America is suppossed to be the nation of free speech, the right to pursuit if happiness and the nation that provides protections and freedoms for its hard working citizens everyday as they enter the workplace.  For far too long, our civil rights, liberties and labor standards have been poke and jabbed at by big business' nationwide.  As a result, people are being discriminated against, harassed more often, retaliated against for bringing forth "good faith" and legitimate claims against their agressor(s) and have their lives turned upside-down by bully bosses/peers and companies that support them.  This website is dedicated to exposure, education and awareness to help bring about much needed change for working Americans and to uphold our rights that so many fought for us to have years and years ago.  New pages and information is added to this site reguarly.  Check back often and let us know you questions and comments. 

"AT WILL" DOES NOT MEAN "ABLE TO VIOLATE THE LAW." 

Those that attempt to manage others by intimidation and fear never really lead their people effectively. Instead, those management people push good talented employees away and stiffle their creative asthetic abilities in an effort to feed their own egos and self gratifying lusts. True managers are leaders who inspire others to inspire themselves to do great things in work and in life.

FIGHT BACK EMPLOYEES.  DO NOT TAKE NO FOR AN ANSWER WHEN YOUR RIGHTS ARE TRAMPLED.  DEMAND RESULTS AND FAIR LABOR PRACTICES!

We are not hiding anymore and WILL be heard.

The word to define WHY we have these protection laws is ACCOUNTABILITY.

Harassment in the workplace IS a form of discriminative behavior, as defined by the United States Supreme Court,  that is also defined as creating a hostile working environment.  This can be as simple as making comments to co-workers and direct reports of a sexual nature or in a discriminative manner with regards to work related business matters.  A repetitive documented history of such behavior is grounds for causal action by the company, individual(s) and the state/federal government.  A company that fails to respond to "good faith" claims by employees is at fault and can be held to state and federal laws as well as their own EEO policy.  Negligence is unexcusable and attempting to cover up is heavily reprehensible.

The nature of the offense is always held in the eye of the claimant and not the company's legal defense nor the accussed.  If the bahavior is communicated to be "unwelcome," then it is severe enough to be harassment and hostile.

NEW!

Retaliation by Your Employer After Making an Employment Complaint or for Whistleblowing

Title VII - Workplace Civil Rights

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.

In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between sex and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business," and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School — Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

• Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
• Federally recognized Native American tribes
• Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
• Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Every state, except Arkansas and Alabama maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)).

In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998). Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

Making a sexual comment that is pervasive and demeaning/sever in tone and objectionable by the employee at the time and thus reported IS defined by the United States Supreme Court as SEXUAL HARASSMENT and it is also SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION under Title VII.   Company's should be very aware of this LAW as it is enforceable by any court with or without counsel.

========================================

 Employees can file a retaliation claim with the EEOC and ultimately a lawsuit against the company if they believe they are the target of retaliation by the company for having filed a discrimination complaint.

In 2010, for the first time in the EEOC's history, retaliation was the most frequently filed charge (36,258 claims). Retaliation rates in engineering rose to 195 charges filed in 2010 from 107 filed in 2001. Similarly, the number of charges in marketing, which includes marketing research, public polling and telemarketing, increased from 5 in 2001 to 55 in 2010. Finance, on the other hand, has been on a downward slope to 1,266 retaliation charges filed in 2010 from 1,662 charges filed in 2001.

An increase in retaliation claims could be tied to a Supreme Court case from 2006. In Burlington Northern v. White, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of what constituted a retaliation claim, concluding that "the employer's actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination."

"The Supreme Court ruling has made employees more confident about filing a charge," said Adam Klein, a partner at Outten Golden and the co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in the gender discrimination lawsuit against Goldman Sachs. "In a bad market, employers are less willing to tolerate [discrimination] complaints, leading to more retaliatory actions, and employees are fighting back."

==========================================

Title XI gives the Jury rights to put any proceeding for criminal contempt arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Civil Rights Act, on trial, and if convicted, can be fined no more than $1,000 or imprisoned for more than six months

Covers willful and wanton neglect facilitating perjury and obstruction of justice during an ongoing state and federal investigation.  Companies allowing such things and the people that did them are held liable (lawyers and CEOs also).

Check out the site as it grows and check back often for more information and events!!

Authored by the "Bulldog for Labor Justice."