For Christian Pellot, most weeks begin the same way, with a text from an unfamiliar number telling him to show up at a specific address. When he arrives, he is told to sign a wage form, with the hours and pay rate to be filled in at a later date. Then his work begins, sitting for days and nights in a parked vehicle to save street spots for any one of the scores of television, movie and commercial productions filmed around New York each year.
In a class-action complaint filed this week, Mr. Pellot and more than 100 other parking production assistants — almost all of them black or Hispanic — charged that several major studios and production companies that do business in the greater New York area systematically underpay these workers, deny them minimum wage and overtime pay to which they are legally entitled, forge time sheets, and threaten to withhold future jobs if they do not comply.
At a news conference outside the now-closed Ziegfeld Theater, several plaintiffs gathered on Wednesday to describe their experiences working on movies like “Trainwreck,” “American Hustle” and “The Amazing Spider-Man.”
“Without us, there are no movies and no shows, and yet we’re still overlooked and underpaid,” said Mr. Pellot, 43, a single father of two daughters from East New York, Brooklyn, who said he had worked as many as 150 hours a week on productions like “The Wolf of Wall Street.” “All we want is our fair share.”
The suit names Lions Gate Entertainment, Warner Bros., Sony Pictures and NBCUniversal, whose representatives all declined to give a statement, as well as Marvel Studios, which did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Parking production assistants are the invisible laborers in an industry that spent $8.7 billion in the city in 2014, according to one study. Most New Yorkers grumble when they see the telltale “No Parking” signs on lampposts. But long before the trailers and movie stars arrive on set, parking production assistants carry out their decidedly unglamorous task. They say that in addition to the long hours and low wages, they are forced to work under onerous and degrading conditions. Many of the workers said that because they were denied breaks and access to restrooms, they were often forced to relieve themselves in buckets or bags in their cars.
“It is just completely humiliating,” said Robert Tracey, 58, who has taken to wearing adult diapers after developing an enlarged prostate while on the job. Still, Mr. Tracey noted that some of his co-workers have even worse health consequences, including one man who lost several toes to frostbite after a winter spent sleeping in an inadequately heated car.
The complaint details a system whereby parking production assistants are given a flat rate for a full 12-hour shift, or a six-hour half shift. However, if they work too few hours to meet a minimum, they are paid nothing for their time, the suit alleges. And if they exceed the set hours, the suit charges, time sheets are falsified to give the appearance of complying with wage laws.
James A. Vagnini, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, described this practice as “backing into” the time sheets.
“Basically they are fudging the hours in order for it to neatly fit into the shift pay, no matter how many hours the guys worked,” he said. “It makes it look like they are abiding by the law and still staying on budget when in fact they are shortchanging the workers.”
While the complaint does not accuse the employers of racial discrimination, both the lawyers handling the case and the plaintiffs noted that the situation overwhelmingly affected minorities.
“When big business wants to save a couple of dollars, they usually turn to their minorities,” said Mr. Vagnini, a partner at Valli Kane & Vagnini.
“At first it seemed like a coincidence; I didn’t want to think about it along racial lines,” said Stevie Leach, 35, a parking production assistant. “But then I just couldn’t deny it anymore.”
Compounding the problem is that parking production assistants have been repeatedly stymied in their efforts to unionize, lawyers said.
“We’re not like the Teamsters or anyone else on set, really,” Alexander Campbell, 58, said. “We don’t have anyone out there protecting our interests.”
Pulling a hood over his head, Mr. Campbell headed into the rain, back toward his car.
– Staff Writer Noah Remnick, New York Times
Read original article from New York Times
$4M Settlement Awarded in Sara Lee Discrimination Case
Federal attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission today announced a $4 million settlement for former workers at the now closed Sara Lee factory in Paris.
The settlement is said to be the largest in the history of the EEOC in Dallas involving a hostile work environment.
This past Febuary, the EEOC released its findings, the results of a two year investigation into complaints.
It found violations of civil rights, that black employees suffered intimidation, racial taunts such as being called the ‘N’ word, and graffiti, and were steered into hazardous areas of the plant, exposing them to toxic materials.
More than two dozen workers from the now-shut down baking factory are part of the federal lawsuit.
Sara Lee, now a subsidiary of Tyson, sent CBS11 a statement saying in part they’re “committed to treating team members with dignatiy and respect and have a policy against harassment and discrimination.”
While the company says it doesn’t agree with all of the allegations in this case, it believes it makes sense to resolve this matter.
– Originally published in CBS DFW
Read original article from CBS DFW
The EEOC and Sara Lee: A Landmark Discrimination Case in Texas
After a two year investigation into complaints of civil rights and health violations, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced a $4 million settlement for former employees at the Sara Lee factory located in Paris, Texas. This case marks the largest settlement in EEOC history involving a hostile work environment. The EEOC took on the case after twenty-five workers filed complaints against the company during their time at the now-shuttered factory, which closed in 2011. Attorneys now estimate that over seventy employees stand to benefit from the settlement. In addition to financial reparations, the company will be required to implement measures to prevent workplace discrimination and to submit regular reports to the EEOC. Read on for a look inside the landmark case.
THE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SARA LEE
The EEOC’s two year investigation found that black employees were targets of intimidation and were denied promotions that went to their white peers. Black employees reported racial slurs and graffiti during their time at the factory, incidents which were corroborated by the EEOC. A lawsuit filed separately from the EEOC complaint revealed that the graffiti included racial slurs, threats, and crude drawings of apes and black men with nooses. A large portion of the alleged abuse came from white supervisors within the factory and several Sara Lee officials have been accused of ignoring complaints from black employees about the conditions within the factory. In addition, workers were reportedly exposed to black mold asbestos and other toxins during their daily work. The working conditions were so hazardous that:
One of the cake lines was nicknamed the ‘cancer line,’ because so many people were getting sick, said Sara Kane, one of the workers’ attorneys, of the law office Valli, Kane & Vagnini.
According to the investigation, black employees were exposed to these conditions while their white colleagues were promoted to positions located in safer areas of the factory. These white employees were allegedly often less-experienced than their black co-workers but they received promotions nevertheless.
According to the EEOC’s report, several black employees contracted cancer and other diseases as a direct result to their exposure to toxins in the workplace. When black employees reported their diseases to management, their complaints were either ignored or dismissed as being unrelated to working conditions within the factory. The closure of the factory in 2011 meant that the EEOC had relatively limited exposure to the physical conditions of the factory, so the investigation did rely heavily on interviews with employees.
THE ROLE OF THE EEOC
The EEOC enforces federal laws against discrimination in most companies with 15 employees or more (although this can vary according to certain jurisdictions and circumstances). The EEOC processes both private sector and federal sector violations of discrimination laws, although it takes a more active investigative role in private sector cases. There are two distinct private sector and a federal sector mediation programs, which each offer dispute resolution with EEOC cooperation. If conciliation cannot resolve a private sector dispute, the EEOC has the right to pursue litigation and also has a right to participate in an ongoing lawsuit. According to the EEOC website,
The EEOC has the authority to investigate charges of discrimination against employers who are covered by the law. Our role in an investigation is to fairly and accurately assess the allegations in the charge and then make a finding. If we find that discrimination has occurred, we will try to settle the charge. If we aren’t successful, we have the authority to file a lawsuit to protect the rights of individuals and the interests of the public. We do not, however, file lawsuits in all cases where we find discrimination.
The EEOC may handle tens of thousands of complaints every year, but they very rarely escalate to the heights that the Sara Lee case has, which makes the future of Sara Lee critically important. If Sara Lee complies with the EEOC regulations and actively changes its workplace environment in the coming years, it will serve as a model for other companies that have had large-scale reports of discrimination. The successful transformation of the Sara Lee case will lie with its parent company–Tyson Foods.
A NEW NAME AND A NEW BRAND
In 2012, so chronologically after the alleged abuse occurred, Sara Lee went through a major re-branding, effectively splitting the business in two. The food side of the business was labeled Hillshire Brands while the tea and coffee end of the company (centered in Europe) was named D.E. Master Blenders 1753. The name change was speculated to have been prompted by lackluster sales of meat products.
In 2014, Hillshire Brands completed a merger with Tyson Foods, Inc. which The Wall Street Journal referred to as the “meat industry’s biggest deal.” After the merger, Hillshire’s chief executive Sean Connolly stepped down, clearing the way for new leadership. However, the Sara Lee discrimination case did not disappear with the name change. Although headlines associate the case with Sara Lee, Tyson is now liable for the settlement and for rebuilding the brand’s image in the wake of the EEOC investigation. In an interview with Buzzfeed News, Tyson Foods spokesperson Worth Sparkman said the company is
‘Committed to treating our team members with dignity and respect and have a policy against harassment and discrimination,’ noting Tyson Foods requires annual training and offers a toll-free help line for workers to report any concerns without fear of retaliation. ‘While we don’t agree with all of the allegations in this case, we oppose any unlawful discrimination in the workplace and believe it makes sense to resolve this matter,’ Sparkman wrote in an email. When asked which allegations the company disagrees with Sparkman said, via email, ‘We’ll point out that any alleged conduct in this case occurred before portions of Sara Lee were acquired by Tyson Foods in 2014.’
The Tyson brand has also had a series of legal skirmishes over working conditions over the past few years. This November, the Supreme Court heard a case against Tyson in which employees argued that Tyson unlawfully failed to pay for the time it took them to put on and then remove safety equipment during their daily tasks. In a lower court, employees were awarded half of what their counsel requested. The case has raised interesting questions about collective action lawsuits, as the case involves more than 3,000 workers in total: Should that many employees be allowed to file their complaint at one time, in a single case?
The Supreme Court has approached the case less as an issue of wage violations and more as a debate over what the threshold should be for the number of participants in a collective action lawsuit. Yet, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the employees, Tyson may pay out even more than they did in the Sara Lee case–approximately $6 million.
CONCLUSION
The Sara Lee case is a unique one in that a significant number of workers were courageous enough to file complaints and patient enough to wait for the legislative process to work over several years. Not every discrimination case is investigated by the EEOC, either because there is not sufficient evidence or because victims do not feel safe reporting misconduct. Hopefully, the Sara Lee case will inspire other companies to enact preventative measures to disband discrimination. The EEOC has delivered a decisive victory for the employees of the Texas factory, we’ll have to see what effects it might have in future discrimination cases.
– Staff Writer Jillian Sequeira, Law Street Media
Read original article in Law Street Media
Sara Lee agrees to pay $4M to black employees who say they were called racial slurs and exposed to black mold and asbestos more often than white workers
Sara Lee will be rolling out a lot of dough to some of its black employees after a federal lawsuit said they were exposed to racist slurs and graffiti and developed cancer as a result of working in more hazardous environments than their white co-workers.
The corporate bakery, now known as Hillshire Brands, will give $4 million to 74 of its black employees in a settlement announced Monday after they complained they were subjected to “environmental racism.”
“We’re extremely pleased that our clients will receive some relief after everything they went through. Many of our clients worked for Sara Lee for decades,” said attorney Sara Kane, whose New York firm Valli Kane & Vagnini represented the clients in the lawsuit.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launched a two-year investigation into the Texas facility, which shuttered in 2011 and found that white supervisors “berated” black factory workers with racial slurs like the n-word and that the walls of the factory were filled with vulgar racial graffiti including “KKK” and apes hanging from nooses, the complaint alleges.
Black employees also accused the factory’s supervisors of assigning them to positions where they developed cancer from asbestos and black mold exposure more often than their white co-workers, who were routinely promoted out of those jobs, according to the lawsuit.
The employees said their requests to be moved out of the toxic environments were not acknowledged by their supervisors.
DAVID PAUL MORRIS/BLOOMBERG
The federal lawsuit alleges that black employees were exposed to asbestors and black mold more often than their white co-workers.
“Sara Lee’s management staff would either ignore the questions entirely or deny that the environment was hazardous,” according to the lawsuit.
Sara Lee, which was absorbed by Hillshire Brands and is a subsidiary of Tyson Foods, did not claim liability for the claims in the settlement.
“While we don’t agree with all of the allegations in this case, we oppose any unlawful discrimination in the workplace and believe it makes sense to resolve this matter,” said Tyson Foods spokesman Worth Sparkman in a statement.“We’re committed to treating our team members with dignity and respect and have a policy against harassment and discrimination.”
Hillshire Brands agreed to report future complaints of racial discrimination to the EEOC and and will take “preventative approaches” to workplace harassment under the terms of the settlement in addition to the prompt removal of offensive graffiti in their facilities.
– Staff Writer Laura Bult, New York Daily News
Read original article from New York Daily News
EEOC: $4M settlement sends message that work discrimination won’t be tolerated
Federal attorneys with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said Tuesday that a $4 million settlement for former workers at the now closed Sara Lee factory in Paris, Texas, sends a message to employers that workplace discrimination and dangerous work environments won’t be tolerated.
Black employees suffered intimidation, racial taunts including being called the ‘N’ word, and racist graffiti on the walls of bathrooms and the locker room at the plant in Paris, Suzanne Anderson, supervisory trial attorney with the EEOC, said at a news conference outside the federal courthouse in Dallas. In addition, the former bakery employees were required to work in hazardous areas of the plant, exposing them to toxic materials, she said.
Hillshire Brands Co., which formerly owned Sara Lee, will pay a total of $4 million to a group of 74 African American former employees and take other steps to settle the lawsuit.
Human resources professionals and employment lawyers especially should take note of the settlement, Jay Ellwanger, an Austin attorney for workers who had filed a civil suit before the EEOC filed its case, told me in an interview before the news conference.
The Paris plant was a Sara Lee factory for decades, Ellwanger said. Hillshire Brands, which owned the Sara Lee brand, sold the brand to Bimbo Bakeries, but closed the Paris plant instead of selling it to Sara Lee. So Bimbo Bakeries currently owns Sara Lee, but Hillshire Brands owns the liabilities from the plant, and Tyson Foods has since acquired Hillshire Brands, Ellwanger said.
He said he does not know whether the discrimination allegations and pending litigation factored into the decision to sell the Paris plant.
“We certainly had our suspicions,” Ellwanger said. “The timing was suspect.”
The 74 former Sara Lee employees received varying amounts, and they have all received their checks from the company, Anderson told me in an interview after the conference
The two-year consent decree settling the case provides for an injunction under which Hillshire will implement anti-discrimination or harassment programs and conduct training to prevent and promptly address graffiti in other Texas plants it owns.
Sara Wyn Kane, a New York attorney who represented the clients in the lawsuit, said the takeaway for employers is that it’s never acceptable to treat people differently based on the color of their skin, nor is it acceptable to allow others to do so. She said that job site discrimination and harassment continues to be a significant problem at large and small companies nationwide.
“As an employer, you have an obligation to make sure that people can come to work free of discrimination, and free of fearing for their health and safety,” Kane said. “If you see that or learn about it, you need to stop it as an employer. You can’t sit back and hope it goes away or think that it’s OK.”
The settlement is the largest in the history of the EEOC in Dallas involving a hostile work environment.
-Staff Writer Bill Heathcock, Dallas Business Journal
NBC, Sony Face OT Suit Over PA Workers On 'The Blacklist'
Law360, Los Angeles (September 16, 2015, 10:13 PM ET) — Employees tasked with defending parking spaces for the production vehicles of the NBCUniversal show “The Blacklist” accused the companies who make the show, including Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., of cheating them out of overtime pay and altering their paychecks, according to a New York federal suit entered Wednesday.
Plaintiffs Corey Leach and Anthony Jacob filed the class and collective action alleging Fair Labor Standards Act violations on behalf of parking production assistants, who can spend several consecutive days at a time holding spaces for production trucks in New York City without breaks, according to the suit.
The PAs worked four to six days a week, for 50-90 hours a week or more, holding parking spaces and sets for the James Spader-helmed TV show, according to the suit. But the production companies paid them a flat rate of about $160 per shift that disguised the amount of overtime the workers were owed under federal law, the workers said.
“Although it is an ‘industry custom’ to pay television and production employees by a flat shift pay, defendants’ practice of paying a flat-shift did not accurately compensate plaintiffs for their overtime hours as required by FLSA and New York Labor Law,” Leach said in his suit.
Leach is also the lead plaintiff in a suit entered Friday in the same court, this time against Warner Brothers Inc., Outerbanks Entertainment and the other production companies that make “The Following,” starring Kevin Bacon.
That suit details similar allegations about the work of a parking production assistant and how it conflicts with industry-standard flat rate pay, court records show. Both suits were signed Friday, but the suit against “The Blacklist” wasn’t entered until Wednesday, according to the dockets.
It’s not Leach’s first time in the plaintiff’s seat in an FLSA collective action over the issue of parking PA pay, court records show.
In 2011, Leach lodged a wage-and-hour class action accusing Warner Bros., NBC, HBO Films, and other studios and production companies of failing to pay overtime.
In that suit, he said that during his employment on film and TV sets from 2007 to 2011, he was paid a fixed amount per 12-hour shift and never received overtime pay, despite sometimes working as much as 90 to 100 hours a week.
His work then included stints on the sets for the movies “Friends With Benefits,” “Lipstick Jungle” and “The Wackness,” as well as HBO series “The Sopranos,” according to his complaint.
That suit was dismissed in 2012.
James Vagnini of Valli Kane & Vagnini, representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 on Wednesday that the practice of hiring workers to hold parking spaces and sets is unique to New York. In other cities, police help defend the spaces needed for running a production, but in New York, the task is left to people like Leach who have to maintain round-the-clock surveillance on an area to keep it film-ready.
“Here you are working on multi-million dollar productions and you’ve got groups of people who are scraping by,” Vagnini said. “These are guys that work for a lot of locations.”
Vagnini also helmed the 2011 suit.
“Years later, these companies just can’t get it right,” he said.
Representatives for the defendants didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment late Wednesday.
Leach and Jacob are represented by Robert John Valli and James Vagnini of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP.
Counsel information for the defendants couldn’t be immediately determined.
The cases are Corey Leach et al. v. NBCUniversal Television Group et al., case number 1:15-cv-07206, and Corey Leach et al. v. Warner Brothers Inc., case number 1:15-cv-07208, each in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
— Additional reporting by Stewart Bishop. Editing by Ben Guilfoy.
Original Article from: Law 360
NY Nursing Home To Pay $2.2M To End Medicaid Fraud Suit
Law360, Washington (August 19, 2014, 2:43 PM ET) — Nursing home owner Ralex Services Inc. has agreed to pay $2.2 million to settle a whistleblower suit accusing it of bilking New York’s Medicaid program by overstating the level of care its residents needed, according to filings made in federal court Monday.
The settlement, which ends False Claims Act allegations against Ralex, the operator of New Rochelle, New York-based Glen Island Center for Nursing and Rehabilitation and its president and owner Leah Friedman, will be split between New York and the federal government, with the state taking the lion’s share — a little over $1.3 million, plus interest, cost and attorneys’ fees.
This figure could also be bolstered if Ralex succeeds in a pending suit against the state regarding Medicaid reimbursement rates, with a portion of any judgment from that suit to be added to the deal as a related “windfall” payment, according to the settlement agreement. Ralex has also agreed to enter into a corporate integrity agreement with the New York State Office of the Medicaid Inspector General to ensure it complies with state Medicaid rules in the future, if deemed necessary by the IG.
Counsel for relator Carolyn Hinestroza, Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, said Tuesday that the firm was pleased to see the issue resolved, after working with the government to help “pursue justice” in the case.
“We commend Ms. Hinestroza on her bravery and willingness to come forward,” Kane said. “She observed what she believed to be fraud against the state and federal governments and took affirmative action to address it.”
Gabriel Nugent of Hiscock & Barclay LLP, representing the defendants, noted Tuesday that the settlement had resolved claims involving a former employee of Glen Island and said his clients were glad to conclude the case.
Regardless of the settlement, Glen Island was a “five-star” nursing home providing excellent service, Nugent said, with the alleged conduct bearing “no relation to the quality of resident care.”
According to a complaint-in-intervention and other court documents filed Monday, Ralex and Friedman had between at least April 2002 and October 2006 submitted bogus Patient Review Instrument, or PRI, data to New York’s Medicaid program falsely inflating the degree of care that Glen Island’s residents required, with PRI forms signed off on by Friedman and former administrator Eufemia Fe Salomon-Flores.
This PRI data is used as one of several components in determining the facility’s Medicaid reimbursement rate, and although bogus data was only submitted through 2006, claims continued to be paid out at inflated rates through March 2009, resulting in Glen Island receiving a higher rate than needed for the care of its residents across more than 62,000 claims, the complaint claimed.
Also, from 2007 onwards, the defendants attempted to cover up the scheme by adding false entries and forged signatures to residents’ medical records, including during a two-week “records tampering party” at the company’s corporate offices in February and March 2007, according to the suit.
The suit was first filed in February 2010 by Hinestroza, a former nurse at Glen Island, alleging she had discovered Salomon-Flores had been falsifying PRI data and forging staff signatures after refusing to sign off on PRI forms prepared by the administrator, and that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about the issue to management and reporting the fraud to state officials. The case was unsealed in December, after both the state and federal governments partially intervened.
Hinestroza, as the relator in the case, will receive a 19 percent cut — about $250,000 — of the state’s share, in addition to her costs and attorneys’ fees to be paid by Ralex, according to settlement documents. It was not immediately clear what, if any, portion of the federal government’s share that she will receive.
Salomon-Flores — along with two nurses at the facility who aided in record tampering — has already pled guilty in state court to a grand larceny charge related to the fraud, in September 2011. Among other conditions, she agreed to pay $2.2 million in restitution to New York, which will be partially offset by the state portion of the settlement announced Monday, the deal says.
The federal government is represented by Loretta E. Lynch and Erin E. Argo of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York.
New York is represented by Eric T. Schneiderman and Jill D. Brenner of the New York Attorney General’s Office.
Hinestroza is represented by Sara Wyn Kane of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP.
The Ralex defendants are represented by Gabriel M. Nugent of Hiscock & Barclay LLP.
The case is U.S. and State of New York ex rel. Hinestroza v. Ralex Services Inc. et al., case number 1:10-cv-00822, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
-Editing by Mark Lebetkin.
Original Article from: Law 360
Community Leaders Rally for Increased Voter Access at the Polls
Press Release — Assemblyman David Weprin, Senator Toby Ann Stavisky, and several South Asian community leaders held a press conference outside the Queens Board of Elections advocating for passage of their bill A9956/S7402. This bill directs the Queens county board of elections to provide written language assistance in Bengali, Punjabi, and Hindi, in addition to the languages currently available. If passed, this will include ballots, signs, voter mailings, employee and volunteer training material and information on the board’s website.
“Queens’ strength is its diversity,” said Senator Stavisky, who represents a multiethnic district centered in Flushing. “We must do all that we can to facilitate the involvement of new immigrants in government, and that is why Assemblyman Weprin and I have introduced this bill.”
“Since Asian-Indians in Queens County are newly covered under the Language Assistance Provisions of Sec. 203 of the federal Voting Rights Act, this bill will only further the intention of the Department of Justice’s recommendations that written materials be provided to Asian Indian voters in Queens County,” said Assemblyman David Weprin. “By providing written language materials in these three most widely spoken Asian Indian languages we are ensuring that voters have the resources they need when they go to polls. This is one critical step towards increasing voter turnout at the polls and improving voter access.”
“Having ballots and voting materials in Bengali, Punjabi and Hindi will help more residents of Queens County exercise their right to vote,” said John Albert, Board Chair of Taking Our Seat. “These Americans want to have their voices heard at the polls and want to take on the responsibilities that come with their citizenship. This bill tells them that they are welcome at the polls and that America’s democracy is built on the ability of every eligible person to effectively cast their ballot.”
“This bill recognizes that we as a democracy should be empowering citizens to vote and broadening ways in which all Americans can participate in our political process. That is the core value of the Voting Rights Act,” added Tito Sinha, Director of the South Asian Bar Association of New York. “South Asian Americans are one of many dynamic and vibrant communities who make up Queens and this great City, and this bill will help the South Asian community to participate more meaningfully in our democracy.”
Jerry Vattamala, a staff attorney at the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, echoed that sentiment, saying, “Asian Americans are the fastest growing racial group in New York City and are naturalizing and registering to vote in increasing numbers. AALDEF has worked closely with community based organizations and the Board of Elections to ensure that South Asian Americans receive the language assistance they need on election day. AALDEF is pleased that Bengali language assistance is required in Queens under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act and supports efforts to enfranchise thousands more registered South Asian citizens who require Punjabi and Hindi language assistance to participate in the political process.”
“This Bill will encourage and motivate South Asians to be more active participants in the American political process. As an American, there is nothing more satisfying and fulfilling than casting your vote on election day and knowing that your voice is heard and it makes a big difference. The passage of this bill will enable a large number of South Asians to participate in our vibrant and dynamic democracy for the first time in their lives,” said Dr. Taj Rajkumar, Professor and District Leader.
“This bill will help the South Asian American Community to more actively participate in the electoral process.. I appreciate Assemblyman David Weprin’s and Senator Stavisky’s commitment to standing with the South Asian American community by introducing this language access bill in the NYS Assembly,” said South Asian Community Leader and Community Board # 7 member Dilip Chauhan.
“The release of 2010 Census data demonstrates the tremendous growth of South Asian Americans and Indo Caribbeans in New York City and Queens County. From 2000 to 2010, the South Asian population in New York City more than doubled and existing demographic data also indicates that Queens County is home to the largest South Asian population of any municipality in the USA, a nation of immigrants,” said Albert Baldeo, Democratic District Leader in the 38th Assembly District. “The Stavisky-Weprin language access bill will ensure that we comply with the mandates of the Voting Rights Act to provide written electoral language assistance to this significant group, while they exercise their most fundamental right to vote.”
Assemblyman Weprin emphasized the work that has already been done, continuing, “while we applaud the Board of Elections for providing written language assistance in Bengali and agreeing to provide translators for individuals that need them on election day, Senator Stavisky and I agree that having written materials in advance of the election helps to provide critical information to voters about candidates, helps them to know where to vote and improves access at the polls.”
“The growing South Asian community in Queens is highly focused on civic engagement. We must pass this bill, to make life easier for people who are simply trying to exercise their rights,” concluded Senator Stavisky.
Four Muslim Men Say Texas IHOP Franchise Fired Them for Religion and Nationality
By Ashton Marra
April 19, 2012
Four former managers of IHOP restaurants in Texas are fighting the owner of the franchise they worked for in court, claiming they were wrongfully terminated based on their “nationality and religion.”
The four men, all identified in court papers as “Muslims of Arab descent,” worked as managers at the Dallas/Fort Worth area locations. Hussein Chamseddine was employed by the franchise for 12 years, Rami Saleh and Brandon Adam each for five years, and Chekri Bakro for 24 years.
According to a complaint filed in a Texas district court, the men allege they were fired without cause.
“They weren’t terminated because someone complained or because someone didn’t like their attitude,” said Sara Kane, a civil rights attorney representing the men. “They were fired because of who they are. That is the determining factor.”
All four men were terminated between March and October of 2010. Together they filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which found merit in the men’s claim that they were harassed and terminated due to religion and national origins.
“The IHOP corporation has a four-step disciplinary procedure,” Kane said. “The franchisee did not follow any of those steps.”
Kane, along with attorney Jay Ellwanger, filed suit on behalf of the men Tuesday, against IHOP and Anthraper Investments, the firm that owns the four franchises involved in Plano, Fort Worth, Arlington and Burleston, Texas.
ABC
Four Dallas Texas men are filing suit against… View Full Size
Gas Station Denies Muslim Woman Service Watch Video
‘Molotov Cocktail’ Thrown at Mosque, Homes Watch Video
Muslim Passengers Removed From Flight Watch Video
The suit alleges that the men experienced harassment from Anthraper management, including derogatory comments made by the company’s President and COO John Anthraper, Vice President Alex Anthraper, and Texas District Manager Larry Hawker.
In one instance, the complaint states the men were attending a managers’ meeting in 2010, where Hawker said, “Arab men treat women poorly and with disrespect, we’re going to let these people go and have new faces coming in.”
Outraged by the company’s actions, Kane said, “This is not a Muslim issue, this is a human issue.”
“It is completely disheartening and disgraceful to know that this is still going on and should not be tolerated by anyone in our society,” she said. “No one else should take this case lightly because if it can happen to them, it can happen to you.”
Kane said that over the years, each of the four men earned positive reviews from supervisors and none had experienced any disciplinary complaints or actions.
The complaint also says that every year, as the anniversary of September 11 approached, the men received emails from supervisors asking them to “lay low” at their restaurants.
Representatives of Anthraper Investments did not return phone calls to ABC News for comment. A woman who answered the phone at the home of John Anthraper said he was out of the country.
The IHOP Corporation issued the following statement regarding the lawsuit:
“We believe the employment practices of our company and our independent franchisees are non-discriminatory and inclusive. We have a long history of supporting diversity in all aspects of our business. Our franchisee believes the allegations are without merit and looks forward to the fair conclusion of this matter.”
As for the four plaintiffs, all of whom are U.S. citizens and residents of Texas, Kane said none has been able to secure employment since their termination.
“How do you work somewhere for 12 years and have no explanation or not being able to provide a reference from a previous employer?” Kane said.
All of the men are fathers, with children of varying ages. “This has devastated their families, and we hope whatever actions are being taken to prevent them from gaining employment elsewhere will cease.”
Kane said her clients are seeking back wages and payment for emotional damages following their terminations.
For Original Article: Click Here
Dallas men say IHOP fired them because they are Muslim
by TERESA WOODARD
WFAA
Posted on April 17, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Four employees of the IHOP restaurant chain with a combined 45 years experience claim they were fired in 2010 because of their national origin and their religious beliefs.
The men are Arab and Muslim, and they allege that that was the basis for their termination.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission agreed, determining there was “reasonable cause” that the men were harassed and terminated because of their national origin.
The men’s attorneys filed suit Tuesday against IHOP and Anthraper Investments, which owns the four local franchises involved in Plano, Fort Worth, Arlington and Burleson.
Attorney Jay Ellwanger said the men experienced a hostile work environment for a long time.
“I’m Christian; I’m white,” Ellwanger said. “I couldn’t imagine being fired for my job because that’s who I am.”
The lawsuit claims the men were all fired despite repeated positive evaluations from supervisors.
“It’s shocking that in this day and age we’re still going through this, and still fighting this fight,” said co-counsel Sara Wyn Kane.
In their lawsuit, the men state that they heard repeated discriminatory remarks from Anthraper Investments owners, such as “Arab men treat women poorly and with disrespect, we’re going to let these people go and have new faces coming in.”
The lawsuit states that one owner equated Muslims waiting to break the fast during Ramadan to “dogs waiting for their meal.”
Ellwanger said the men received one warning every year. “Every year on the anniversary of September 11th, our clients received and email from IHOP management telling them to lay low at their stores,” he said.
An attorney for Anthraper Investments said the EEOC “simply got it wrong” in this case. He said the agency has a large backlog of charges and inadequate resources.
The EEOC reviewed more than 4,100 claims of religious discrimination and only ruled 6.6 percent had reasonable cause. This was one of those cases.
“They are just like everybody else,” Kane said of her clients. “They are American citizens who should not be treated differently based on their national origin or their religion.”
IHOP said the employment practices of the company and franchisees are non-discriminatory and inclusive. “We have a long history of supporting diversity,” the IHOP statement said. “Our franchisee believes the allegations are without merit, and looks forward to the fair conclusion of this matter.”
Kane and Ellwanger will accompany their clients at a rally outside the federal court building on Wednesday morning.
“They made a lot of money over the years for IHOP, and to be treated like this — to be dismissed because of religious beliefs and national origins — it’s something all of us are protected from under American law,” Ellwanger said.
For Original Article Click Here