RACE / NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION

Settled a case where Plaintiff was terminated after complaining of overhearing racial epithets and words uttered by supervisors about different races. Plaintiff was terminated shortly after he made the complaints. Defendant claimed the termination was based on prior performance. The poor performance ratings had little documentation and were prepared after Plaintiff had made his complaints about his supervisors.

Resolved a case in which Plaintiff was an aerospace engineer laid off by a large aerospace company as part of a layoff that affected nearly 10% of its work force. Plaintiff claimed he had been denied promotions and called various racial and ethnic slurs like “camel jockey,” “Pakistani pig,” etc., and ultimately laid off because of his Pakistani national origin. Defendant claimed the promotion denials and the layoff were all unrelated to the Plaintiff’s national origin and based simply on his performance ratings and ability to perform “the remaining work” relative to others. It denied the racial/ethnic slurs. Plaintiff presented documented evidence that during an interview by a DFEH/CRD investigator, Plaintiff’s immediate Supervisor made a comment in jest about Plaintiff being “my favorite camel jockey” and Defendant Company was ordered by the DFEH to require the Supervisor to attend sensitivity training.

Resolved a case which the Plaintiff alleged he was the victim of continuous anti-Muslim/Arab discrimination and harassment and was terminated from his executive position because of that. Defendant claimed there was no discrimination or harassment and that Plaintiff was terminated for business improprieties. Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff after he started a competing company and engaged in unfair business practices, including use of confidential proprietary information he obtained from his former employer.

Resolved a case in which a Plaintiff sued his aerospace corporation employer alleging his selection for layoff was based on his age, race and in retaliation for having filed three EEOC complaints after being laid off three earlier times and being brought back to work as part of a settlement with the EEOC. The Company contended that the division in which Plaintiff worked as a first level supervisor was discontinuing its product lines and 78% of the employees had already been laid off and the criteria used for ranking employees for layoff was based strictly on “ability to perform” the remaining work. It claimed the evaluations of Plaintiff were done by totally unbiased supervisors.

Resolved a case in which Plaintiff claimed his layoff from an aerospace defense industry company was discriminatory based on race and age discrimination. Plaintiff contended that the employer’s use of peer evaluations to determine the rankings of employee ability and performance was tainted by the fact many of Plaintiff’s peers had made racial comments to him demonstrating racism. He also claimed at least one of his peers had made age-related remarks to him such as “you’re close to retirement age anyway, why don’t you just take an early retirement package and leave your spot for a younger employee with a family.” Defendant contended the layoff was legitimate and the peer group was multi-racial, and many employees joked with each other and no one but Plaintiff complained any of the rankings were the result of racism. Defendant also argued that the one age related comment was not even made by any of the peer reviewers, but by someone who was also laid off.