ledbetter to close the wage gap.  More information about the luncheon and Lilly here:  http://events.equalrights.org/

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.

Contact:
Pam@turnerstrategies.com
402-305-0799

Equal Rights Advocates Executive Director Noreen Farrell available for comment
nfarrell@equalrights.org; 510-701-8243

(SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – Sept. 22, 2012) A federal court has given the plaintiffs in the California-focused Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., lawsuit the green light to proceed with their gender discrimination class action against the giant retailer.

In rejecting Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss the case, Judge Charles R. Breyer, of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, yesterday upheld the plaintiffs’ right to proceed as a class and present evidence that Wal-Mart and its subsidiary Sam’s Club discriminated against its California region female workers in pay and promotion.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the amended class action, filed in U.S. District Court in October 2011, is in full compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court’s new guidelines for class actions in employment and discrimination cases. Those guidelines arose from the Supreme Court’s decision in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision.

“We have maintained all along that the Supreme Court’s decision did not preclude us from seeking justice for the women of Wal-Mart through class actions consistent with its new guidelines and standards, nor did the Court rule on the merits of the case,” said lead counsel Brad Seligman, of the Impact Fund. “This decision vindicates our argument.”

Plaintiffs’ counsel Noreen Farrell, executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, adds: “The women of Wal-Mart have been waiting for more than a decade for their day in court. Sex discrimination in pay and promotion hurts lives and families. We applaud the decision giving our clients the green light to prove their claims.”

The case began in the same U.S. District Court in June 2001 when the plaintiffs brought suit against Wal-Mart on behalf of a nationwide class of female workers alleging pay and promotion discrimination. The District Court certified the national class in 2004, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court decision in 2010. Wal-Mart appealed The Ninth Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision in June 2011.

Plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel Joseph Sellers, of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, states: “We have strong new evidence that Wal-Mart has a long and egregious history of pay and promotion discrimination throughout its California stores. We welcome the opportunity to present this evidence to the Court.”

Relying on well-documented discrimination in pay and management promotion practices, the named plaintiffs represent more than 100,000 current or former women employees—with the exception of store managers and pharmacists— of California Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores. The class includes women who worked at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores and were subject to pay and promotion discrimination at any time since Dec. 26, 1998.

Named California plaintiffs are current Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., employees Betty Dukes, an 18-year employee who works at a cashier/greeter in a Contra Costa County Wal-Mart, and Christine Kwapnoski, a 26-year employee who works as an assistant manager in a Contra Costa County Sam’s Club, a division of Wal-Mart. Also named are former employees Edith Arana, of Los Angeles County; Deborah Gunter, of Riverside County; and Patricia Surgeson, of Sacramento County — all of whom worked at Wal-Mart stores in California.

Judge Breyer set a hearing for Feb. 15, 2013, on the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

In addition to the case before the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, another case class action pay and discrimination case against Wal-Mart, Odle v. Wal-Mart has been filed in a federal court in Texas, and other regional cases are expected to be filed elsewhere in the nation this year.

For more information on the case, visit www.walmartclass.com.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., plaintiffs are represented by the Impact Fund, Berkeley, Calif.; Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), San Francisco, Calif.; Davis Cowell & Bowe, LLP, San Francisco, Calif.; and the Law Office of Sheila Thomas.

La primera clínica va a ser el miércoles, el 5 de septiembre en el cuarto Audre Lorde del Edificio de Las Mujeres, ubicada en la vecindad de La Misión de San Francisco. La clínica continuará desde las seis de la tarde hasta las nueve de la noche. Las cuatro organizaciones proveerán consejería individua a mujeres que han sido víctimas del acoso o abuso sexual en el trabajo. Los servicios incluirán una evaluación legal y referencias a abogados privados, ayuda con aplicaciones de la visa U, y reclamos de compensación de trabajadores. Además que la ayuda legal, una persona con cita en la clínica recibirá información para asesoramiento psicológico. La clínica tendrá abogados y defensores bilingües.

Personas interesadas en asistir a la primera clínica el 5 de septiembre deben de llamar al (415) 575-2385 para hacer una cita. Aunque preferimos citas, personas sin cita todavía son bienvenidas.

“El abuso sexual en el trabajo de mujeres inmigrantes es un problema que se ha empeorado en los Estados Unidos. Hay varios obstáculos, incluyendo el miedo de represalias, que disuadan a mujeres de buscar ayuda,” dice Monali Sheth, abogada de ERA. “Clínica La Voz es un lugar donde mujeres se pueden sentir seguras en afirmar sus derechos contra el abuso sexual en el empleo.”

“Nuestra meta es proveer a las mujeres inmigrantes de San Francisco, incluyendo a las que están indocumentadas, con la información y apoyo que necesitan para protegerse y sus familias y para reafirmar sus derechos,” dice Nicole Márquez, abogada de WorkSafe.

La segunda clínica va a tomar lugar en el 7 de noviembre en el mismo lugar. Además de los servicios comprensivos de Clínica La Voz, la clínica también ofrecerá una serie de talleres de “conocer sus derechos” sobre el acoso sexual durante el empleo y como aplicar por el remedio migratorio de la visa U. El taller siguiente de “conocer sus derechos” va a ser el 3 de octubre.

ERA está dedicada a la causa de terminar el maltratamiento de las trabajadoras inmigrantes. Recientemente, ERA, con abogados de Talamantes Villegas Carrera LLP, ganaron un veredicto de $812,000 de parte de una portera hispanohablante. El jurado declaró que la mujer fue abusada sexualmente por su supervisor, y que su empleador había tomado represalias contra ella cuando reportó el abuso.

Para mujeres quienes no podrán asistir a la clínica en persona, ERA tiene una línea telefónica bilingüe de asesoría y consejería donde una persona que está siendo acosada sexualmente en el trabajo o en la escuela podrá obtener ayuda legal. El número de la línea telefónica es 800-839-4372.

Media Contact:
Monali Sheth, Equal Rights Advocates
msheth@equalrights.org 415-621-0672, x387 (office) 510-290-6544(cell)
ERA ha luchado por los derechos de mujeres y muchachas de manera nacional por más que 40 años por litigación, apoyo público, y por su línea telefónica de asesoría y consejería, que recibe miles de llamadas cada año.

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

Full press release here: ERA files harassment suit against San Francisco Diner