Discriminatory work dress codes are a contentious issue in many workplaces. Dress codes may unfairly target certain groups of employees based on their gender, race, religion, disability, or other personal characteristics. These dress codes can take many forms, such as: requiring women to wear high heels, dresses, or makeup; banning
We have a lot of potential clients come to us because they are working in what they consider to be a hostile work environment. Their boss yells at them, belittles them, intimidates them, mocks them, etc. Sometimes this treatment is constant. Sometimes this treatment is intermittent but extreme. But generally speaking, these are not petty slights or simple annoyances; it is something more. Overall, these employees are working in an environment a reasonable employee would consider hostile, intimidating, or abusive.
Common sense would dictate that an employer should not be allowed to subject its employees to such treatment. However, unfortunately, there is no federal or Texas law that broadly protects employees from a hostile work environment.
“Plaintiff contends that DHS, through its discrimination and harassment, constructively discharged him. Plaintiff resigned in September 2008. Given that it has determined that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, and in light of other conduct by Defendant’s employees, the court concludes that a genuine dispute of material
“In the interrogatories, Plaintiff states that Wood called him a “wetback”on five different occasions: (1) April 21, 2008; (2) May 29, 2008; (3) June 21, 2008; (4) July 10, 2008; and (5) August 8, 2008. Wood also told Plaintiff that “Salvadorans are liars” on July 8, 2008. Given the number of times these racial comments
“[Defendant] argues…that it had an Equal Employment Opportunity policy, the jury could have believed…that the policy was not followed. At trial, the jury heard evidence that in response to the EEOC’s request for information, [Defendant] produced affidavits stating that [Plaintiff] never complained…. The jury heard and saw evidence and testimony demonstrating that this was false.
“The record shows that Plaintiff’s subordinate made an anonymous complaint against Plaintiff allowing other individuals to steal money and time from Defendant. The subordinate then filed a grievance against Plaintiff complaining that since she was hired for the position he had harassed her, wrote her up, investigated her and yelled at her in front of
“In determining if conduct is ‘severe and/or pervasive,’ the Court should consider the totality of the circumstances, ‘including the frequency of the discriminatory conduct, its severity, whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance, and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.” Stewart v. Caton, Civ. No. 13-823, 2013
“[I]n the present matter, the Court finds that Stewart alleges facts sufficient to state a claim. Stewart alleges that Caton lifted her shirt and touched her breasts, installed cameras to look down her shirt, and made repeated comments of a sexual and/or derogatory nature.”
Stewart v. Caton, 2013 WL 4459981, at *7 (E.D. La. Aug.
“As Dr. Vives alleges putatively harassing acts after February 3, 2009, she may sweep back in all of the harassment that she alleges has occurred during her time at Children’s. It is possible that a jury could conclude the sustained pattern of conduct she alleges constitutes severe and pervasive harassment. It is also possible a
“As discussed previously, the evidence suggests that although the memorandum articulated safety as a justification for limiting Spanish use, Anderson nevertheless prohibited the use of Spanish in the kitchen at all times. Thus, there also exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Anderson effectively instituted a ‘blanket policy’ prohibiting the use of
