In one case, ERA helped tradeswoman Jeanine Dubois, who works as an electrician for the City & County of San Francisco, receive compensation and other relief for her claims of sex discrimination in pay and promotions. At ERA, we know that tradeswomen are historically discriminated against at work in male-dominated industries.

ERA attorneys also have successfully negotiated a string of settlements on behalf of pregnant women who were denied modest accommodations at work or fired when they requested them. One woman, who worked as a machine operator at a mailing and marketing services company and spoke only Spanish, was retaliated against and fired after taking her pregnancy leave. As part of the settlement, that company will improve its leave notices and translate them into other languages. A second woman, an East African immigrant who works in health care, was fired after requesting pregnancy leave. In addition to the monetary settlement, the company agreed to seal her dismissal records and she was able to get a job with a different employer.

“ERA takes a truly holistic approach to advocating for the rights of women and girls,” said ERA Legal Director Jennifer Reisch.  “Coupled with our work on broader impact litigation, like Dukes v. Wal-Mart, and our legislative advocacy on issues such as equal pay and fair treatment of working families, we believe that the direct service element of our work is an essential part of our overall strategy to ensure gender justice,” Reisch added.  “It is also extremely effective in bringing about necessary and timely changes in schools and workplaces.”

ERA will continue to negotiate and litigate on behalf of women workers who face barriers to equal employment opportunity and fair pay. For more information on our advocacy on behalf of women workers, click here. You can also support the rights of women and working families by joining our national and California campaigns to strengthen protections for caregivers and pregnant women at work here.

While counseling her on how to navigate her work situation, ERA prepared a demand letter on her behalf.  ERA successfully negotiated a settlement for the woman, which among other things, required the company to strengthen its internal sexual harassment policies and complaint procedure. Our client has recently found new employment and is happy she can now put the mistreatment she experienced behind her.

For more on how ERA supports marginalized women workers, click here. To reach the Advice and Counseling hotline, click here.

Redmund Sum owns and operates an electronics manufacturer and distributor called Silver Center America in Fremont.

According to one of the plaintiffs, Britanni Brown, Sum routinely made inappropriate sexual comments at work to the discomfort of his two sole female employees. The misconduct escalated though, when Sum groped and fondled Brown in his office, telling her that he had “always wanted” to do that.

ERA Legal Director Jennifer Reisch and Staff Attorney Monali Sheth, who represent the two women, say that such mistreatment of female workers is altogether too common.

“Unfortunately, sexual harassment and assault of women at work has become national epidemic,” said Sheth. “This case highlights the acuity of the problem in male-dominated industries like electronics manufacturing. What our clients have experienced on the job is extremely disturbing, and ERA will continue its advocacy until the workplace is safe and free of harassment for all women.”

To read a copy of the complaint in Brown et al v. Silver Center America, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, click here.

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.

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.

“Without NBC’s investigation into many Title IX issues and concerns how would we know about half of what’s going on in bay area schools?” Noreen Farrell, with Equal Rights Advocates told the Investigative Unit.

ERA has also filed a request for information from Evergreen, asking for proof it’s following Title IX. She is still waiting for answers.

“What I would advise a school district that has faced these horrible allegations is that they should be upfront doing everything to make sure students feel safe, parents feel confident and that members of the public feel confident,” Farrell said.

“For educators to stick their heads in the sand about sexual abuse of minors and the application of Title IX is a real problem.”

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:  Judge rules women will have their day in court