How to Prepare a Strong Discrimination Claim Against Your Employer

3 Key Takeaways

  1. Workplace discrimination is illegal under both federal and New York State law, and you have protected rights whether you’re currently employed, job hunting, or have already been let go.

  2. Documentation is your most powerful tool: The earlier you start keeping records, the stronger your case will be.

  3. Time limits for filing a discrimination claim are real and strict, speaking with an employment attorney as soon as possible can make all the difference.

What you should do if you think you’re facing discrimination at work

If something feels wrong at work, if you’re being treated differently, passed over, or pushed out based on who you are, you don’t have to just accept it. Workplace discrimination is illegal, and you have real options. This guide walks you through exactly what to do to protect yourself and build the strongest case possible.

Know your rights: Who is protected and from what

Under federal and New York State law, employees and job applicants are protected from discrimination based on specific “protected characteristics.” These include:

  • Race, color, and national origin
  • Sex, including sexual orientation and gender identity
  • Pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions
  • Religion
  • Age
  • Disability
  • Genetic information

One important note on age: The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects workers who are 40 or older. But in New York, the protection is broader; New York State’s age discrimination law covers workers 18 and older.

These protections apply across nearly every aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, promotions, job assignments, training, and other terms and conditions of work. You are also protected from retaliation if you report discrimination or cooperate with a discrimination investigation.

Start documenting right away

If you believe you’re experiencing discrimination, documentation is your most important tool, and the sooner you start, the better. Here’s what to keep track of:

  • Emails, texts, memos, or any written communications related to the incidents
  • Detailed notes about verbal conversations: dates, times, locations, exactly what was said, and who else was present
  • Any performance reviews, commendations, or records that demonstrate you were meeting or exceeding expectations
  • A running log of each discriminatory incident as it happens, with as much detail as possible

Keep in mind that recording laws and company policies vary by state, so be mindful of what’s permitted where you are. When in doubt, stick to documenting your own observations and communications you’re already a part of.

Report it — in writing

Once you’ve started documenting, report the discrimination through your company’s official channels — whether that’s your supervisor, Human Resources (HR) department, or an ethics or compliance hotline. The key here is to do it in writing, even if the company’s process allows for verbal reporting. A written report creates a paper trail and establishes that your employer was notified.

Hold on to copies of everything you submit and any responses you receive. If the behavior continues after you’ve reported it — or if you face any pushback or retaliation for speaking up — document that too.

Understand the filing deadlines

This is one area where many people run into trouble without realizing it: There are strict time limits for filing a workplace discrimination claim. Under federal law, you generally have 180 to 300 days from the discriminatory act to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). New York State has its own deadlines as well.

The EEOC’s filing process outlines your options step by step. Missing these windows can affect your ability to pursue a legal claim, which is why it’s so important to act quickly and not wait to see if things improve on their own.

Talk to an employment attorney

You don’t have to figure this out alone, and honestly, you shouldn’t try to. An employment attorney can review your situation, tell you which laws apply, help you avoid common missteps, and make sure you meet all the necessary deadlines. Even a single consultation early on can give you a much clearer picture of where you stand and what your options are.

This is especially important if your employer is already taking steps against you — like putting you on a performance improvement plan, reducing your hours, or creating conditions that make your job harder. These can sometimes be signs of retaliation, and a lawyer can help you recognize and respond to them.

Take care of yourself, too

Dealing with discrimination at work is genuinely hard. It can affect your confidence, your focus, and your sense of security. Lean on the people you trust, whether that’s friends, family, or a mental health professional. Taking care of yourself through this process isn’t a distraction from your case, it’s part of getting through it.

You have more support than you might think

Workplace discrimination can feel isolating, but the law is on your side — and so are the people at Valli Kane & Vagnini. If you believe you’re being discriminated against at work, reach out to our team at VKV. We’ll listen, walk you through your rights, and help you decide on the best path forward.

Former Walmart Team Lead Files Federal Lawsuit Alleging Sexual Harassment, Retaliation, and Failure to Protect Employee

A former Walmart team lead has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the retail giant failed to protect him after he repeatedly reported workplace sexual harassment and ultimately retaliated against him by terminating his employment.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. Shawn White, who worked for Walmart from 2019 through 2023 at stores in Uniondale and Valley Stream, claims the company failed to properly investigate his complaints, failed to enforce its own workplace policies, and retaliated against him after he repeatedly sought help through internal reporting channels.

According to the complaint, White reported alleged harassment to supervisors, Walmart’s Ethics department, and Associate Relations over a period of several years. The lawsuit contends that the company either failed to adequately investigate his concerns or provided only limited responses without explaining what corrective action, if any, had been taken.

The complaint further alleges that after White reported the conduct, he experienced a pattern of disciplinary actions that culminated in his termination. White contends the disciplinary record was used as a pretext for retaliation, despite his history of positive performance evaluations.

“Ultimately, I just want Walmart to do better,” White said. “They have systems and things in place, or they claim to, but I wasn’t helped by that system.”

White’s attorney, Matthew Berman, from Valli Kane & Vagnini, couldn’t agree more, saying: “A harassment policy only means something if the company enforces it. Walmart had the protocols on paper, but Shawn White was left unprotected when it counted. We brought this case to turn his experience into real accountability and real change.” 

White’s case has received support from the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund at the National Women’s Law Center.

“Sex harassment is, at its core, about an imbalance of power. It affects people of every sex and gender identity,” Jennifer Mondino, senior director of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund at the National Women’s Law Center, said in a statement. “Too often, men and people who don’t identify as women face additional stigma and disbelief when they come forward.”

Mondino added, “Workers should never face retaliation for reporting abuse, and Walmart must answer when they fail to protect their workers.”

Federal and New York law prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who report unlawful workplace harassment or discrimination. Employers also have a legal obligation to take complaints seriously and conduct appropriate investigations when concerns are raised.

Berman spoke about what this lawsuit could mean for other Walmart employees, saying “It takes real courage to come forward against a company the size of Walmart. Shawn White did it not just for himself, but so the next employee is met with protection instead of silence. We’re proud to represent him.

White’s lawsuit seeks lost wages and benefits, compensatory damages, damages for emotional distress, attorneys’ fees, and other relief. The allegations remain pending before the court, and Walmart has denied the claims by declining to comment on the active litigation.

You can read additional coverage about the case in the Long Island Herald.

New York City Bans Appearance-Based Discrimination

3 Key Takeaways

  1. New York City now prohibits discrimination based on height and weight in employment, housing, and public accommodations under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

  2. The law applies to employers with four or more employees and took effect November 26, 2023 — meaning if you have faced this type of discrimination, you may have legal options.

  3. Certain limited exemptions exist, but stereotypes or generalizations about body size are not a valid defense under the law.

Your appearance shouldn’t determine your opportunities

New York City just took a meaningful step forward for workers’ rights. If you’ve ever felt like you were passed over for a job, denied housing, or treated differently in a public space because of your height or weight, you should know that this is now illegal in NYC. Here’s what the new law means, who it protects, and what you can do if you believe your rights have been violated.

What the law actually says

On May 26, 2023, Mayor Eric Adams signed legislation amending the New York City Human Rights Law to add height and weight as protected characteristics. The law took effect on November 26, 2023, and makes it illegal for covered entities to discriminate against someone based on their actual or perceived body size. That protection covers three key areas:

Employment: Hiring, firing, promotions, pay, and conditions of work

Housing: Rental applications, lease terms, and access to housing

Public accommodations: Hospitals, gyms, restaurants, theaters, and similar spaces

The law covers employers with four or more employees (or one or more domestic workers), housing providers, and public accommodations. In other words, most workplaces and public-facing businesses in New York City are covered.

Are there any exceptions?

Yes, but they’re narrow. An employer can only factor in height or weight when:

Federal, state, or local law specifically requires it for the job

The NYC Commission on Human Rights has issued a regulation permitting it for that particular role

Height or weight is genuinely essential to performing the core functions of the job and no reasonable alternative exists

Importantly, vague concerns about health, appearance, or company image are not valid defenses. The law is clear that stereotypes and speculative health assumptions about body size do not justify discrimination.

NYC joins a growing movement

New York City is part of a broader national trend toward protecting people from size-based discrimination. Michigan has banned height and weight discrimination statewide for decades, and cities including Binghamton (NY), Madison (WI), San Francisco (CA), and Washington, D.C. have similar protections. Several states — including New York State, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Vermont — are actively considering statewide legislation as well.

As Mayor Adams put it when signing the bill: it shouldn’t matter how tall you are or how much you weigh when you’re applying for a job, looking for a place to live, or simply going out in your own city.

What this means if you think you’ve been discriminated against

If you believe you were passed over for a job, fired, denied housing, or treated unfairly in a public space because of your height or weight, you have the right to file a complaint with the NYC Commission on Human Rights. You can also pursue a private lawsuit with the help of an employment attorney.

Here are some examples of what could constitute a violation:

A job posting that specifies a weight or height requirement unrelated to the duties of the role

Being denied a promotion or terminated because of how you look

A landlord refusing to rent to you based on your body size

Being denied entry to or treated differently at a gym, restaurant, or hospital based on your appearance

Know your rights — we’re here to help

Discrimination based on how you look is demeaning and, in New York City, it’s now against the law. Understanding your rights is the first step. If you think you’ve experienced appearance-based discrimination at work, in housing, or in a public space, reach out to our team at VKV. We’re here to listen, help you understand your options, and stand up for you if your rights have been violated.

Employment Discrimination-Know Your Rights

Sometimes it’s a pattern of being passed over, treated differently, or pushed out. Other times it’s more direct. Either way, if something about how you’re being treated at work feels wrong, it’s worth understanding what the law actually protects — because the answer might surprise you.

Continue reading

MrBeast Sued for Firing New Mom Who Took Maternity Leave

Former company executive details sexual harassment, gender bias, and retaliation at male-dominated social media empire

Former MrBeast executive Lorrayne Mavromatis sued the social media company in federal court today after facing years of sexual harassment and gender bias by top leadership, including Jimmy Donaldson (popularly known as MrBeast). Mavromatis alleges that after complaining about the treatment she and other female employees faced and exercising her right to maternity leave she was ultimately terminated. 


Toxic Work Environment for Women

While many equate the number one YouTube channel with extreme pranks, Mavromatis’ complaint exposes an environment in which sexual harassment and hostile treatment of female employees behind the cameras was commonplace. Mavromatis alleges MrBeast’s top leadership frequently made unwelcome comments about her and other female employees’ appearance and brushed off complaints about unwanted advances and touching. 

This hostile, male-dominated culture is embodied in “How to Succeed at MrBeast Production,” an employee resource authored by Jimmy Donaldson. The 36-page document states “it’s okay for the boys to be childish” and “if talent wants to draw a dick on the white board, or do something stupid, let them” and instructs employees that “no does not mean no” when working on a production. 


Not Allowing This Behavior to Continue is the First Step

“Unfortunately, women’s voices are often silenced in workplaces, especially in male-dominated fields,” said Lorrayne Mavromatis. “This isn’t just about one moment. This is about everything that led up to it and the culture that made it possible. The expectation that women should go through things like this, stay quiet, accept it, and still show up with a smile. I’m not doing that anymore.” 

In the complaint, Mavromatis alleges that the company’s former CEO James Warren, a cousin of Donaldson, made her meet him in his home for one-on-one meetings while commenting on how pretty she was and how her presence made Donaldson physically uncomfortable. Mavromatis explains in her complaint that when she asked Warren about how to navigate professional interactions with Donaldson, he said, “Well, Lorrayne, you’re beautiful. Jimmy gets really awkward around beautiful women.” Warren continued by stating, “Let’s just say that when you’re around and he [Donaldson] goes to the restroom, he’s not actually using the restroom.” Mavromatis claims that she began to wear baggy clothes and baseball caps to avoid her appearance and gender from negatively affecting her professional career. 

The complaint details other incidents of demeaning treatment towards women at the company. Mavromatis alleges Donaldson, who has publicly stated he doesn’t drink, ordered her to bring him a beer if she wanted him to participate in her video shoot. After retrieving the drink, Donaldson took one swig of the beer and tossed it on the ground. 


Complaining About Work Environment Made Conditions Worse

When Mavromatis complained about toxic behavior towards her by a male colleague, she alleges, one executive told her, “What can’t happen is you going to your uppers to complain,” they said. “That’s toxic. My team did that – they’re gone.” 

In November 2023, Mavromatis submitted a complaint about the sexual harassment and hostile work conditions she and other women faced working at MrBeast to human resources head Sue Parisher, who is also Donaldson’s mother and Warren’s aunt. The complaint alleges that Mavromatis was told two months later that her claims were “unsubstantiated.” She was demoted from her executive level role and transferred the very same day to a midlevel management position in a division known by employees where “careers go to die.”

“Abusive workplaces rely on a persistent lack of accountability. We see this pattern frequently, where those with influence and power are allowed to harm others and retaliate against those who decide to speak up,” said Jennifer Mondino, Senior Director of the TIME’S UP Legal Defense Fund at the National Women’s Law Center, which supported media assistance for this matter. “Lorrayne has been extraordinarily brave in coming forward, and we hope she is granted a measure of justice and healing. We are in a collective fight to address a longstanding culture of harassment that relies on entrenched silence and shame. Today is a reminder that the strength of survivors is a force to be reckoned with, and we are proud to stand alongside Lorrayne.”


Where’s the Consideration for a New Mother and Her Baby?

Mavromatis alleges that when she took maternity leave with her first child her treatment at MrBeast went from bad to worse. Mavromatis alleges that MrBeast failed to give her the legally required notice of her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and proceeded to make her work continuously during her first two months of maternity leave.

Mavromatis states just days after tending to her daughter in the neonatal intensive care unit, her supervisor began requesting her to work for MrBeast’s upcoming product launch. Three weeks after giving birth, she was asked to manage a booth at a town hall event which required long periods of standing, physical work, and being away from her newborn for 10 hours. Mavromatis, who was born in Brazil, was also asked to work on a video with Brazilian soccer star Neymar. Mavromatis alleges that company culture at MrBeast, coupled with a fear of losing her job if she refused to work, compelled her to continue to work during her maternity leave.

Upon returning to work from maternity leave, Mavromatis was fired less than three weeks later. She alleges she was told she was “too high caliber” for the position that they had demoted her to after complaining about sexual harassment and the hostile work environment. MrBeast and its new CEO Jeffrey Hosenbold has since filled Mavromatis’ former job duties with men hailing from the sports industry. 

“This is a terrible example of how someone with access to unlimited resources made the decision to neglect the welfare of female employees and their access to the most fundamental legal rights and prioritize money over safety and well-being,” said Mavromatis’s attorney, James Vagnini of Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP. “Ms. Mavromatis was not the first and will not be the last woman to experience what it was like to be sidelined and disregarded by MrBeast, but she will not be intimidated or threatened into standing down.”

The lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina follows a complaint Mavromatis filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in November 2025. 

Download The Full Complaint >

Download The Full Press Release >

Devyn LaBella Prevails in Court Against Kevin Costner

Devyn LaBella, who worked as a stunt double for the lead female actress in Kevin Costner’s production of Horizon II, prevailed in Court today against Kevin Costner. At Mr. Costner’s direction, on May 2nd, 2023, Ms. LaBella was subjected to an unscripted, unplanned violent rape scene, which is the basis for her suit. Defendants filed a motion to have the case dismissed, claiming that the abusive conduct was protected as part of the “creative process.” The Court resoundingly denied their motion as to eight counts.

Accountability for Those Who Abuse Their Power

Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP attorney, James A. Vagnini, Esq. said: “Today, the court stood with Devyn and recognized the strong merits of her case, an important step towards unveiling the truth about what happened that day and creating accountability for those who abuse their power. We hope the Defendants won’t waste any more time on frivolous motions and panicked stall tactics, and instead allow for the discovery phase, when we’ll hear directly from the witnesses on set about the events that transpired. We look forward to our continued pursuit of justice for Ms.LaBella as she bravely continues to stand her ground.”

Court saw through Defendants smoke and mirrors

Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai LLP attorney, Kate McFarlane said: “The logical conclusion of the Defense argument is that you can rape or kill someone so long as it’s part of the ‘creative process.’ The creative process cannot be used as a shield for unlawful conduct.”

She went on, “Today, the Court saw through Defendants smoke and mirrors, where they attempted to hide their abhorrent behavior behind the excuse of it being part of the ‘creative process.’ The creative process cannot and does not give men in power complete impunity to abuse women like Ms. LaBella. We were confident we would prevail against Defendants on this frivolous motion, and we did. We anticipate Defendants will continue to employ similar tactics in an attempt to prevent their despicable conduct from ever reaching the eyes and ears of a jury. We won’t back down.”

Additional Press:

Kevin Costner Sexual Harassment Suit By ‘Horizon II’ Stuntwoman Will Continue, Judge Rules; Oscar Winner Plans ASAP Appeal

Kevin Costner came up quite short today in his bid to have Horizon IIstuntwoman Devyn LaBella’s sexual harassment and hostile workplace lawsuit tossed out. Still, while industry vet LaBella saw only two of her 10 claims against the Oscar winner dismissed, lawyers for Costner are already promising late Thursday to file a fast appeal.

Click through to read the rest.

Kevin Costner Sued By ‘Horizon 2’ Stunt Performer Over Unscripted Rape Scene

One day in May 2023, stunt performer Devyn LaBella showed up to the Utah set of Horizon: An American Saga – Chapter 2, the second part of the sprawling Western series from Kevin Costner, expecting to double for one of the film’s stars in some basic, fairly boring shots. Instead, she says, she was surprised by being subjected to an unscripted, brutal rape scene without proper notice, consent or the presence of a contractually mandated intimacy coordinator.

Now, LaBella is suing Costner and the film’s production companies for sexual discrimination, harassment and the creation of a hostile work environment. Moreover, the complaint alleges LaBella faced retaliation after she reported the incident by not being called back for subsequent work on the Horizon series and never being hired again by the film’s stunt coordinator, with whom she had worked previously.

“On that day, I was left exposed, unprotected, and deeply betrayed by a system that promised safety and professionalism,” LaBella said in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. “What happened to me shattered my trust and forever changed how I move through this industry.”

In a statement, Costner’s attorney Marty Singer said his client “always wants to make sure that everyone is comfortable working on his films and takes safety on set very seriously.” He says, however, that the lawsuit has “absolutely no merit” and is “completely contradicted by [LaBella’s] own actions — and the facts.”

The suit represents the latest legal battle for Horizon, as Costner’s loan-out firm for the series was recently hit with an arbitration claim for allegedly breaching its co-financing agreement with New Line Cinema. This complaint was filed after settlement discussions with Costner and production company representatives broke down, says James Vagnini of Valli Kane & Vagnini, one of the attorneys representing LaBella, with support from the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund.

The Horizon series is the product of decades of hustle from Costner, a veteran of the Western epic, from Dances With Wolves to Hatfields & McCoys to Yellowstone. With no major studio willing to fork over the cash he felt was needed, Costner invested $38 million of his own funds, with the series’ first film premiering to anemic box office in June 2024.

An ascendant stunt performer who had worked on Barbie and American Horror Stories, LaBella was hired on Horizon’s second installment as the lead stunt double for actress Ella Hunt, who plays one of the film’s main characters. Hunt’s role did involve sexual violence. As part of her contract, the lawsuit maintains, Hunt negotiated a mandatory intimacy coordinator on all nude or intimate scenes, which, as her stunt double, would apply to LaBella as well. Moreover, given that Hunt and LaBella are members of the performers union SAG-AFTRA, their intimate scenes would also be subject to the labor group’s regulations, which call for prior notice, consent and a closed set.

Everything went by the book for a scripted rape scene that shot on May 1, according to the suit: The scene — where LaBella performed the more physical, rough aspects of the action — was detailed on the day’s call sheet, rehearsed with a stunt coordinator and an intimacy coordinator, later monitored by that intimacy coordinator, took place on a closed set and was structured such that performers got breaks in between shots.

But rules were allegedly thrown out the window the next day, when LaBella showed up on set to double for two non-intimate sequences and was asked by Costner to stand in for Hunt for a shot. Unbeknownst to LaBella, the complaint claims, Hunt had just walked off of the set, “visibly upset,” after Costner told her he had just added an impromptu scene of sexual violence perpetuated by a different character than the previous day’s scene.

LaBella, instructed to lay down on a wagon, allegedly only found out that this was a rape scene after Costner called for actor Roger Ivens to simulate nonconsensual sex on top of her: “Mr. Ivens violently rustled Ms. LaBella’s skirt up as if trying to penetrate her against her will” while pinning her down per the director’s orders, the complaint states. No notice had been given, the scene had not been rehearsed, no intimacy coordinator was on set and all of the action was aired on monitors that could be viewed by the entire crew, according to the suit.

Costner’s attorney Singer maintains that this was a rehearsal without cameras rolling and not a filmed scene itself. The film’s stunt coordinators were present, he added. After this rehearsal, LaBella “gave her Stunt Coordinator supervisor a ‘thumbs up’ and indicated her willingness to then shoot the scene, if needed,” he states; the scene ended up being shot with a stand-in performer and not LaBella.

The lawsuit emphasizes that Costner did not consistently call “action” or “cut” during this process, leaving LaBella without time to fully comprehend what was happening as the action repeated. Meanwhile, “Mr. Ivens never separated from Ms. LaBella,” the suit says, consistently keeping his hand on her body. Moreover, the complaint claims the wardrobe department had not prepared LaBella for her undergarments to be exposed, as they were by the directions Costner was giving Ivens.

The complaint describes LaBella as shaken and “terrified” following this experience. Afterward, she raised concerns and made complaints to several stunt coordinators and to the film’s intimacy coordinator, later feeling that many in the production team were treating her with kid gloves, the suit states. She received some apologies from colleagues on the film, but was directed to stay in her trailer, fully costumed and not used on set for several days, the complaint claims.

Singer disputes that LaBella made a complaint to the film’s stunt coordinators, saying “she was in good spirits and made no complaints to them” at a dinner the night after the scene. He says that LaBella took stunt coordinator Wade Allen to a thank-you dinner following the production, and sent him a text stating, “Thank you for these wonderful weeks!”

Ultimately, LaBella was not called back for the third film in the series, and Allen did not hire her again, though he had hired her for projects before Horizon.

The lawsuit alleges that LaBella’s career came to an “abrupt halt” after the incident. Not only was Allen not hiring her again, but “the workplace, and stunt work in general, which was once a source of purpose and fulfillment, is now a place of heightened apprehension and the whole experience has left Ms. LaBella feeling ‘disposable’ and ‘worthless,’” the complaint states.

If the case goes to trial, LaBella and her attorneys are asking the jury to determine any potential punitive damages. Beyond compensation, the point of the suit is also to “address the continued failures at the highest levels of Hollywood production companies to comprehend and address the impacts of performing in sexually explicit and violent ‘scenes’ and the need for intimacy coordination,” the complaint reads.

The use of intimacy coordinators in Hollywood exploded after the #MeToo movement prompted a reappraisal of power dynamics on set. Choreographing scenes of an intimate nature, intimacy coordinators are intended to be watchdogs for performer safety and comfort. While some famous performers have embraced them (Rachel Zegler, Phoebe Dynevor), others have waved them off or said they didn’t feel they need them, like Mikey Madison and Sean Bean.

Per the lawsuit, in this case an intimacy coordinator was mandated by a performer contract, amplifying existing union protections. Says Jennifer Mondino, the senior director of the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund, which supported the case, “The guidelines that are supposed to be followed on regular movie sets weren’t being followed.”

Adds LaBella’s lawyer Vagnini, “If it can happen on a size of a production worth $100 million or more, imagine what happens on smaller ones where you’re really trying to cut corners.”

As for Singer, he says, “The facts are clear and we are beyond confident that Kevin will prevail.”

Read The Full Article On The Hollywood Reporter

US appeals court adopts lower bar for proving workplace bias claims

By Daniel Wiessner/ Reuters

Aug 21 (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court has thrown out its unique decades-old precedent that made it more difficult for workers to prove discrimination claims.

The en banc 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday revived a lawsuit claiming Dallas County, Texas, required female jail guards, but not men, to work at least one day each weekend, overruling its longstanding precedent that federal anti-discrimination law only prohibits bias in “ultimate employment decisions” such as hiring, promotions and setting pay.

That precedent imposed a more strict standard than Title VII of the Civil Rights of Act 1964 itself, which applies to any “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” the New Orleans-based court said.

“It is no wonder … that no other court of appeals applies so narrow a concept,” Circuit Judge Don Willett wrote for the 5th Circuit.

Jay Ellwanger, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the ruling makes clear that Title VII prohibits all workplace discrimination.

Read the full article from Reuters here.

Female Delta Pilot Advances Sexual Harassment, Reprisal Claims

By Patrick Dorrian/ Bloomberg Law

Delta Air Lines Inc. must face a female pilot’s claims of workplace sexual harassment and that she was retaliated against for complaining about gender bias and harassment, including by being forced to undergo retreatment for alcohol abuse.

The ruling by the US District Court for the District of Minnesota rejected Delta’s contention that the retreatment requirement and other job actions cited by the pilot weren’t adverse for purposes of proving job retaliation, but instead were “beneficial opportunities” permitted by its collective bargaining agreement with her union. Binding case law “indicates otherwise,” the court said.

According to Andrea Ratfield, Delta’s adverse employment actions also included threatening her with termination and suspension, and manipulating her use of leave so it could demote her from captain to first officer. She started drinking to deal with trauma stemming from an incident in which she was raped while attending an aviation event in September 2017, which she reported to her supervisor, Ratfield says.

Ratfield says the sexual harassment she’s experienced in her Delta tenure includes being groped, her training manager asking her on a date, a supervisor calling her “princess,” and lewd hand gestures and comments. A supervisor also allegedly bragged to others that he had seen Ratfield’s breasts while she was breastfeeding, Judge Katherine Menendez said.

Those allegations sufficiently state a hostile work environment claim under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, the judge said. The alleged acts of harassment may be “of the type brushed off by courts in different eras,” but they “comprise the sort of workplace behavior today that reasonable people” likely wouldn’t tolerate, Menendez said.

At least two of the incidents alleged by Ratfield occurred within the time period for suing, the court said.

Her retaliation claims are plausible in light of the alleged close timing—two weeks—between when she reported unfair and discriminatory treatment and when Delta refused to accept secondary test results she received that contradicted an allegedly false positive test that triggered the retreatment requirement, Menendez said.

Ratfield also alleges the retreatment facility was told that she rubbed people at Delta the wrong way and that supervisors further tried to sabotage her retreatment and effort to regain her license to fly by sharing her false positive test with the facility, the judge said.

The court dismissed Ratfield’s gender discrimination claims, including her allegations that Delta accepted secondary test results from male pilots under similar circumstances, but not from her.

Those claims require Ratfield to prove she was qualified to be a pilot and thus implicate terms of her union CBA, Menendez said. They therefore are preempted by the Railway Labor Act. RLA preemption didn’t apply to Ratfield’s retaliation claims because they don’t require proof that Ratfield was qualified for her job, the judge said.

Valli Kane & Vagnini LLP, Nichols Kaster PLLP, and Ellwanger Law LLLP represent Ratfield. Dorsey & Whitney LLP represents Delta.

Read the full article from Bloomberg Law here.