Posts

Let Freedom Ring: Why July 2nd is so Important to US History

Categories:

dc-fireworks2We are two days away from celebrations, parades and fireworks.  We at the Phillips Law Firm would like to wish everyone a very happy, and safe, 4th of July.  Our independence should never be taken for granted.  It should be embraced and celebrated every single day.

Before the official Independence Day festivities begin, however, we at Phillips Law Firm wish to take a moment to honor the importance of this day, July 2, 2014.  This day is important because, like the 4th, it’s a day that celebrates the true freedom of our nation.  However, unlike the 4th, it’s a day that celebrates, more so than our nation as a whole, the rights and freedoms of the minorities of our nation.

This is because today marks the 50th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This Act sought to: outlaw discrimination, end racial segregation, and protect the voting rights of minorities and women.  As we celebrate today’s Anniversary, let’s take a quick look back at one of the most important civil rights laws in the history of the United States.

A Brief History Lesson

The Declaration of Independence stated that “All men are created equal.”  This quote, however, only really applied to wealthy white landowners when our nation was first formed.  Granted, equality was expanded in time following the Civil War when slaves were declared free.  Equality was also expanded via the 15th and 19th amendments which granted women and non-white people the right to vote.  Nonetheless, even after such monumental events, we as a nation were definitely not all free people.

If we turn the clocks back only about 60 years, people in the United States were still being denied their basic civil rights.  For example, Jim Crow laws in the south permitted racial segregation.  Further, at this same time, discrimination based on gender, race and religion was considered legal.

Prior to his assassination, President John F. Kennedy called for greater civil rights laws that would afford increased liberties for minorities and women.  After his assassination, President Lyndon B. Johnson echoed these hopes.  His hopes came to fruition on July 2, 1964 when he signed the Civil Rights Act into law.

Main Provisions of the Civil Rights Act

Many label the Civil Rights Act as “the bill of the century.”  Yet, many of us really do not understand the true importance behind the act and what it did for our country.  To help us all understand the act’s importance, let’s consider some of its main provisions.  Under the act:

  • The voting requirements for all people must be the same
  • Discrimination is outlawed in all public places
  • Access to public facilities cannot be denied based on race, religion or national origin
  • Public schools shall not be segregated
  • Government agencies shall not discriminate
  • Employers shall not discriminate based on race, gender, religion, or national origin

Did You Know?

The provisions of the Civil Rights Acts were ground-breaking and emancipating dictates for many members of our country.  These provisions should be celebrated for the breadth and strength of the liberties they created.  The act itself is also interesting.  For example, consider these three quick facts.

  • A greater percentage of republicans, in both the House and Senate, voted in favor of the act versus democrats.
  • Southern democrats vehemently opposed the act and filibustered for 83 days.
  • Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. met for the first, and only time, during Senate debates on the act.

“Let Freedom Ring”

Martin Luther King Jr. powerfully breathed life into these three words during his I Have a Dream Speech delivered on August 28, 1963.  We should embrace these words today, for although freedom will ring loudly in just two days for us all, this freedom was not shared equally by all until a mere five decades ago.  Our firm is deeply rooted in these words since freedom and justice is what we seek and not just justice for some…but justice for you and justice for all.

by

Employer Discrimination and Workers’ Compensation

Categories: ,

Your employer is not legally allowed to discriminate or retaliate against you for filing a workplace injury claim, saying that you are going to file a claim, or for seeking all of the workers’ compensation benefits to which you are entitled under Washington State law.

Examples of discrimination or retaliation by an employer may include:

  • Firing you or laying you off
  • Demoting you or assigning you to an undesirable shift
  • Denying you a promotion
  • Reducing your wages or benefits
  • Refusing to adjust your job duties to meet the light-duty restrictions ordered by your doctor

However, if the employee has failed to learn and follow safety or health rules, not followed the employer’s policies, or has suffered numerous on-the-job injuries, the above actions may or may not be considered employer discrimination under Washington State law.

Protection from Employer Discrimination

If you are unsure and need to determine whether or not your employer’s actions are considered to be discriminatory, contact an experienced Workers’ Compensation attorney immediately.

If you believe you have been discriminated against after filing a workplace injury claim, you may obtain a complaint form online or at your local L&I office. Complaints are also accepted in written form, although forms are encouraged because they make it clear what pertinent information is needed. You can mail your completed complaint form to: Department of Labor & Industries, P.O. Box 44277, Olympia, WA 98504-4277. Customer service representatives, claim managers, or any representative of the Department of L&I also accepts forms.

How a Workers’ Compensation Attorney Can Help

While employers are required by Washington State to comply with Workers’ Compensation and allow workers to file claims, some employers retaliate against injured employees for pursuing Workers’ Compensation benefits. Workers have the right to bring a lawsuit against employers who engage in forms of illegal retaliatory action. A knowledgeable Seattle workers’ Compensation attorney can help guide you through this process.

by

Is Discrimination Over for White Women in Washington?

Categories:

Last year, the Washington State Department of Transportation set about to determine if women and specific minority groups were still experiencing discrimination when being awarded contracts on public works projects. They hired Colorado-based BBC research and consulting group to conduct this study. BBC found that firms that were owned by white women were winning enough contracts without the federal Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program.

Due to these findings, WSDOT wants to remove white women from the DBE program. Women in Highway Construction, a group of white women who own DBE-certified firms, vehemently oppose these findings and the change WSDOT wishes to implement. As such, they have threatened to file a lawsuit and argue that discrimination is still ongoing in Washington State.

“Lacking evidence of discrimination against Caucasian women-owned business in the local marketplace, WSDOT cannot include them in contract-specific DBE goals.”

—Kris Rietmann, WSDOT Assistant Communications Director

White Washington women in business aren’t buying it. At a public meeting in Shoreline, they pointed out several flaws in the study that was conducted and cited examples of women who were not interviewed for the report. WSDOT is currently listening to the comments until February; then the decision will head to the U.S. Department of Transportation, who will ultimately make the final call.

Women have long been discriminated against in businesses, especially in industries that are dominated by men. While it is against the law to discriminate based on sex, it still occurs rather frequently. Women may be overlooked for raises, promotions, or even demoted in favor of a male counterpart. Women-owned businesses may not be awarded contracts, even in situations where they are the lowest bidder or the most qualified company for the job.

Contact Seattle Employee Rights Attorneys

If you believe that your employer, a co-worker, or someone in the workplace has violated your employee rights, an experienced Seattle employee rights attorney at Phillips Law Firm can help. If you are interested in learning more about your legal options, call us at 1-800-708-6000. Our Seattle employee rights lawsuit attorneys are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation. Remember our no fee promise. If we do not recover anything for you, you do not owe us an attorney fee.

The employee rights lawyers at Phillips Law Firm have successfully represented individuals and their families in Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, Bellevue, Everett, Kent, Auburn, Renton, Federal Way, Bellingham, Marysville, Lakewood, Redmond, Shoreline, and throughout the State of Washington. 

by

Everett Police Officers Allege Racial Discrimination in the Workplace

Categories:

Everett, WA CourthouseThree Everett Police officers filed a federal lawsuit against the Everett Police Department claiming racial discrimination. The lawsuit alleges that even though the officers together had more than 60 years of experience, they were denied promotions because of their race. Racial discrimination in the workplace is illegal and a basis for filing an employee rights lawsuit.

Sgt. Garcia was Everett’s first Hispanic and bilingual officer. He alleges that he was treated harshly by superiors and eventually demoted due to his race. In addition, he claims that he city and the police department failed to review or investigate his complaints about the unfair treatment he was receiving.

Sgt Wolfington is a retired officer who left the department last year after a 20-year career there. He is Native American and claims that he was mistreated during his tenure there as well. These two officers repeatedly blamed a Captain for the hostile work environment that they had to endure all these years. The Captain who is under attack was part of a discrimination lawsuit more than 20 years ago as well.

Ofc. Mah, has been with the Everett Police Department for almost 20 years. He insists that officers who failed testing or who ranked lower were promoted ahead of him because he is Asian. Supervisors or city officials also never investigated his complaints.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits race discrimination in the workplace. Even though it is illegal for an employer to discriminate based on race, it still unfortunately happens on a regular basis. To make matters worse, it isn’t always apparent. Employees may be passed over for raises, promotions, or honors simply because of their race or color.

While it may be difficult to prove that you were not promoted because of your race, it is not impossible. As such, if you feel that you have been unfairly treated or denied advancement because of your race, it is important to speak to a Seattle employee rights lawyer immediately.

Contact Seattle Employee Rights Attorneys

If you believe that your employer, a co-worker, or someone in the workplace has violated your employee rights, an experienced Seattle employee rights attorney at Phillips Law Firm can help. If you are interested in learning more about your legal options, call us at 1-800-708-6000. Our Seattle employee rights lawsuit attorneys are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation. Remember our no fee promise. If we do not recover anything for you, you do not owe us an attorney fee.

The employee rights lawyers at Phillips Law Firm have successfully represented individuals and their families in Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, Bellevue, Everett, Kent, Auburn, Renton, Federal Way, Bellingham, Marysville, Lakewood, Redmond, Shoreline, and throughout the State of Washington.

by

Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

Categories:

A federal judge in California, recently found Abercrombie & Fitch in violation of equal- employment laws when it fired a Muslim employee for wearing a religious headscarf. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 19 year-old Umme-Hani Khan, was fired from the chain’s Hollister store in San Mateo, California in February 2010, for refusing to remove her hijab.

Ms. Kahn worked primarily in the company’s stockroom from October 2009 until her dismissal, and complied with her employer’s request to wear headscarves in Hollister colors. She was later told that the hijab violated the company’s dress code or “Look Policy.” Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Khan was clearly “terminated for non-compliance with the company’s Look Policy”, her only violation being the religious headscarf.

Abercrombie, which could not be reached for comment, has two other suits pending involving Muslim employees or applicants with headscarves, but maintains that its dress code is at the heart of its business model.

Damages and injunctive relief will be determined at a trial set for September 30. Under Title VII, religious discrimination is defined as treating an applicant or employee unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law prohibits treating someone differently because of his or her association with an individual of a particular religion, or because of his or her connection with a religious group or organization.

Although the law does not protect against teasing or offhand comments, it does forbid harassment based on a person’s religious beliefs. Harassment includes, any offensive remarks about a person’s religious beliefs or practices. Harassment is defined as being so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment or when it results in adverse employment actions where the victim is, for example, demoted or fired. The law forbids discrimination in any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, training, promotions, layoffs and any other term or condition of employment. It also protects against workplace or job segregation based on religion.

Unless doing so would create more than a minimal burden on the operations of an employer’s business, the law requires an employer to make reasonable accommodations for an employee’s religious beliefs or practices. Reasonable accommodations include, flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions, job reassignments, and reasonable modifications to workplace policies and practices that allow an employee to practice his or her religion. An employer does not have to accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices if doing so would infringe on other employee’s rights or cause an undue hardship on the business.

Employee rights are constantly in danger. If you or someone you love has experienced employee discrimination, wrongful termination, or any violation of their employee rights in Seattle, Bellevue, or anywhere in the State of Washington, call Phillips Law Firm at 1-800-708-6000. Our Washington employee rights lawyers are waiting to assist you 24/7, offering a free case evaluation. Remember our no fee promise. If we do not recover anything for you, you do not owe us an attorney fee.

by