California Employment Lawyer Blog

September 11, 2012

Appellate Court Upholds Gender Harassment Verdict, But Reduces Award

A state appellate court has upheld an earlier judgment from a trial court in favor of an employee who alleged gender harassment from her communications company boss. However, justices did reduce the award.

Orange County Sexual Harassment Lawyer Houman Fakhimi understands that a jury in San Francisco had determined that the supervisor at Qwest Communications mistreated the plaintiff and had harassed other women as well. For her ordeal, the jury awarded her $4.3 million in damages.

It’s important to note that there is a distinction between gender harassment and sexual harassment. The former is a type of discrimination in which the staffer is targeted on the basis of his or her sex or when those of the opposite sex are treated more favorably. Sexual harassment, meanwhile, is the presence of unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or other conduct of a sexual nature that is either made a condition of employment or is used to make an employment-related decision or creates a hostile work environment.

In this case, Qwest appealed the trial court’s decision.

While the appellate court upheld the earlier verdict, saying it was clear that the gender harassment was so intense that it was understandable why the woman quit her job, the justices ruled that the jury’s award was excessive. Ultimately, they reduced it by almost half.

Gender harassment lawyers are disappointed at the justices’ decision to slash the damages, particularly given the egregiousness of the proven allegations.

It started back in 2006, when the employee in question was hired. In the San Francisco branch of the company, she oversaw sales of communications equipment, and her team not only met but exceeded its quota during those two years.

Several months after she came aboard, she was assigned to a new supervisor. What she did not know was that he had been hired after he had apparently sexually propositioned another younger female employee at his previous job.

At staff meetings, he would chastise her for being “too emotional.” He referred to her as a “silly girl,” and he also once asked whether she planned on going out that night to look for a sexual encounter.

Additionally, he berated her for taking credit for the success of others and told her she wasn’t likely to stay employed there.

The year after she started, she suffered a knee injury. The result was that driving became painful. The supervisor learned of this, and began mandating that she act as a go-between for the offices, which required her being behind the wheel for up to five hours each day.

There was also a string of evidence indicating that he called and e-mailed her nearly a dozen times a day. He would demand to know where she was or what she was doing. He raised her sales quota to an unreachable level – something he did not do for the other employees.

By the end of that year, the employee was fed up. She filed a complaint with the company’s human resources department. However, a representative told her it was a “minor” matter, and that they would inform the supervisor. This did not improve the situation. In fact, once the supervisor learned of the complaint, he was livid – and left her a voicemail telling her so.

The employee subsequently went on medical leave and then resigned.

As it was later revealed during the trial, this employee wasn’t the only one who had been the target of this supervisor’s ire. In fact, three other female employees testified under oath that he had insulted them and had treated male workers far more favorably than female workers – and it was obvious.

The jury sided with the employee, giving her nearly $500,000 for economic losses, about $2.8 million for pain and suffering and another $1 million for punitive damages.

The justices, however, determined that the non-economic harm that the worker suffered didn’t justify the nearly $3 million in damages. In their reasoning, they stated that lesser amounts had been upheld for those who had actually suffered mental breakdowns.

It seems an unfair standard. Mental breakdowns can vary depending on multiple factors, including a person’s own chemical make-up and mental health.

It is not yet clear whether the employee will appeal.
Continue Reading

August 31, 2012

Another Official in Orange County Investigated for Sex Harassment

by Fakhimi & Associates

The Orange County Clerk-Recorder is under investigation amid allegations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct, following the implementation of a strict new county protocol enacted after the arrest of another county official accused of sexually assaulting multiple employees.

Orange County Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that because it took almost a year for officials in law enforcement to be alerted to the first case, a thorough investigation into the department’s affairs may be in order.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as requests for sexual favors, unwelcome sexual advances or other physical or verbal conduct of a sexual nature that:

–Is made a condition of one’s employment;

–Affects management decisions regarding employment, raises or discipline;

–Has the effect of unreasonably interfering with an employee’s work performance or establishing a hostile or offensive work environment.

It’s worth noting that even if an employee consents, particularly in order to save his or her job or to avoid other negative consequences, it can still be considered sexual harassment. It can range from unwanted phone calls and attention to outright sexual assault.

This issue appears to be one of growing concern within Orange County government.

In the first case, a subordinate of the accused manager was charged with investigating the allegations. Then the case was handed to a private law firm. That firm prepared a report, which the county then did nothing about.

Now, the person under investigation is a high-level county official accused of not only cronyism and favortism, but sexual misconduct as well. The county was alerted to the allegations through an anonymous letter that was signed by “concerned employees.”

In five pages, the letter asserts that several women, who are named in the report, were given raises in pay and promotions that were not justified. These women were commonly referred to as his “girls” or “angels,” and it is alleged that he engaged in sexual relationships with them, which were then rewarded with preferential treatment.

This again brings us back to the issue of consent. If the women in this case felt that they were expected to engage in these acts or conduct with their superior in order to receive better pay or work assignments, it absolutely falls under the category of sexual harassment – even if they willfully agreed to it.

Overseeing the internal investigation is the compliance oversight committee, which was created in the wake of the earlier allegations. Those on the committee include the county lawyer, the human resources director and the internal auditor.

According to the new protocol, complaints involving higher-ranking county officials will be handled by an outside lawyer or law firm that specializes in legal workplace issues.

However, as these firms are hired by the county, you can expect the county’s best interests and bottom line will be protected – as opposed to the alleged victims. This is why it is critical for anyone who has suffered sexual harassment to connect with their own counsel, to ensure their personal interests are protected.

Attorneys for the official have said that it appears the attacks are politically motivated and categorically denied them. Additionally, the women involved have reportedly signed documents indicating the same. However, if an employee believes his or her employment may be in jeopardy for asserting otherwise, it would be no surprise that they would try to protect their boss.
Continue Reading

August 26, 2012

Sex Harassment Case Costs California High School

by Fakhimi & Associates

A high school student in Northern California alleged sexual harassment by a guidance counselor during her junior year, and now details are emerging about the district’s efforts to settle the case.

Orange County Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that the school district reportedly paid nearly $175,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by the girl and her family. About $60,000 went to the girl and her family, while the rest went toward legal fees.

The new records were provided more than a year after they were first requested – in violation of California’s public records laws.

The case stemmed from the alleged interactions between the girl and her guidance counselor. According to her, the counselor made lewd and inappropriate remarks to her, attempted to hug and touch her and even pulled her out of class on several occasions to make unwanted sexual advances.

The school district, she claims, did nothing to address the issue when she first reported it.

Both the counselor and the district denied any wrongdoing, but the girl didn’t decide to sue until the school refused to fire the guidance counselor, potentially putting other young girls at risk for similar harassment.

The counselor still works at the school. The school district calls the counselor’s behavior “inappropriate and unprofessional,” but said it did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. It seems to be a conflicting stance.

Watchdog groups had been battling the school district for the last year trying to get records pertaining to the case. Some were critical of the amount spent to settle, given the financial woes of the public school district.

However, that settlement was actually quite modest, particularly when considering the type of harassment this student suffered and given the affect that can have on a teenager.

So often, when we think of sexual harassment, we think of workplace issues. However, students can be particularly vulnerable to this type of abuse because they are young, impressionable and often trust the authority of school employees.

A report last year from the American Association of University Women revealed that about half of all female high school and middle school students had been sexually harassed at least once in the previous school year. Often, the harassment was from their peers, but there were a number of cases in which it reportedly involved an adult school employee. Sexual harassment was defined as any type of unwanted sexual behavior that took place either in person or electronically.

Not only is this inappropriate, it could be criminal depending on the age of the victim and the position of the employee.

About half of the students surveyed said they ignored the harassment and never reported it. Only about 25 percent reported having the nerve to tell someone to stop, and an even smaller number reported it to a parent or other trusted adult.

Parents in particular need to keep an open communication with their children, and their female teenagers in particular, to ascertain whether this is an issue for them. Sexual harassment can include:

–Making sexual comments about a person’s body or clothing;

–Telling sexual stories or jokes;

–Paying unwanted attention to someone;

–Referring to a student as “honey” or “babe” or “sweetie”;

–Giving personal gifts that may make a student uneasy;

–Touching the students hair, body, clothing or face.
Continue Reading

August 23, 2012

Gay Sexual Harassment Settlement at LAUSD Falls Through

by Fakhimi & Associates

A gay sexual harassment case involving a retired Los Angeles schools superintendent fell through after details of the preliminary deal became public and the victim in the case was identified.

Orange County Sexual Harassment Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that cases involving same-sex harassment in the workplace are on the rise.

In 2009, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that about 16 percent of all sexual harassment cases were brought by men – which is an increase of about 12 percent from 10 years earlier. While there are no definitive statistics from the EEOC on how many of those involve same-sex harassment, a spokesperson for the federal agency was quoted as saying that, anecdotally, the number involving same-sex harassment has shot up.

It’s only been in the last 15 years that same-sex harassment was considered sexual harassment at all, thanks to the Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. In that case, justices held that same-sex claims did, in fact, constitute as harassment.

Generally, it’s more common that these cases will be settled out of court than make it all the way to trial. That’s the route this case was on, until it was derailed by a release of information by the district.

Here’s what happened, according to the Los Angeles Times:

A mid-level administrator at the school has filed a $10 million lawsuit against the district, alleging that it failed to protect him from the sexual advances of former Superintendent Ramon Cortines, even after he revealed the alleged harassment to his superiors.

Cortines, now 80, reportedly denies any harassment, but does say he engaged in “spontaneous, consensual adult behavior” with his former employee, now 56.

The employee had been working for the district since 2000, and he and his husband were acquaintances with the superintendent, who at the time was serving as interim superintendent.

The employee said he never interviewed for the job, but that shortly after he landed it, the superintendent began pressuring him to engage in sexual acts with him. He said the superintendent’s demeanor toward him was always overly-friendly and attentive.

Back in 2010, the employee said he accepted an invitation to visit the superintendent’s ranch because he felt that his superior could either cut his position or protect him from being laid off. He could not afford to risk his job, he said, so he went. While there and over the course of two days, the employee said his boss tried repeatedly to engage him in unwanted sexual acts. The employee said he felt trapped.

After that, the employee said he told two supervisors what had happened. He was advised to drop the matter, as it would likely ruin the superintendent’s career.

The superintendent retired last year, and the employee filed his harassment claim in March. A deal on the table would have given him a $200,000 lump sum and a lifetime of health benefits if he would leave his position.

However, the deal fell through. It’s not clear whether the case will now go to trial.

The employee, who still works there, has now also sued the former superintendent personally.
Continue Reading

August 12, 2012

Report: Unsafe, Unfair Labor Conditions in California Warehouses

by Fakhimi & Associates

A new study by researchers at the University of California, Riverside reports on unfair and unsafe working conditions within the Inland warehouse industry.

Riverside Employment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that these allegations include a range of issues, including sleep deprivation that led to injuries, lack of appropriate training and constant pressure to work faster.

The study was recently published in the quarterly journal, Policy Matters.

The report indicates that about half of the warehouses’ workers are migrants, who in general face a greater level of exploitation than other employees because of their citizenship status and the fact that many do not speak English. According to the California Employment Development Department, nearly 115,000 people were hired in 2010 by the warehouses, and the majority of workers are Latino, mostly working temporary positions that pay poorly and lack benefits.

The study was conducted through a number of methods, including survey data, field research, secondary literature and a number of interviews with workers, managers and representatives of temporary employment service agencies.

Among the findings are that:

1. Nearly half of all workers felt they had endured pressure from their superiors that led to illness or injury. They indicated that work schedules often meant they were forced to do their job with very little sleep. This is a well-known contributing cause to workplace injuries.

2. Less than a quarter of workers believed they had received proper training in order to do their job safely. Some said they were simply left to figure it out on their own. What’s more, the vast majority said they felt pressure from their bosses to complete their tasks more quickly.

3. Funding to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration has meant diminished resources for workers and a lack of safety-protocol oversight.

The study also highlighted data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The agency reported that 4.5 percent of the nearly 2 million warehouse workers in the U.S. had suffered some sort of injury in 2009. About a quarter of a percent suffered some form of work-related illness.

What that means is that warehouse work is more treacherous than other danger-prone fields, such as mining, logging or construction. By comparison, about 3 percent of construction workers were hurt in 2009, and warehouse workers were about four times more likely as a construction worker to get sick from his or her work environment.

The study also indicates that more than half of the workers in 2011 either themselves got injured or sick from work or witnessed someone become ill or injured.

According to OSHA’s worker safety series on warehouses, the standards that were most frequently cited in warehouse safety issues included:

Improper stacking of products;

Unsafe use of a forklift;

Failure to follow proper procedure with lockout/tagout;

Failure to use proper personal protective equipment;

Repetitive motion injuries;

Inadequate provisions for fire safety.

The lead researcher on the study team was quoted as saying that both federal and state officials need to more closely monitor the working conditions of warehouse industry employees, and that retailers should be held accountable when their factory workers are subjected to unfair and potentially unsafe treatment.
Continue Reading

July 31, 2012

Race Discrimination Alleged at Orange Teen Clothing Chain

by Fakhimi & Associates

A popular teen clothing retailer based in Orange County has been accused of racial bias, in a lawsuit filed by three former managers of the store.

Orange County Employment Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that racial discrimination still goes on in 2012 America and is committed to fighting on behalf of residents who are treated unfairly in the workplace. Sadly, it’s more pervasive than you would think.

Such cases can be difficult to prove definitively. For example, a class action suit filed on behalf of 1.5 million female workers across the country was dismissed because a federal judge said there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove that discrimination was part of a company-wide policy. However, from what we know so far of this case, which has been filed in the Federal District Court of Santa Ana, the managers have company records and e-mails to back their claim.

Representatives for Wet Seal have denied allegations that they fired or withheld promotions to African American employees on the basis of race. The lawsuit against the company contends executives did so in favor of hiring white workers who were a better fit to the clothier’s “brand image.”

The former managers are seeking class-action status, which would be open to more than 250 managerial-level employees at some 550 locations across the U.S. The managers are seeking back pay, general damages and punitive damages.

As proof of these reported discriminatory tactics, the plaintiffs in the case have provided an e-mail that was sent three years ago by the senior vice president of operations to some of her staff. In that e-mail, the executive noted that the increasing number of African American staffers at retail locations was “a huge issue.”

One of those who has filed suit, an African American female, says that she was a manager at one of the store locations in Pennsylvania when she was fired back in the spring of 2009. A month prior to her firing, she contends that the same executive had visited that location and was overheard telling a district manager that the manager of the store should be someone with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Another African American woman, who worked at a New Jersey branch of the store, was told that she needed to diversify the staff there by hiring workers who weren’t black. She was given a month to do this back in 2009, and told if she did not, she would be fired. Before she could do anything, the decision of who to hire was taken out of her hands. She was let go the following year.

The executive also reportedly told managers they needed to “lighten up” their stores in order to reel in more white customers, and in another instance is accused of telling a regional manager that she must have been crazy to have promoted a black woman to a managerial position at a certain store.

The executive in question reportedly left the company last year, though the circumstances of her departure aren’t clear.

If the facts of this case are true as laid out in the lawsuit, this case should be an easy win for the plaintiffs. The fact is that even if there is some sort of consumer preference for employees of a certain gender or race or religious background, there is absolutely no exception in the law that allows you to discriminate. It doesn’t even matter if your sales suffer as a result (although we bet one would find little evidence to support that anyway).

There is simply no excuse for discrimination in any form.
Continue Reading

July 19, 2012

Chapman Settles Orange Gender Discrimination Case

by Fakhimi & Associates

Chapman University will pay $175,00 to settle an Orange County gender discrimination case filed by a female professor who alleged she was denied both a promotion and tenure due to her sex.

Orange County Employment Discrimination Lawyer Houman Fakhimi knows that these cases are quite common, but often it comes down to what’s provable in court and how hard a company or institution wants to fight back.

Oftentimes, discrimination cases are settled out of court because employers don’t want the negative press surrounding allegations of such egregious actions.

In this case, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission got involved as well, and in addition to the payment the professor will receive, she’s also been promoted to the position of associate professor. However, because she no longer works at the university, a spokeswoman for the school said it was more of a resume-booster.

In addition to those terms, the school also agreed to set up a free hotline for staff to report sex discrimination complaints.

The professor had worked at the school since 1999 and was denied tenure in 2007.

When she first filed her grievance through the university’s appropriate channels, the grievance committee did agree with her. However, their ruling was rejected by the school’s executive board. In turn, she filed a complaint with the EEOC in 2008.

The EEOC launched an investigation that determined there was indeed reasonable cause to show she had been denied tenure because of her sex. In the face of that ruling, the school did an about-face, and agreed to settle the case in an a bid to avoid a civil court case.

Unfortunately, the one thing the settlement did not require the university to do was admit any guilt. However, it’s fairly clear based on the outcomes of two investigations – one of those internal – that the university was at fault here.

In addition to the hotline, they have also agreed to conduct further employment training in the areas of sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation, with a more intensive program for managers and supervisors.

According to the local EEOC spokeswoman, sex discrimination is the third most common type of discrimination in the country, behind race and disability. Age discrimination was not far behind.

Sex-based discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states employment and/or promotion can not be denied on the basis of one’s gender (or religion, national origin, color, race, age or disability).

There are also other federal laws that prohibit this kind of discrimination, including the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978.

If you believe you may have looked over for a promotion or a job position because of your gender or any of these other protected statuses, it’s imperative that you contact an experienced Orange employment lawyer as soon as possible.
Continue Reading

July 14, 2012

LAX Hilton Hotel Settles Worker Wage Lawsuit for $2.5M

by Fakhimi & Associates

Los Angeles wage violations at the Hilton Hotel near the Los Angeles International Airport has resulted in a $2.5 million settlement.

Los Angeles Employment Attorney Houman Fakhimi knows that cases like this are common, as many companies have no qualms denying workers meal and rest breaks and in some cases denying wages. Businesses are expensive to run, and companies will bank on the fact that employees often don’t understand their rights well enough to press forward with a complaint.

As one of the largest hotels in the city, not to mention being a large and successful national chain, the Hilton undoubtedly had the means to pay its workers. It simply chose to skirt the rules. Now, they will pay the price for that not only in the form of back pay and also punitive damages.

Dozens of workers at the 1,200-room hotel no Century Boulevard filed suit back in 2008, alleging violations dating back to 2004.

Among the laundry list of allegations, the hotel reportedly refused to pay its workers for the time they spent doing prep work, including putting on or taking off uniforms, which were required to be left at the hotel. Additionally, employees said they were made to fill out time sheets indicating that they took rest and meal breaks when in fact they did not.

Other allegations included that the hotel hired a large number of workers, including housekeepers and cooks, through a subcontractor in an effort to circumvent the city’s ordinance that required that those working at airport-area hotels be paid a proper living wage.

The hotel fought back, suing the city over its living wage ordinance, which required an hourly stipend of $11.55 or $10.30 if the company was also paying health benefits. The hourly minimum wage in California at the time was $8.

The ordinance was controversial at the time because it required businesses that were not contracted by the city to pay over and above the state’s minimum wage. But labor advocates had long argued that the minimum wage was not a living wage – families could not afford to feed themselves or self-sustain on that level of income.

Ultimately, the hotel, which was joined by several others, lost that case and the ordinance was upheld.

The class action suit filed by workers indicated there was actually a dual pay system. Workers hired directly by Hilton were in fact paid much higher wages than those who worked for the sub-contractor. In essence, they were being paid much less for doing the same work.

The settlement of the class action suit, which affects some 1,200 employees, was announced by a local union, which has over the last handful of years been working to unionize employees in the Los Angeles-area hospitality industry in an effort to provide greater employment protections.

A cook at the hotel said employees were often made to feel like machines. Winning the lawsuit, he said, was about more than the money. It was about justice, he said, and earning respect.
Continue Reading

June 26, 2012

High Court Judge Weighs California Discrimination Suit Against Walmart

by Fakhimi & Associates

The merits of a second employment discrimination class action suit against box store giant Walmart are being weighed by a federal judge in California.

Riverside Employment Attorney Houman Fakhimi understands that U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has expressed some “serious” doubts about whether the case may move forward, following the federal Supreme Court’s dismissal of a nearly identical suit last year.

However, those arguing on behalf of the plaintiffs – some 45,000 female employees of Walmart – say that there is new evidence that managers and supervisors systematically based promotion and pay scales on clear gender bias.

When the case was originally taken before the state’s supreme court last year, justices dismissed it after determining the plaintiffs were unable to establish that there was any decision by supervisors or a company policy that would have resulted in women receiving less pay or fewer promotions.

So in essence, the court never said discrimination didn’t occur. What it did say was that such decisions were made by store managers at hundreds of Walmart locations – without any direct guidance from the corporation (and thus that class-action status was not merited). Breyer asked the plaintiff counsel what was different in the current case.

The reply was that there is evidence that some of those in charge, including the 20 district managers and four regional managers in California, were biased against women. It was these individuals, the attorney said, who were responsible for approving promotions and pay.

So what does that evidence look like?

One piece involves statements made by the company’s former chief executive to district managers back in 2004. According to court records, the executive told his team that successful leaders are best when they have a single focus to see a job through to completion. Women, the executive said, were better at processing information, while men were better with focus.

Statements like this, the plaintiffs contend, were clearly behind the very wide disparity in terms of promotions and pay for female Walmart employees in California. And while on the surface the company touted equality, internally, the plaintiffs say, there was a clear policy of discrimination.

Walmart attorneys also aren’t denying that there may have been some level of discrimination. But they say that a class action suit is unwarranted because promotion and pay decisions were at the discretion of individual managers – not the top executives. In countering the statement made by the former chief executive, Walmart’s attorney characterized it as a “stray remark. ”

It’s worth noting that more than 2,000 female workers have filed claims against the company with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The first suit filed with regard to this issue was brought forth in 2001 by six women. As an approved Class Action, it was granted class status to more than 1.5 million women who had worked at the chain since late 1998.

The federal Supreme Court in that case said that neither the obvious disparity in pay (both in California and across the country) nor the sexist remarks made by managers were enough to prove that the women were discriminated against in any uniform policy standard.

Judge Breyer, whose brother is a Supreme Court Justice, declined to say when he would rule on Walmart’s motion to dismiss.
Continue Reading

June 16, 2012

LAX Employment Retaliation Alleged For Reports on Safety Concern

by Fakhimi & Associates

Airport employees at Los Angeles International are accusing police superiors of employment retaliation against workers who identify and blow the whistle on safety risks.

Accusations of harassment or retaliation in Orange County workplace disputes require an experienced employment law attorney like Houman Fakhimi.

One can think of no more critical of a place than an airport where expressing safety concerns would be of the utmost importance. For workers to be retaliated against for acting in the public’s best interest is deeply troubling.

Here’s what we know about the case thusfar, according to The L.A. Times:

The Los Angeles Airport Police Officers Association has filed a claim for damages against the city. If the city denies that claim (which is likely), the association can move forward with a formal retaliation lawsuit.

Officials with the union represent those officers who patrol the airport said they have been hit with demeaning statements directed at them from police department supervisors and also forbidden from talking directly to lower-ranking officers during the regular roll-call meetings.

The president of the unions says that this is because there are whistleblowers within the union that have been raising red flags about “serious” safety problems at not only LAX but other airports run by the city as well (Van Nuys and Ontario International).

The city had forked over some $4 billion to modernize LAX, which is the third most highly-trafficked airport in the country. And yet, certain safety risks persist. The details of those risks were not outlined in the complaint.

The union says that seven out of 10 of its board members have been at the center of internal investigations or some other pending issue with police management. This, they say, is clear evidence that there is severe hostility being directed at the union from police superiors.

Additionally, some of the union officials have been abruptly reassigned to shifts or other duties seen as less desirable.

Both the city and the police department say they are reviewing the claim.

If true, these are extremely serious accusations.

The U.S. Labor Department, under the division of the Occupational Safety and Health Association, outlines the Whistleblower Protection Program, which states that workers in certain industries who report violations of safety or other specific concerns can not be discriminated against.

Discrimination is going to be defined as either firing or laying off, blacklisting, demoting, disciplining, intimidation, threatening, reassignment, reduction in pay or hours or denial of overtime, promotion or benefits.

This is an issue that is growing in terms of scope, as OSHA just announced last month that it intends to establish a Whisteblower Protection Advisory Committee, which is going to work with occupational safety and health leaders on how to improve whistleblower protections and transparency at job sites across the country.
Continue Reading