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.

Think Before You Send That Email: Don’t Expect Privacy in the Workplace

3 Key Takeaways

  1. Federal and state law give employees very little privacy protection when using company-owned devices or systems at work.

  2. Employers can legally monitor email, phone calls, computer activity, and even record video of employees in many situations.

  3. Most employees don't realize how limited their workplace privacy rights are until it's too late.

You probably have less privacy at work than you think

Most of us understand that the workplace isn't quite the same as home. You're on someone else's time, using someone else's equipment, and operating within someone else's rules. But most employees don't fully grasp just how far that goes until they find themselves in a difficult situation, and by then, it's often a surprise.

What employers can actually monitor

Under federal and state law, employers have broad legal authority to monitor what happens on their systems and on their property. That can include:

Reading employee emails

Recording telephone conversations

Reviewing voicemail

Monitoring computer and internet activity

Video recording of employees in common work areas

If you're using your employer's devices, networks, or accounts, the general rule is that your employer may have access to what you're doing on them.

The email situation most people don't see coming

Email is one of the most common ways this plays out. Inboxes fill up fast, and it's completely normal to occasionally receive or forward something personal during the workday. A message from a friend, a funny photo, something forwarded from someone else.

Here's the scenario we see more than you'd think: an employee forwards something without reading it closely, or without scrolling all the way through. Buried in that email is language that's sexual, offensive, or otherwise inappropriate. The company's IT department flags it. It lands on a supervisor's desk. And suddenly the employee is facing discipline or termination, feeling like their privacy was violated, and discovering that legally, it wasn't.

The legal reality

This is the part that catches people off guard. Under both federal and state law, employees generally have little to no expectation of privacy when using company-owned equipment or systems. Courts have consistently upheld an employer's right to monitor workplace communications, and most company policies, often buried in an employee handbook you signed when you were hired, explicitly put employees on notice that monitoring may occur.

That doesn't mean employers can do anything they want. There are still limits, and context matters. But if you're using a work computer, a work email address, or a work phone, the baseline assumption should be that those communications are not private.

A few things that might surprise you

Two situations often catch people off guard, and they're worth spelling out clearly.

First, personal email accessed on a work computer. You might assume that logging into your Gmail or Yahoo account on your work laptop keeps things private because it's password-protected and it's your personal account. But under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), if you're accessing that email on a device owned by your employer, the employer may have the ability to monitor that activity. The password protects your account from outside access, but it doesn't necessarily protect the content from your employer's view of what's happening on their machine.

Second, text messages on an Apple device. If your employer issued you a Mac computer and you use Apple products, your iPhone texts and iMessages may sync to that computer automatically. Under the ECPA's Stored Communications Act (SCA), employers may be able to access communications stored on their systems, and a work Mac that backs up or logs your messages could qualify. Real-time interception of iMessages is a more complicated question, but stored messages on an employer-owned device are far more accessible than most people realize.

The key principle across all of this is straightforward: when you use your employer's equipment or networks, your expectation of privacy is significantly reduced, especially if your employer has a monitoring policy in place and has notified you of it.

What the law requires of employers

Federal law gives employers fairly wide latitude, but states have added their own rules.

In New York, employers must provide written notice at the time of hiring and post visible notices in the workplace if they monitor telephone, email, or internet activity. Those notices are often buried in employee handbooks that get signed on day one and forgotten, but they do count as consent under the law.

In Texas and Florida, there are no specific state notice requirements the way New York has them, but employers are still expected to have clear, communicated policies in place. Courts in both states have consistently held that when an employer puts employees on notice through a written policy, the employee's reasonable expectation of privacy on office equipment is significantly reduced. In Florida, the Florida Security of Communications Act also permits monitoring when an employee has acknowledged a workplace policy allowing it.

California takes a stricter approach. Employers there can still monitor office computers and internet activity, but courts have recognized that employees don't entirely lose their privacy rights just because they're at work. Overly intrusive monitoring methods, even in an office setting, have been found to cross the line when employees haven't been adequately informed.

What you can do

The simplest way to protect yourself is also the most practical: keep personal communications on personal devices and personal accounts. If something feels questionable to forward or send, trust that instinct. And be aware of any websites you log into from your work computer. If you wouldn’t do it with your boss looking over your shoulder then you probably shouldn’t do it on your work device.

And if you're in a situation where you believe your employer has crossed a line, whether it's monitoring that feels retaliatory, discriminatory, or connected to a broader workplace issue, it's worth talking to someone who can help you evaluate what actually happened and what your options are.

If you have questions about your rights at work, we're happy to help. Reach out to our team at VKV and let's figure out where you stand.

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

Supervisor sues Omni hotels, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation when she reported it

A former supervisor with Omni Hotels & Resorts has filed suit against the Dallas-based company, alleging sexual harassment and saying the company broke federal laws governing equal pay.Continue reading

Valeant Unit Settles Sex Discrimination Claims For $7.2M

Law360, Los Angeles (July 12, 2016, 4:56 PM EDT) — Valeant-owned Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. will pay $7.2 million to settle a class action alleging gender discrimination and other claims brought by female sales representatives of the medical cosmetics company, according to a final settlement order signed by a D.C. federal judge Monday. Continue reading

$4 Million Victory Against Turner Industries

Jury returns verdict of over $4 million for two East Texas employees of Turner Industries subjected to racial steering, denial of advancement and racial harassment. These are two plaintiffs in a wave of hundreds to be tried.
Since early 2009, Valli Kane & Vagnini and DiNovo Price & Ellwanger have jointly represented their clients in a historic Title VII Civil Rights battle against Baton Rouge, Louisiana-based Turner Industries Group.  The firms became involved when they responded to requests for representation from a small number of African-American laborers working for Turner Industries in their pipe fabrication plant in Paris, Texas.   Evidence supported allegations of a widespread hostile work environment for African-Americans; nooses were displayed in the workplace, along with repeated racial graffiti and the use of racial epithets by white co-workers and supervisors.  Rather than respond to workers’ request for help, a high level decision was made by Turner Industries to deny these allegations and fight the workers who had complained to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
Following a year-long investigation by the EEOC, during which Turner Industries permitted this environment to continue, African-American workers received their first victory when the EEOC issued its determination that a class of African-American workers were subjected to unlawful racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation at the hands of Turner Industries.  Turner retreated and chose to once again turn their backs on their remaining African-American employees who were subjected to similar treatment for years.  As a result, over 275 current and former African-American men and women came forward with evidence of racial harassment in other Turner locations such as their Port Allen, Louisiana and Pasadena, Texas,  as well as Turner’s third-party work locations throughout the Gulf South.  These work sites were owned and operated by large companies (and Turner customers) such as ExxonMobil, Sasol, Marathon, and Westlake, among others.
Given Turner’s refusal to address these widespread problems, these employees brought their claims to Federal Court.  The claims of the Texas employees are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the claims of Louisiana employees are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.  The first wave of 10 plaintiffs went to trial on October 15, 2012.  After a four day trial, African-American workers at Turner were handed another monumental victory: the jury awarded over $4 million in damages to two of the Plaintiffs.  The two cases were vastly different from one another.  One Plaintiff worked for Turner Industries for several years up until he was fired in 2008.  He was subjected to an extensive hostile work environment where he was exposed to numerous racial epithets by his co-workers and supervisors, including the “N” word.   The second Plaintiff did not allege a hostile work environment.  Instead, upon hiring, he was steered into a Painting and Blasting department where African-American employees were segregated from White workers.  This was and still is a dangerous environment where employees were not provided proper safety gear and where they were paid significantly less than the White workers who were steered to the better paying positions.  This Plaintiff made repeated attempts to obtain transfers and promotions out of this department based on his qualifications, but he was repeatedly denied.
While not all Plaintiffs were victorious in their fight, this is the first of many trials to come for Turner Industries with respect to these claims.  This is a solid victory, especially considering that a jury from a historically-conservative area awarded far in excess of what these two Plaintiffs even requested in damages.  The jury sent a very loud message to Turner Industries with its verdict.  With over 260 cases remaining to be tried, the business of discriminating against hard working African-Americans may cost Turner Industries far more than they expected.  The battle continues.

South Florida Fire Department Under EEOC Investigation


Snug in Florida’s deep south, Davie, Florida is a town known for its Western roots, featuring a western-themed amusement park, and more citizens with horses than you can shake a stick at. Davie’s population of about 92,000 is supported by five fire stations, nos. 38, 65, 68, 91 and 104. The hundred year old town, once an out of the way western paradise, is now hitting the news as the subject of allegations of Title VII discrimination at its fire department.
A Host of Discrimination Complaints
The discrimination claims appear not to be an isolated incident: 18 Title VII claims in total are allegedly under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC (the EEOC does not publicly discuss or confirm whether complaints are being investigated). Ten of the 18 charging parties are being represented by two attorneys. The most damning complaint comes from a female firefighter who claims she was unfairly subjected to full duty during the first trimester of her pregnancy. This charging party is alleging that eight (8) days after fighting a fire with her colleagues, she miscarried.
An Alleged Culture of Sexism and Bigotry
The charges center on complaints of sexism and bigotry. The most publicized involve the above case of miscarriage, as well as the story of Linda Stokoe. Stokoe was a fire inspector for the city, but was allegedly fired due to sex discrimination. The former inspector claims she was ordered to keep records of her bathroom visits, and that women were generally believed by her peers to be unfit for firefighting. Another charge alleges discrimination against a Jewish American, who claims derogatory terms and slurs were used against him.
How Does Title VII Apply?
Title VII, as amended, directly prohibits discrimination in the workplace on account of gender, race and religion, among other protected categories. The complaints described against the Davie, Florida Fire Department include racial and gender slurs, preferential treatment, and statements (direct, not implied statements) that women and some minorities are unfit to serve in the Fire Department. Since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was instituted, nearly every generation of EEOC leadership interpreting the Act has prohibited such treatment.
Is This Your Story?
If you feel that your race, gender, religion, national origin, disability or age have played an unnecessary role at your job, or even in your attempts to find work, then you may have a claim of discrimination. For further information and a free consultation, call the law offices of Valli, Kane & Vagnini today.