judicialsupport

Legal Writing for Legal Reading!

Archive for the tag “SUE”

NBI SEMINAR MATERIALS: Human Resource Law From A to Z: Unemployment Compensation

I  had the great opportunity to lead (perhaps “teach”) a continuing legal education seminar hosted by the National Business Institute.  The subject was “Human Resource Law From A to Z” and I had opportunity to speak on Unemployment Compensation.  I was joined by other capable attorneys who each had their own topics to present.

Although NBI published the materials, I retain the ownership of the portions I wrote, which I will post here in this blog.

Linked below are all the materials I wrote for this seminar.

Thanks!

__________

Court Rejects Christian Adoption Agency’s Challenge To Anti-Discrimination Regulation

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In New Hope Family Services v. Poole, (ND NY, May 16, 2019), a New York federal district court rejected a constitutional challenge by a Christian adoption agency to New York’s anti-discrimination provisions. Regulations of New York’s Office of Children & Family Services prohibit adoption agencies from discriminating, among other things, on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. New Hope Family Services will not place children with same-sex couples or with unmarried couples. Inquiries from such couples are referred to other agencies. The court rejected New Hope’s contention that the regulation violates its free exercise rights because it was adopted to target faith-based agencies.  Instead, the court found that the regulation “is facially neutral and generally applicable, and that it has been neutrally and generally applied in this case….” The court also rejected New Hope’s free speech and equal protection challenges to New York’s regulation. In a press release, ADF said that the decision is likely to be appealed.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Kanye and Collins: Shredded by Intersectionality

Every now and again I come across a fantastic article the warrants posting here; I recently came across one in Splice Today by my old philosophy professor Dr. Crispin Sartwell from back in my Penn State days which, I thought, was pretty insightful. Be edified.

________________

A lot of people who assert that Kanye West has gone mad are also angry at him, which lands him in the worst of all possible worlds: held not to be responsible for his actions by the very same people who are blaming him. I’ve been there, brother. But Kanye is being ripped apart by forces larger than insomnia. He’s like the Jesus of intersectionality, crucified for our sins on the cross of fallacious reasoning. The problem isn’t that Kanye makes no sense—though he doesn’t—it’s that everyone talking about Kanye make no sense either. The Sufferings of Kanye have been sent to us as a message from God: if you don’t generate a coherent way of thinking about race, gender, and politics, I’m going to come over and smack you.

Sen. Susan Collins has been tacked to the same wretched cross, which defines a four-box grid: male, female, minority, white. That’s the menu from which we each get to pick who we are, because it’s as many identities as political consultants can keep in their heads simultaneously.

People find a lot of ways to say “race traitor” and “gender traitor” without saying it, and now Kanye knows what it feels like to be a wigger in the whitebread suburbs, and Collins what it’s like to be a drag queen. But though Kanye betrayed his politically-unanimous race—because Donald Trump is a racist—he kept faith with his politically-unanimous gender, because Trump’s also a sexist. The people most outraged by Kanye are also those (Michael Eric Dyson, for example) who believe that a progressive future is demographically inevitable, because of a growing coalition of women and minorities. But that inspiring coalition includes one half of Kanye West (and for that matter one half of Dyson and Collins) and excludes the other.

The American political spectrum is largely collapsing into demographics: it’s not defined by what you believe, but skin-tone and gonads, and both sides are engaged in internal gender cleansing. This is one of the things you identitarians had better talk about when you talk about “intersectionality”: people like Kanye and Collins—black men and white women—have intersectional identities alright, identities that land different bits of themselves on different sides of the political spectrum. No wonder they seem a bit bewildered.

On this way of thinking, the inmost identity of each of us is a simple matrix of group memberships. But only half of Kanye’s identity is invited to the progressive party. The minority member should be piping up while the man quiets down and listens to the people he’s oppressed. That’s how you get the Kanye we saw in the Oval, or the Collins we saw address the Senate: several people at once or no one at all. Identity politics as currently conceived confronts us all with a fateful question: is Kanye blacker than he is male, or more male than he is black? Perhaps some sort of DNA test could help with this?

What’s remarkable is that Kanye is conscious of this, and he explains his own support for Trump directly as a matter of gender.

West: “You know, they tried to scare me to not wear this hat—my own friends. But this hat, it gives me—it gives me power, in a way. You know, my dad and my mom separated, so I didn’t have a lot of male energy in my home. And also, I’m married to a family that—(laughs)—you know, not a lot of male energy going on. It’s beautiful, though. But there’s times where, you know, there’s something about—you know, I love Hillary. I love everyone, right? But the campaign ‘I’m with her’ just didn’t make me feel, as a guy, that didn’t get to see my dad all the time—like a guy that could play catch with his son. It was something about when I put this hat on, it made me feel like Superman. You made a Superman. That was my—that’s my favorite superhero. And you made a Superman cape.”

Then on to the “hero’s journey” and “dragon energy”: straight out of the “men’s movement” circa 1986.

The gender gap right now is running at an all-time high of around 30 percent. It’s going to be something when we have pure gender parties, or straight-up politics of the playground: boys against girls. But then, if the same party that represents all the men also represents all the white people, and the same party that represents all the women represents all the members of racial minority groups, what are Kanye or Collins to do?

Our politics appears to be breaking down into two race/gender coalitions, which is a remarkable development, among other things, for how disgusting it is. But the good part is that the politics it describes is impossible, because it not only separates us from one another, but separates many of us from ourselves. It’s evil, but it’s also silly, so I suppose we just have to watch it play out.

I’d expect no wave in the midterm elections; if you ran a computer model on this incoherent way of understanding the electorate, it would show a stalemate in perpetuity. The greater the proportion of minorities, of course, the greater the proportion of minority men, who may well respond to dragon energy and hero’s journeys. More women in the Senate may well mean more white women in the Senate.

So while we may bemoan the incoherence of identity politics as it emerges from both sides now, we can celebrate that incoherence too, for even if identity politics wins, it loses.

This article can be found here.

 

NBI SEMINAR MATERIALS: Traditional Ways to Manage Unemployment Compensation Costs

I  had the great opportunity to lead (perhaps “teach”) a continuing legal educationseminar hosted by the National Business Institute.  The subject was “Human Resource Law From A to Z” and I had opportunity to speak on Unemployment Compensation.  I was joined by other capable attorneys who each had their own topics to present.

Although NBI published the materials, I retain the ownership of the portions I wrote, which I will post here in this blog.

Copied below are the materials I wrote for the section entitled “Traditional Ways to Manage Unemployment Compensation Costs.”

Thanks!

__________

Traditional Ways to Manage Unemployment Compensation Costs

Many employers appear to be under the impression that since they pay unemployment compensation through mandatory taxes, there is little they can do to manage their unemployment compensation costs.  The fact is, however, is that there are a few ways to manage unemployment compensation costs.

The first, and most basic, way an employer can manage unemployment compensation costs is to contest a claim for benefits.  For example, if a claimant is found to have voluntarily quits his employment or commits willful misconduct (see above), the employer is not charged for the benefits, however employers must be proactive at every step – specifically contesting a claim, submitting its forms in a timely fashion to the Department of Labor, appealing an adverse determination and/or attending a referee’s hearing – in order to ensure, to the best of its ability, that it is not charged for benefits.  To that end, providing the Department of Labor complete paperwork, a full description of the cause of the employee’s separation from employment, and supplying additional information as it becomes available is a must.  Similarly, employers are given notice by the Department of Labor of their employees’ base period wages, which can also be appealed in order to avoid an award of benefits being charged to their account.  Being sure to attend all hearings, submitting all documents within time allotted, and appealing adverse decisions can all help reduce costs.

An employer’s tax rate for unemployment compensation depends on the the number and frequency of successful claims for benefits, therefore, successfully contesting benefits can help reduce the applicable tax burden.

If a claimant is successful in securing benefits, an employer may be eligible for relief from being charged for the claimant’s benefits if it properly files for it.  An employer may be relieved of charges if, for example, the claimant was terminated for cause or voluntarily quit, or if the claimant became unemployed due to natural disaster, and/or the claimant is self-employed,

There are also some every day strategies and policies which can be implemented to help manage unemployment compensation costs.

  • First, being diligent and careful about who one hires, and ensuring a good work environment, helps ensure employees will have longer terms of employment, and less need for benefits. Relatedly, be liberal about offering leaves of absence as this also reduces the odds of employees quitting.  Keeping turnover to a minimum is the goal.  When employees are terminated (for whatever reason), it may be advisable to conduct an exit interview to document the reason for termination.
  • Second, it is vital to maintain complete and detailed employment records. These records include each and every disciplinary issue, work quality issue, and/or personality issue, and the dates of these issues, the names of all involved, the details of the investigation of these issues, and how they were resolved.
  • Third, an employer should be sure to furnish its employees with a copy of its employment manual/policies (with signed verification of receipt). So doing ensures all of its employees have had notice of what is expected of them, how discipline is applied and enforced, and what the work rules are.

 

Court Properly Applied Neutral Principles In Dealing With Factional Dispute In Church

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

Nelson v. Brewer(IL App., May 10, 2019), involved a dispute between two factions of a congregational church over control of the church, identity of its pastor and control of its property. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s action under Sec. 112.55 of the Illinois Non-Profit Corporation Act appointing a custodian to secure the church’s property and bring the church’s corporate governance documents in to compliance with law. The court also, through a series of orders, provided for selection of a 5-person board for the church. The appellate court said in part:

We find the circuit court in this case properly applied the neutral principles of law as it found both parties have an equal right to PTC property and carefully applied section 112.55 of the Act to remediate the church’s corporate governance. The court specifically refused to issue an opinion as to who is the rightful pastor because that question is religious in nature. Instead the court limited its findings to corporate reorganization by examining PTC’s articles of incorporation, bylaws, other corporate governing documents, the land trust, and pertinent state statutes to resolve the matter.

You can learn more about this issue here.

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Over the past 12 months, three scholars—James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian—wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable: By the time they took their experiment public late on Tuesday, seven of their articles had been accepted for publication by ostensibly serious peer-reviewed journals. Seven more were still going through various stages of the review process. Only six had been rejected.

In the late 1990s, Alan Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, began a soon-to-be-infamous article by setting out some of his core beliefs:

that there exists an external world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in “eternal” physical laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the “objective” procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific method.

Sokal went on to “disprove” his credo in fashionable jargon. “Feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice, revealing the ideology of domination concealed behind the façade of ‘objectivity,’” he claimed. “It has thus become increasingly apparent that physical ‘reality,’ no less than social ‘reality,’ is at bottom a social and linguistic construct.”

Next, Sokal sent off this jabber to Social Text, a peer-reviewed academic journal that was, at the time, a leading intellectual forum for famous scholars including Edward Said, Oskar Negt, Nancy Fraser, Étienne Balibar, and Jacques Rancière. It was published.In the eyes of his supporters, what came to be known as the Sokal Hoax seemed to prove the most damning charges that critics of postmodernism had long leveled against it. Postmodern discourse is so meaningless, they claimed, that not even “experts” can distinguish between people who make sincere claims and those who compose deliberate gibberish.

In the months after Sokal went public, Social Text was much ridiculed. But its influence—and that of the larger “deconstructivist” mode of inquiry it propagated—continued to grow. Indeed, many academic departments that devote themselves to the study of particular ethnic, religious, and sexual groups are deeply inflected by some of Social Text’s core beliefs, including the radical subjectivity of knowledge.

That’s why Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian set out to rerun the original hoax, only on a much larger scale. Call it Sokal Squared.

Generally speaking, the journals that fell for Sokal Squared publish respected scholars from respected programs. For example, Gender, Place and Culture, which accepted one of the hoax papers, has in the past months published work from professors at UCLA, Temple, Penn State, Trinity College Dublin, the University of Manchester, and Berlin’s Humboldt University, among many others.

The sheer craziness of the papers the authors concocted makes this fact all the more shocking. One of their papers reads like a straightforward riff on the Sokal Hoax. Dismissing “western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist, it makes a case for physics departments to study feminist astrology—or practice interpretative dance—instead:

Other means superior to the natural sciences exist to extract alternative knowledges about stars and enriching astronomy, including ethnography and other social science methodologies, careful examination of the intersection of extant astrologies from around the globe, incorporation of mythological narratives and modern feminist analysis of them, feminist interpretative dance (especially with regard to the movements of the stars and their astrological significance), and direct application of feminist and postcolonial discourses concerning alternative knowledges and cultural narratives.

The paper that was published in Gender, Place and Culture seems downright silly. “Human Reaction to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon” claims to be based on in situ observation of canine rape culture in a Portland dog park. “Do dogs suffer oppression based upon (perceived) gender?” the paper asks.

By drawing upon empirical studies of psychological harms of objectification, especially through depersonalization, and exploring severel veins of theoretical literature on nonphysical forms of sexual violence, this articles seeks to situate non-concensual male autoerotic fantasizing about women as a form of metasexual violence that depersonalizes her, injures her being on an affective level, contributes to consequent harms of objectification and rape culture, and can appropriate her identity for the purpose of male sexual gratification.

Sokal Squared doesn’t just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals. This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to redress the “privilege” of white students. Exhorting college professors to enact forms of “experiential reparations,” the paper suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even binding them to the floor in chains. If students protest, educators are told to

take considerable care not to validate privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege.

Like just about everything else in this depressing national moment, Sokal Squared is already being used as ammunition in the great American culture war. Many conservatives who are deeply hostile to the science of climate change, and who dismiss out of hand the studies that attest to deep injustices in our society, are using Sokol Squared to smear all academics as biased culture warriors. The Federalist, a right-wing news and commentary site, went so far as to spread the apparent ideological bias of a few journals in one particular corner of academia to most professors, the mainstream media, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

These attacks are empirically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. There are many fields of academia that have absolutely no patience for nonsense. While the hoaxers did manage to place articles in some of the most influential academic journals in the cluster of fields that focus on dealing with issues of race, gender, and identity, they have not penetrated the leading journals of more traditional disciplines. As a number of academics pointed out on Twitter, for example, all of the papers submitted to sociology journals were rejected. For now, it remains unlikely that the American Sociological Review or the American Political Science Review would have fallen for anything resembling “Our Struggle Is My Struggle,” a paper modeled on the infamous book with a similar title.

That too is intellectually dishonest. For one, Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian describe themselves as left-leaning liberals. For another, it is nonsensical to insist that nonsense scholarship doesn’t matter because you don’t like the motives of the people who exposed it, or because some other forms of scholarship may also contain nonsense. If certain fields of study cannot reliably differentiate between real scholarship and noxious bloviating, they become deeply suspect. And if they are so invested in overcoming injustice that they are willing to embrace rank cruelty as long as it is presented in the right kind of progressive jargon, they are worsening the problems they purport to address.It would, then, be all too easy to draw the wrong inferences from Sokal Squared. The lesson is neither that all fields of academia should be mistrusted nor that the study of race, gender, or sexuality is unimportant. As Lindsay, Pluckrose, and Boghossian point out, their experiment would be far less worrisome if these fields of study didn’t have such great relevance.

But if we are to be serious about remedying discrimination, racism, and sexism, we can’t ignore the uncomfortable truth these hoaxers have revealed: Some academic emperors—the ones who supposedly have the most to say about these crucial topics—have no clothes.

By Yascha Mounk and published in The Atlantic on October 5, 2018 and can be found here.

 

 

NBI SEMINAR MATERIALS: What you Need to Know About the Hearing Process

I  had the great opportunity to lead (perhaps “teach”) a continuing legal educationseminar hosted by the National Business Institute.  The subject was “Human Resource Law From A to Z” and I had opportunity to speak on Unemployment Compensation.  I was joined by other capable attorneys who each had their own topics to present.

Although NBI published the materials, I retain the ownership of the portions I wrote, which I will post here in this blog.

Copied below are the materials I wrote for the section entitled “What you Need to Know About the Hearing Process.”

Thanks!

__________

Unemployment Compensation hearings are heard by a fact-finder known as a referee.  The hearings are semi-formal in nature, but generally follow typical adversarial hearing procedure.  Perhaps the single most important thing to know about referees’ hearings is that they are the one, and only, opportunity for either party to present evidence, testimony, and argument in support of his position with regard to the claim for benefits.  The referee’s decision is based solely on the file maintained by the Department of Labor and the testimony and evidence offered at the hearing.  It is unfortunately common for parties not to take the referee’s hearing seriously, or believe it is only some sort of preliminary (or intermediate (as opposed to final)) hearing, as it is not in a court or before a judge, however, as stated above, it is actually vitally important as it is the only fact-finding hearing in the unemployment compensation process.  Similarly unfortunate is that claimants are often told by the Department of Labor that they do not need an attorney at the hearing, however, considering how significant the referee’s hearings are to a claimant’s eligibility, it is highly recommended that the parties are represented at them.

Referees’ hearings take place at one’s local Unemployment Compensation hearing office, specifically in the referee’s office.  The hearings are audio recorded and transcribed if appealed to the Board of Review.  The referee’s office makes the complete claim file available to the parties prior to the hearing and, to that end, the parties should appear at least fifteen minutes prior to the hearing to review it.  The file typically consists of the correspondence between the parties and the Department of Labor, the application filed by the claimant, any response made by the employer, the income records from the claimant, and the initial determination of (in)eligibility.

As stated above, the hearing itself takes place in the referee’s personal office.  The arrangement of the room typically consists of the referee’s desk at the front (where the referees’ sits) and a long table perpendicular to the referee where the parties sit on opposing sides (some referees’ office have a traditional courtroom set up with the parties at side-by-side tables facing the referee).  The parties can be accompanied by their attorneys (or non-attorney representative), witnesses, and non-participating observers.  By statute, the parties may have a non-attorney representative instead of a lawyer who functions in a similar capacity as a lawyer.

The hearing begins with the referee reviewing and identifying literally every page in the claim file (which was just reviewed by the parties).  Upon completion of the review, the parties may object to the admissibility of the documents in the claim file.  Typically, the objections are to relevance (for containing information irrelevant to the claim) and hearsay.  It is not uncommon for the documents in the file, especially from the employer, to be written (or prepared) by a non-party who is not present at the hearing.  For example, the employer may appear at a referee’s hearing through its owner and a witness who saw the events giving rise to the employee’s termination.  By contrast, the contents of the file may have been written and/or prepared by the employer’s Human Relations director who is not present at the hearing, and, therefore, the contents would be hearsay.  If the objections are sustained, the documents objected to are not considered when the referee renders his decision.

After the file is reviewed, the hearing commences in a way that follows the traditional procedure of an adversarial hearing.  The hearing typically begins with an opening statement from the parties (some referee’s dispense with this portion of the hearing).  After open statements, the party which appealed the decision calls and examines its witnesses.  Through the witnesses, documents may be submitted as evidence.  The witnesses may be cross-examined by the adverse party.  When finished, the adverse party calls and examines its witnesses.  Closing arguments – if permitted by the referee – are then offered and the hearing concludes.

A very common mistake made by the parties – especially the employer – is not bringing the appropriate witnesses.  For example, employers often assert that a claimant was terminated from his employ due to willful misconduct, which would render the claimant ineligible for benefits.  This same employer may appear at the hearing with the owner and the human relations director as witnesses, neither of whom witnessed the misconduct that gave rise to claimant’s termination.  Unfortunately for the employer, the only testimony they would be able to provide regarding the misconduct is inadmissible hearsay.  So, needless to say, it is vitally important to bring the proper and relevant witnesses to the hearing.

As a referee’s hearing follows traditional adversarial procedures, the parties are free to make various objections as permitted by the rules of evidence.  As a referee’s hearing is semi-formal (similar to a district court (i.e.: small claims) hearing), objections for “best evidence” – and the like – are often not enforced.  Similarly, if a health condition is an issue, it is not necessary to call the physician or health care professional as a witness to ensure medical records are admissible as evidence.  The burden of proof lies with the party making the assertion.  For example, if the claimant was terminated for willful misconduct, the employer bears the burden to prove that it occurred.

A referee’s decision is issued within about two weeks of the hearing and is appealable to the Board of Review by the date listed on the determination/opinion issued by the referee.

Defamation Suit Dismissed Under Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine

This is from religionclause.blogspot.com which you can find here:

In In re Alief Vietnamese Alliance Church and Phan Phung Hung, (TX App., April 30, 2019), a Texas state appellate court held that a defamation claim by a church’s former interim pastor, Paul Nguyen, against the Church and its senior pastor Phan Phung Hung should be dismissed under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine.  At issue were statements by Hung that Nguyen had committed adultery with a female church member. In a 2-1 decision, the majority said in part:

We conclude that Hung’s allegedly defamatory statements are … “inextricably intertwined” with matters relating to an internal struggle between a current and former leader of the Church over Church governance, the standard of morals required of leaders of the Church, and the reason for Nguyen’s leaving or being expelled from the Church….

Even if there is a dispute over Hung’s motivation in making the statements—either as part of a disciplinary procedure due to the alleged adultery or merely out of vindictiveness towards Nguyen, who had criticized Hung’s pastoring decisions—these statements were made in the context of expelling a member and former leader of the Church, or, alternatively, the Church member’s voluntarily quitting his leadership positions and quitting the Church—and then refusing to meet with Church leadership to resolve the dispute—either version of which is inherently an ecclesiastical concern as a matter of law.

You can learn more about this issue here.

Family Law Tip: Inheritance and Child Support

I post some tips regarding family to my Linkedin page (see here) from time to time, and I thought I should start sharing them here too.  Below is one of my family law tips, and you can read my articles on family law here and other posts on family law here and all are cataloged here.

Flight Attendants are Fighting a Culture of Harassment at American Airlines

The Melissa Chinery and Laura Medlin cases against American Airlines, cases currently being litigated by my firm, the Law Office of Faye Riva Cohen, P.C., have been featured in an article entitled “Flight Attendants are Fighting a Culture of Harassment at American Airlines,” in Ms. Magazine b published on November 26, 2018, which can be found here.

___________________________________

There’s little that female candidates for public office can do when men post vile and harassing messages about them on social media. But when flight attendant Melissa Chinery’s male co-workers took to Facebook to make offensive and threatening comments about her when she ran to be president of the flight attendants’ union, she filed a sexual harassment grievance with her employer.

Instead of disciplining her harassers, however, American Airlines promoted them.

Two flight attendants have filed a lawsuit against American Airlines for fostering a culture of sexist online harassment among employees. (Kristoffer Trolle / Creative Commons)

Chinery and fellow AA flight attendant Laura Medlin have filed sexual harassment lawsuits against the airline for failing to respond to their complaints about male co-workers posting hundreds of derogatory messages about them on social media work group pages. They allege that male co-workers called them “c*nts,” a “flipper” (slang for prostitute) and a “sow.” One man posted a photo of a “bedazzled vagina.” Another wrote: “I can’t stand these crusty c*nts.”

Chinery first heard about the harassment from her flight service manager, but after filing her complaint, Chinery alleges that, after filing her complaint, she faced retaliation, including threats of discipline and repeated drug and alcohol tests. “My manager called me, then failed to take any action to stop the problem,” Chinery told SavvyStews. “No apologies from anyone, just an escalated attack.” AA’s Human Resources failed to even respond to Medlin’s complaints for many months.

Instead of disciplining the men, AA ultimately promoted two of them to positions in the training department. One is now working full time at American’s headquarters, training flight attendants for their annual airworthiness qualification, where he has the ability to pass or fail female flight attendants. The promotions gave another man access to Chinery and Medlin’s personal information and schedules; he knows where they are, what hotels they are staying in and other information that could compromise their safety.

Meanwhile, the men continue to insult their female co-workers on social media. At least 11 other American female flight attendants have reportedly been bullied and harassed by their male co-workers. This behavior was apparently not bad enough for George H.W. Bush-appointed Judge Eduardo C. Robreno to allow the case to go to trial. Robreno dismissed the combined suits in September, ruling that the behavior was not severe or pervasive; Chinery and Medlin have filed an appeal in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.

Unlike office workers, flight attendants don’t see each other every day, transforming social media into a main means of communication—the new “virtual water cooler,” where co-workers talk and exchange ideas. What happens on social media has a direct impact on employees’ work experience. “Given the unique nature of social media, the harassment our clients experienced was all-pervasive and impossible to escape,” Faye Riva Cohen, the women’s attorney, told the media. “We believe that the Judge failed to adequately consider the power of social media and its impact on the workplace.”

In addition to the harassment itself, American Airlines attorneys have subjected Chinery and Medlin to invasive demands for personal information—including their medical records, medications they take and medical conditions they have. They demanded records from a C-section, pap smears and mammograms. AA attorneys questioned the women about their finances and other personal matters, presumably hoping to dig up something shameful so they could pressure the women to drop the suit for fear the information would be made public; they even deposed Chinery’s 74-year old father.

The men, on the other hand, were protected, never having to produce any personal information in the lawsuit. Rather than protecting their female employees, AA’s former Chief Financial Officer invited them to his wedding.

Chinery and Medlin have spent decades working for American Airlines, but they have yet to receive so much as an apology for the harassment they have had to endure, and American has shared no plan with them to prevent this sort of behavior in the future. That means it’s up to all of the customers flying the word’s biggest airline to demand justice for its female employees.

If you fly American, contact the airline and ask them what they are doing to ensure that all women are treated respectfully in their workplace. Demand that they create a safe workplace, one that is free from gender-based hostility and harassment, and demand that the human resources staff respond promptly and effectively to complaints of harassment.

Do this for Chinery, Medlin and the thousands of women who work at American Airlines who can’t afford to fight back.

Post Navigation