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/

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.

Excerpt below:

“The national nonprofit Equal Rights Advocates is demanding answers from Bay Area schools after the NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit  exposed that some were not complying with Title IX.

To view original report, click here.

The group is asking 100 Bay Area schools to provide proof of compliance with the federal law that is set up to protect students from sexual harassment and abuse.

A lesser known part of Title IX requires schools to have a system in place to handle sexual harassment and abuse complaints. It also mandates schools designate a Title IX coordinator and publish this individual’s contact information.

ERA is asking for proof of a coordinator and procedures to file complaints that are published.

“We are very very focused on Title IX and why its important and it’s troubling that 40 years after it’s passage we are still seeing these kinds of problems,” Noreen Farrell, ERA’s Executive Director, said.

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.

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 WISE Fund was borne out of Brust v. Regents of the University of California, a class action suit brought by women club athletes against UC Davis that alleged that women were getting too few intercollegiate athletic opportunities. “We are very excited that this key term of our Title IX suit continues to benefit women athletes at Davis,” stated Noreen Farrell, Managing Attorney at Equal Rights Advocates. ERA served as co-counsel for the athletes, along with the Sturdevant Law Firm and Equity Legal.

The agreed-upon Brust settlement also sets out a 10-year plan for UC Davis to reach specific proportions of male and female athletes by the 2019-20 school year. The university will either add women’s intercollegiate teams or will take other measures to ensure equal accommodation of student interest in varsity sports. UC Davis has also agreed to contribute $110,000 to a fund for the development of club sports, which the plaintiffs will distribute consistent with the purposes of the lawsuit.

The suit, Brust v. Regents of the University of California, was filed as a companion class action case to a still pending Title IX suit filed by women wrestlers in 2003, who challenge discrimination they faced at Davis arising from their removal from the varsity wrestling program. The wrestler case, Mansourian v. Regents of the University of California, proceeds to trial starting Monday at a federal court in Sacramento. ERA, the Sturdevant Law Firm, Equity Legal, and the law firm of Duckworth, Peters, Lebowitz Olivier LLP also represent plaintiffs in the Mansourian case.

The WISE Fund, administered by the Women’s Foundation of California, awarded several grants for team-related expenses to club sport teams for the 2010-2011 school year to support development of women athletes. The recipients ranged from women’s rugby to women’s field hockey club teams.

The fund was lauded by UC Davis club lacrosse team members Miriam Kolni and Alexandra Pene. “The WISE Fund provided us with the funds to travel to Georgia and to play against higher ranking teams that we would otherwise have been unable to play,” said Alexandra Pene, a junior and lacrosse club team member. “Playing higher ranking teams, increased our ranking, which allowed us to become a leading contender at the top in the nation.”

“Most of the time you see men lacrosse teams playing on ESPN, so that is what the public sees,” said Pene. “But I think more and more girls are playing sports and it’s just as important to have those opportunities available to them as it would be for boys.”

Having the support also freed up students’ time to focus on academics “instead of stressing out over funding for your team’s next competition,” as both Pene and Kolni said.

Kelsey Brust, lead plaintiff in the Brust case that led to the establishment of the WISE Fund, stated, “While the WISE Funds will one day be spent, I am proud that our Title IX suit made a difference at Davis and that other women will continue to benefit from it for years to come.”

As noted by ERA’s Noreen Farrell, “Although we have made great progress, our work continues to ensure an equal education for the young men and women who will be our leaders tomorrow.”