#discrimination and harassment lawyers

[knollawgroup]

Top Discrimination and Harassment Lawyers in California 

Knol Law specializes in workplace justice with expert discrimination and harassment lawyers. The firm represents victims of workplace bias, offering strong legal support to fight discrimination and harassment. With years of experience, Knol Law ensures clients achieve justice and rightful compensation. Protect your rights with trusted legal representation that fights for fair treatment and workplace equality. 

[mesrianilawgroup]

What is Constructive Dismissal?

In the state of California, the terms constructive discharge, constructive dismissal, or constructive termination are used to refer to situations where an employer has intentionally created or allowed a hostile work environment that is so toxic and intolerable for an employee that they are forced to quit.

Wrongful constructive termination refers to situations where the reasons behind the dismissal would be grounds for a wrongful termination claim under California state law if the employer had fired them directly. As with a standard wrongful termination case, wrongful constructive termination may be based on the applicable exceptions to California’s at-will employment laws.

Some situations that may not warrant but can contribute to a constructive termination claim include:

Severely reduced hours

Increased workload with no assistance

Unaddressed harassment from coworkers

Being consistently unduly reprimanded

Wrongful Constructive Dismissal Laws in California

The purpose of wrongful constructive termination law is to protect an employee’s right to sue for wrongful termination in the event that they were forced to quit rather than having been fired.

It is not enough just to claim wrongful constructive termination. The employee must prove two things:

The employer committed an act of workplace retaliation by intentionally creating or allowing the creation of working conditions that were intolerable enough as to cause the employee to have no other choice than to quit.

The employer did not have the right to terminate the employee, and if they had, the employee would have been able to file a valid wrongful termination claim against them.

In California, if an employee is not part of a union, the employment relationship is considered at-will by default, though there may also be specific terms in their employment contract that verify it. This means that the employer does not have to give reason or notice in order to terminate an employee. They also may create or encourage hostile working conditions in general.

There are, however, some exceptions to this standard that may allow for an employee to claim wrongful constructive dismissal.

How is Constructive Dismissal Defined?

According to California state law, there are three factors in determining constructive dismissal:

The employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted certain conditions.

The conditions were so intolerable that the employee felt forced to quit.

The employer should have reasonably known that the conditions would force a reasonable employee to quit.

There are many methods an employer may use to force someone to resign such as discrimination, harassment, and intimidation. However, if the working conditions were merely bad, but not completely intolerable, it is not enough to claim constructive termination. There are many ways that an employer may make things difficult for an employee that individually do not constitute intolerable conditions such as:

Reduced hours or unsavory shifts

Reduced pay or demotions

Transfers and reassignments

Unfair reprimands and evaluations

Rude coworkers and supervisors

It is also not enough that intolerable conditions existed. The employer must have been aware and either intentionally created them, or knowingly permitted them to occur. The point of a constructive dismissal is that an employer has terminated an employee by forcing them to quit.

Although California is an at-will employment state, employers are still prohibited from discriminating against their employees. An employee can not be terminated due to being a part of any of the following protected classes:

Age

Disability

Gender/Sex

Pregnancy

Race

Religion

Sexual Orientation

They are also protected from retaliation in the event of:

Whistle Blowing

Sexual harassment complaints

Taking protected leave

If an employer fired an employee due to one of these reasons, that employee may have the right to claim wrongful termination. But if they resign, they lose that right. This can be a factor in an employer deciding to force a resignation rather than issue a termination.

Constructive Dismissal Examples in California

There have been many instances where an employee has believed that they were constructively terminated, but the court held that the conditions were not enough to qualify such as:

The presence of a workplace violation

A single isolated incident of discrimination

A demotion due to a poor evaluation

Being changed from full time to part time

A change in pay or bonuses

Job duties not being what the employee expected

The employee personally believing they should be paid more

Some examples of instances where the courts agreed that conditions may qualify as constructive termination include:

An employer failing to reimburse their employee for business expenses to the point that the employee was unable to cover their own cost of living

Consistent ongoing patterns of discriminatory behavior due to age, race, or sex

Excessive and aggressive verbal harassment in a hostile work environment

Physical threats and harassment including job performance sabotage

A well performing employee suddenly singled out and being subjected to harsh reprimands, inaccurate poor performance reviews, and verbal harassment

Why Do Employers Want Employees to Quit vs Firing Them?

When an employee resigns, they lose some of the rights they would have had if they had been fired, including but not limited to:

Unemployment benefit eligibility

Increased damages for discrimination or retaliation claims

The right to sue for wrongful termination

In order to avoid having a former employee exercise any of these rights, an employer may try to force them to quit rather than firing them directly. In those situations, the concept of constructive termination allows for an employee to regain their rights. It also prevents employers from circumventing clauses in employment contracts that demand any termination have a reasonable motive.

What Should I Do if I’m Being Forced to Quit?

Before resigning, an employee who believes they are being forced out should speak with an employment lawyer. There is no guarantee that the details of their situation will qualify as a constructive termination, and if not, resigning will forfeit their right to sue. It is better to get legal advice from an experienced employment attorney before making any major decisions.

In the event that the employee had resigned already, they will need to know what their options are, what rights they have, and if they have a case for wrongful constructive termination.

What if an Individual Stays Employed Rather Than Being Forced to Quit?

An employee can only claim constructive termination after they have been forced to resign, not before. Though staying at a job under intolerable conditions does not necessarily count against a later claim. It is reasonably understood that a person may have no choice but to stay in such an environment to the detriment of their own wellbeing. It is also acceptably common for an employee to make attempts to improve their situation before resorting to resignation. However, while remaining at a job under intolerable conditions may not automatically negate a constructive termination claim, the longer an employee stays, the more difficult it may be to prove that the conditions were in fact intolerable.

Do I Have a Wrongful Termination Claim if I Was Forced to Quit?

In order to claim wrongful constructive termination, the employee must prove that the termination was in fact wrongful. There are many types of wrongful dismissal that include being terminated for:

Breach of contract

Public policy violations

Retaliation for whistleblowing

Retaliation for filing a complaint

Retaliation for filing a workers compensation claim

Requesting medical accommodations

These things constitute a wrongful termination. Because California is an at-will employment state, other forms of constructive termination may not be considered wrongful. Beyond these exceptions, employers have the right to fire any employee for any reason, and employees have the right to quit for any reason. Bad shifts, shortened hours, low pay, and a toxic environment are not enough on their own without an underlying cause that constitutes wrongful termination under California law.

Proving Constructive Dismissal

An employee can not just decide to quit and then claim constructive termination. The California courts have a system for determining if a resignation was actually a termination. There are several factors that the employee must prove:

That there were intolerable working conditions at the time of resignation

That the conditions were so intolerable that the employee had no choice but to quit

That any other reasonable person would have had no choice but to quit in those conditions

That the employer was aware of the conditions and was either directly responsible for creating them or knowingly allowed them to be created

All of these factors must be proven for a valid constructive termination claim. An isolated or trivial incident, a situation that the employer was not aware of, or a situation that was remedied before the employee resigned do not qualify as constructive termination. The working conditions must also have been truly bad enough that the employee was forced to resign rather than conditions that were not ideal and prompted a decision to quit.

Constructive Dismissal Statute of Limitations

There is a set period of time that a person has to file a lawsuit after an incident occurs. This is known as the statute of limitations. When it comes to constructive termination cases, the statute of limitations depends on the specific nature of the case, though in all cases the start date is the date of resignation.

In order to claim constructive termination as violation of an implied oral contract, the statute of limitations is two years.

In order to claim constructive termination as violation of public policy such as discrimination or harassment due to age, race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability, the statute of limitations is two years.

In order to claim constructive termination as retaliation for whistleblowing, the statute of limitations is three years.

In order to claim constructive termination as a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the statute of limitations is three years to file with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Contact Mesriani Law Group if You Have Been Constructively Discharged

If your employer is creating an intolerable work environment in an effort to force you to quit, the best thing you can do is seek legal advice. An employment lawyer can assess your situation, explain your legal rights, and help you make the necessary steps forward. If you have been forced to quit due to intolerable working conditions, an attorney can determine if you have a wrongful constructive termination case, and if so, help you get started filing a claim. If your employer has forced you to resign or is attempting to force you to resign, call Mesriani Law Group today for a free consultation.

Constructive Discharge FAQs

Why is constructive discharge important?

If an employer decides to fire an employee because of discriminatory or retaliatory reasons, then that employee can sue them for wrongful termination. The employee may also be eligible for unemployment benefits. However, if the employee quits, then they waive their right to sue and may lose eligibility for unemployment. Many employers with malicious intentions will use this to their advantage and deliberately create a hostile environment for the employee they want to get rid of in an effort to force them to quit. The idea of constructive termination is to protect employees in these situations. If they can prove constructive dismissal, then the resignation can be legally viewed as a termination instead.

What do you have to prove to claim constructive discharge?

When claiming constructive dismissal, an employee must prove three main factors: • That the employer was deliberately trying to force them to quit as a form of discrimination, retaliation, or any other grounds for wrongful termination • That the employer intentionally created or willfully allowed others to create a hostile or toxic work environment that was intolerable • That the intolerable working conditions were severe enough that the employee had no other options but to resign All three elements must be present in order for a resignation to be considered a constructive termination.

[shareyourideas]

Limitations Of Employment Law

[withbriefthanksgiving]

The director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the UN (UN OHCHR), Craig Mokhiber, has resigned in a letter dated 28 October 2023

the resignation letter can be found embedded in this tweet by Rami Atari (@.Raminho) dated 31 October 2023.

The letters are here:

Transcription:

United Nations | Nations Unies

HEADQUARTERS I SIEGE I NEW YORK, NY 10017

28 October 2023

Dear High Commissioner,

This will be my last official communication to you as Director of the New York Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

I write at a moment of great anguish for the world, including for many of our colleagues. Once again, we are seeing a genocide unfolding before our eyes, and the Organization that we serve appears powerless to stop it. As someone who has investigated human rights in Palestine since the 1980s, lived in Gaza as a UN human rights advisor in the 1990s, and carried out several human rights missions to the country before and since, this is deeply personal to me.

I also worked in these halls through the genocides against the Tutsis, Bosnian Muslims, the Yazidi, and the Rohingya. In each case, when the dust settled on the horrors that had been perpetrated against defenseless civilian populations, it became painfully clear that we had failed in our duty to meet the imperatives of prevention of mass atrocites, of protection of the vulnerable, and of accountability for perpetrators. And so it has been with successive waves of murder and persecution against the Palestinians throughout the entire life of the UN.

High Commissioner, we are failing again.

As a human rights lawyer with more than three decades of experience in the field, I know well that the concept of genocide has often been subject to political abuse. But the current wholesale slaughter of the Palestinian people, rooted in an ethno-nationalist settler colonial ideology, in continuation of decades of their systematic persecution and purging, based entirely upon their status as Arabs, and coupled with explicit statements of intent by leaders in the Israeli government and military, leaves no room for doubt or debate. In Gaza, civilian homes, schools, churches, mosques, and medical institutions are wantonly attacked as thousands of civilians are massacred. In the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem, homes are seized and reassigned based entirely on race, and violent settler pogroms are accompanied by Israeli military units. Across the land, Apartheid rules.

This is a text-book case of genocide. The European, ethno-nationalist, settler colonial project in Palestine has entered its final phase, toward the expedited destruction of the last remnants of indigenous Palestinian life in Palestine. What's more, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, and much of Europe, are wholly complicit in the horrific assault. Not only are these governments refusing to meet their treaty obligations "to ensure respect" for the Geneva Conventions, but they are in fact actively arming the assault, providing economic and intelligence support, and giving political and diplomatic cover for Israel's atrocities.

Volker Turk, High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson, Geneva

In concert with this, western corporate media, increasingly captured and state-adjacent, are in open breach of Article 20 of the ICCPR, continuously dehumanizing Palestinians to facilitate the genocide, and broadcasting propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence. US-based social media companies are suppressing the voices of human rights defenders while amplifying pro-Israel propaganda. Israel lobby online-trolls and GONGOS are harassing and smearing human rights defenders, and western universities and employers are collaborating with them to punish those who dare to speak out against the atrocities. In the wake of this genocide, there must be an accounting for these actors as well, just as there was for radio Mules Collins in Rwanda.

In such circumstances, the demands on our organization for principled and effective action are greater than ever. But we phave not met the challenge. The protective enforcement power Security Council has again been blocked by US intransigence, the SG [UN Secretary General] is under assault for the mildest of protestations, and our human rights mechanisms are under sustained slanderous attack by an organized, online impunity network.

Decades of distraction by the illusory and largely disingenuous promises of Oslo have diverted the Organization from its core duty to defend international law, international human rights, and the Charter itself. The mantra of the "two-state solution" has become an open joke in the corridors of the UN, both for its utter impossibility in fact, and for its total failure to account for the inalienable human rights of the Palestinian people. The so-called "Quartet" has become nothing more than a fig leaf for inaction and for subservience to a brutal status quo. The (US-scripted) deference to "agreements between the parties themselves" (in place of international law) was always a transparent slight-of-hand, designed to reinforce the power of Israel over the rights of the occupied and dispossessed Palestinians.

High Commissioner, I came to this Organization first in the 1980s, because I found in it a principled, norm-based institution that was squarely on the side of human rights, including in cases where the powerful US, UK, and Europe were not on our side. While my own government, its subsidiarity institutions, and much of the US media were still supporting or justifying South African apartheid, Israeli oppression, and Central American death squads, the UN was standing up for the oppressed peoples of those lands. We had international law on our side. We had human rights on our side. We had principle on our side. Our authority was rooted in our integrity. But no more.

In recent decades, key parts of the UN have surrendered to the power of the US, and to fear of the Israel Lobby, to abandon these principles, and to retreat from international law itself. We have lost a lot in this abandonment, not least our own global credibility. But the Palestinian people have sustained the biggest losses as a result of our failures. It is a stunning historic irony that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in the same year that the Nakba was perpetrated against the Palestinian people. As we commemorate the 75th Anniversary of the UDHR, we would do well to abandon the old cliché that the UDHR was born out of the atrocities that proceeded it, and to admit that it was born alongside one of the most atrocious genocides of the 20th Century, that of the destruction of Palestine. In some sense, the framers were promising human rights to everyone, except the Palestinian people. And let us remember as well, that the UN itself carries the original sin of helping to facilitate the dispossession of the Palestinian people by ratifying the European settler colonial project that seized Palestinian land and turned it over to the colonists. We have much for which to atone.

But the path to atonement is clear. We have much to learn from the principled stance taken in cities around the world in recent days, as masses of people stand up against the genocide, even at risk of beatings and arrest. Palestinians and their allies, human rights defenders of every stripe, Christian and Muslim organizations, and progressive Jewish voices saying "not in our name", are all leading the way. All we have to do is to follow them.

Yesterday, just a few blocks from here, New York's Grand Central Station was completely taken over by thousands of Jewish human rights defenders standing in solidarity with the Palestinian people and demanding an end to Israeli tyranny (many risking arrest, in the process). In doing so, they stripped away in an instant the Israeli hasbara propaganda point (and old antisemitic trope) that Israel somehow represents the Jewish people. It does not. And, as such, Israel is solely responsible for its crimes. On this point, it bears repeating, in spite of Israel lobby smears to the contrary, that criticism of Israel's human rights violations is not antisemitic, any more than criticism of Saudi violations is Islamophobic, criticism of Myanmar violations is anti-Buddhist, or criticism of Indian violations is anti-Hindu. When they seek to silence us with smears, we must raise our voice, not lower it. I trust you will agree, High Commissioner, that this is what speaking truth to power is all about.

But I also find hope in those parts of the UN that have refused to compromise the Organization's human rights principles in spite of enormous pressures to do so. Our independent special rapporteurs, commissions of enquiry, and treaty body experts, alongside most of our staff, have continued to stand up for the human rights of the Palestinian people, even as other parts of the UN (even at the highest levels) have shamefully bowed their heads to power. As the custodians of the human rights norms and standards, OHCHR. has a particular duty to defend those standards. Our job, I believe, is to make our voice heard, from the Secretary-General to the newest UN recruit, and horizontally across the wider UN system, incisting that the human rights of the Palestinian people are not up for debate, negotiation, or compromise anywhere under the blue flag.

What, then, would a UN-norm-based position look like? For what would we work if we were true to our rhetorical admonitions about human rights and equality for all, accountability for perpetrators, redress for victims, protection of the vulnerable, and empowerment for rights-holders, all under the rule of law? The answer, I believe, is simple—if we have the clarity to see beyond the propagandistic smokescreens that distort the vision of justice to which we are sworn, the courage to abandon fear and deference to powerful states, and the will to truly take up the banner of human rights and peace. To be sure, this is a long-term project and a steep climb. But we must begin now or surrender to unspeakable horror. I see ten essential points:

Legitimate action: First, we in the UN must abandon the failed (and largely disingenuous) Oslo paradigm, its illusory two-state solution, its impotent and complicit Quartet, and its subjugation of international law to the dictates of presumed political expediency. Our positions must be unapologetically based on international human rights and international law.

Clarity of Vision: We must stop the pretense that this is simply a conflict over land or religion between two warring parties and admit the reality of the situation in which a disproportionately powerful state is colonizing, persecuting, and dispossessing an indigenous population on the basis of their ethnicity.

One State based on human rights: We must support the establishment of a single, democratic, secular state in all of historic Palestine, with equal rights for Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and, therefore, the dicmantling of the deeply racist, settler-colonial project and an end to apartheid across the land.

Fighting Apartheid: We must redirect all UN efforts and resources to the struggle against apartheid, just as we did for South Africa in the 1970s, 80s, and early 90s.

Return and Compensation: We must reaffirm and insist on the right to return and full compensation for all Palestinians and their families currently living in the occupied territories, in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and in the diaspora across the globe.

Truth and Justice: We must call for a transitional justice process, making full use of decades of accumulated UN investigations, enquiries, and reports, to document the truth, and to ensure accountability for all perpetrators, redress for all victims, and remedies for documented injustices.

Protection: We must press for the deployment of a well-resourced and strongly mandated UN protection force with a sustained mandate to protect civilians from the river to the sea.

Disarmament: We must advocate for the removal and destruction of Israel's massive stockpiles of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, lest the conflict lead to the total destruction of the region and, possibly, beyond.

Mediation: We must recognize that the US and other western powers are in fact not credible mediators, but rather actual parties to the conflict who are complicit with Israel in the violation of Palestinian rights, and we must engage them as such.

Solidarity: We must open our doors (and the doors of the SG) wide to the legions of Palestinian, Israeli, Jewish, Muslim, and Christian human rights defenders who are standing in solidarity with the people of Palestine and their human rights and stop the unconstrained flow of Israel lobbyists to the offices of UN leaders, where they advocate for continued war, persecution, apartheid, and impunity, and smear our human rights defenders for their principled defense of Palestinian rights.

This will take years to achieve, and western powers will fight us every step of the way, so we must be steadfast. In the immediate term, we must work for an immediate ceasefire and an end to the longstanding siege on Gaza, stand up against the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, Jerusalem, and the West Bank (and elsewhere), document the genocidal assault in Gaza, help to bring massive humanitarian aid and reconstruction to the Palestinians, take care of our traumatized colleagues and their families, and fight like hell for a principled approach in the UN's political offices.

The UN's failure in Palestine thus far is not a reason for us to withdraw. Rather it should give us the courage to abandon the failed paradigm of the past, and fully embrace a more principled course. Let us, as OHCHR, boldly and proudly join the anti-apartheid movement that is growing all around the world, adding our logo to the banner of equality and human rights for the Palestinian people. The world is watching. We will all be accountable for where we stood at this crucial moment in history. Let us stand on the side of justice.

I thank you, High Commissioner, Volker, for hearing this final appeal from my desk. I will leave the Office in a few days for the last time, after more than three decades of service. But please do not hesitate to reach out if I can be of assistance in the future.

Sincerely,

Craig Mokhiber

End of transcription.

Emphasis (bolding) is my own. I have added links, where relevant, to explanations of concepts the former Director refers to.

[genderkoolaid]

In 2014, the Gloucester county school board voted to ban Grimm, then 15, from using the boys’ bathrooms, even though he’d been living openly as a boy for months and using the restroom without incident. The policy turned deeply intimate facts of Grimm’s life into a media spectacle. With the ACLU, he sued to defend his rights to use facilities that matched his gender, launching a groundbreaking national case on bathroom access. Grimm became an LGBTQ+ icon, celebrated by Laverne Cox at the Grammys and interviewed by Whoopi Goldberg on The View. He eventually won a landmark federal decision asserting trans youth’s constitutional protections against discrimination. [...] And while Grimm became a civil rights trailblazer, the case did not secure him stability or financial security. The Pride parade invites have stopped coming, and like so many other marginalized trans people, Grimm has faced significant mental health challenges and struggles with poverty. He recently lost his housing, and is now facing homelessness. “I’m someone who has had worldwide visibility. I represent an outer crust of privilege most people will never see, and I cannot make ends meet no matter how hard I try,” he says. [...] Much of his family rejected him [after coming out], but many friends and teachers were supportive as he entered 10th grade as a boy and clearly more comfortable in his skin. He initially used a private nurse’s restroom, but it was inconveniently located; peers and staff noted his long bathroom breaks, leaving him alienated and humiliated. So the principal and guidance counselor agreed to let him use the boys’ restroom, and for two months, he had no issues. But gossip circulated outside school and on a community Facebook forum, where people posted vicious comments. Friends defending him online faced harassment. “It was the adults who made it a problem, because their mentality spread to their kids,” recalls Evelyn Hronec, another friend. “These were grown adults talking about a 16-year-old’s genitals. It was vile.” At school board meetings in 2014, speakers stood feet away from Grimm, misgendering him, asking questions about his body and transition, calling him names and demanding he be kept out of boys’ facilities in the name of “safety”. In one speech, Grimm pleaded for the opportunity to “use the restroom in peace”. When a man called him a “freak” and likened him to an animal, Deirdre lunged out of her seat, she recalls. “I was fighting for his life.” [...] In 2021, the supreme court allowed Grimm’s victory to stand, and the school board was ordered to pay $1.3m in attorney’s fees. Grimm, however, only got a symbolic $1. To secure damages, Grimm would’ve had to give the opposition’s lawyers access to his medical records to scrutinize the cause and extent of his emotional distress, a process he couldn’t stomach after years of fighting. The idea he’d have to prove his anguish was unbelievable to his mom, who can’t shake the memories of her son becoming suicidal. Grimm doesn’t regret moving on without damages. But he desperately could’ve used financial help – especially as the trauma of his childhood began to catch up with him.

[coochiequeens]

For a community that claims to be so oppressed they have no hesitation to spend time and money over stupid stuff but suing over comments after guy claimed he "identified his dachshund dog as “gender-fluid” and that he had put a dress on the pet" is a new level of waste of time and resources

Elizabeth Pitt made comments that were alleged to have been transphobic during a video meeting last year

Jonathan Ames Legal Editor Monday September 16 2024

Local authority bosses must pay a lesbian social worker more than £63,000 after she was disciplined for having “nasty opinions” about a colleague’s “gender-fluid” dog.

Elizabeth Pitt was reported to managers at Cambridgeshire county council for making allegedly transphobic remarks during a video meeting with the council’s “LGBTQIA+ group” last year.

An employment tribunal heard that Pitt made the comments after a colleague said he identified his dachshund dog as “gender-fluid” and that he had put a dress on the pet to prompt debate. Pitt and another lesbian colleague were reported for commenting on the revelation in a “really aggressive tone”, in which they voiced views that were deemed to be “non-inclusive and transphobic”.

Council bosses banned Pitt from contacting members of the group or attending their meetings. In response, the social worker sued the local authority for discrimination and harassment over her so-called gender critical views.

The tribunal backed Pitt’s claim and awarded the social worker more than £55,000 in damages and £8,000 costs. The judge also recommended that the council change its staff training to include a section on “freedom of belief and speech in the workplace”

Pitt and her colleague were also criticised for having commented negatively on “trans women participating in women’s sports and sharing women’s spaces”.

Evidence submitted to the tribunal showed that colleagues had taken issue with Pitt’s “nasty opinions” and that a formal complaint had been made. At a meeting with council managers, Pitt denied having been aggressive but accepted she could be “direct”. She said the purpose of the group was to discuss that type of subject.

Managers produced a written report that described Pitt as having been “perceived to be non-inclusive and transphobic”. It was also found by the internal meeting that the social worker had “caused significant offence” and been “particularly inappropriate and ill-judged”.

Pitt was told that her comments had a “detrimental impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the complainants”. She was banned from contacting any of the LGBTQIA+ group or attend its events.

That move prompted Pitt to raise the council’s formal grievance procedure, claiming that council bosses failed to explain “why it has been decided that there was an issue with the way my beliefs were expressed”. Pitt argued that the council’s reaction to her expression of gender-critical beliefs legally constituted harassment and direct discrimination.

Council bosses accepted that her gender-critical views amounted to a “philosophical belief” but they argued that the manner in which she and her colleague “chose to promote their views” had been “aggressive and confrontational”.

In his ruling, the judge, Paul Michell, said the tribunal agreed with Pitt’s lawyer that the evidence “unambiguously” showed that “at least part of the reason” for the council’s conduct towards her was her “gender-critical beliefs”. Pitt was awarded nearly £30,000 in loss of earnings and £22,000 compensation for injury to feelings, with interest added.

Michell recommended that council bosses include a section on freedom of belief and speech in the workplace in its mandatory training for staff within the next six months.

A council spokesman said the authority aimed “to create a safe, inclusive and compassionate environment for people to work in and recognise this needs to be balanced with everyone being entitled to express their own views and beliefs”. The spokesman added: “We will reflect carefully on this final outcome, as well as undertaking a review of our policies and procedures accordingly

[probablyasocialecologist]

Hundreds of lawyers and legal organisations have signed an open letter calling on the US authorities to protect the rights of Americans to criticise Israel’s assault on Gaza. “Elected officials have irresponsibly accused protesters for Palestinian rights of antisemitism and support for terrorism, and called for the mobilization of law enforcement resources to police them, contributing to racist fear-mongering. This portends a dangerous reignition of ‘war on terror’ policies that led to extreme state repression and constitutional rights violations against Arab, Muslim and other communities of color,” the letter says. “The hundreds of incidents happening across the country signal a much broader effort to criminalize dissent, justify censorship and incite anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim harassment, doxing, and vigilantism against Palestinians and their allies.” On Friday, the US Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning “anti-Israel, pro-Hamas student groups” after demonstrations on university campuses, some of which included antisemitic language and chants praising the Hamas attack. But many others have been in solidarity with Palestinian civilians under Israeli bombardment in Gaza. The ADC [American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee] condemned the resolution as a “blatant attempt to silence, demonize, and criminalize legitimate criticism and dissent surrounding Israel’s occupation and war on Gaza”. “By conflating criticism of Israel with support for Hamas and antisemitism, this resolution threatens the very fabric of freedom of speech in American institutions of higher learning,” it said. “This resolution is not only misleading but eerily reminiscent of the McCarthy-era and post-9/11 tactics designed to suppress differing opinions and stifle discourse.”

[knollawgroup]

Whistleblower Retaliation Lawyers

If you have faced retaliation for reporting workplace misconduct, Knoll Law provides a seasoned whistleblower retaliation attorney to defend your rights. Our firm specializes in cases involving workplace retaliation, ensuring that those who expose illegal practices are protected under the law. Contact us now to safeguard your rights and pursue justice.

[she-is-ovarit]

Ashli Streeter said Stevens Transport did not hire her because it had no women to train her. Credit...Montinique Monroe for The New York Times

The trucking industry has complained for years that there is a dire shortage of workers willing to drive big rigs. But some women say many trucking companies have made it effectively impossible for them to get those jobs. Trucking companies often refuse to hire women if the businesses do not have women available to train them. And because fewer than 5 percent of truck drivers in the United States are women, there are few female trainers to go around. The same-sex training policies are common across the industry, truckers and legal experts say, even though a federal judge ruled in 2014 that it was unlawful for a trucking company to require that female job candidates be paired only with female trainers. Ashli Streeter of Killeen, Texas, said she had borrowed $7,000 to attend a truck driving school and earn her commercial driving license in hopes of landing a job that would pay more than the warehouse work she had done. But she said Stevens Transport, a Dallas-based company, had told her that she couldn’t be hired because the business had no women to train her. Other trucking companies turned her down for the same reason. “I got licensed, and I clearly could drive,” Ms. Streeter said. “It was disheartening.” Ms. Streeter and two other women filed a complaint against Stevens Transport with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Thursday, contending that the company’s same-sex training policy unfairly denied them driving jobs. The commission investigates allegations made against employers, and, if it determines a violation has occurred, it may bring its own lawsuit. The commission had brought the lawsuit that resulted in the 2014 federal court decision against similar policies at another trucking company, Prime. Critics of the industry said the persistence of same-sex training nearly a decade after that ruling, which did not set national legal precedent, was evidence that trucking companies had not done enough to hire women who could help solve their labor woes. “It’s frustrating to see that we have not evolved at all,” said Desiree Wood, a trucker who is the president and founder of Real Women in Trucking, a nonprofit. Ms. Wood’s group is joining the three women in their E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, which was filed by Peter Romer-Friedman, a labor lawyer in Washington, and the National Women’s Law Center. Companies that insist on using women to train female applicants generally do so because they want to avoid claims of sexual harassment. Trainers typically spend weeks alone with trainees on the road, where the two often have to sleep in the same cab. Critics of same-sex training acknowledge that sexual harassment is a problem, but they say trucking companies should address it with better vetting and anti-harassment programs. Employers could reduce the risk of harassment by paying for trainees to sleep in a hotel room, which some companies already do. Women made up 4.8 percent of the 1.37 million truck drivers in the United States in 2021, according to the most recent government statistics, up from 4 percent a decade earlier. Long-haul truck driving can be a demanding job. Drivers are away from home for days. Yet some women say they are attracted to it because it can pay around $50,000 a year, with experienced drivers making a lot more. Truck driving generally pays more than many other jobs that don’t require a college degree, including those in retail stores, warehouses or child care centers.

The infrastructure act of 2021 required the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration to set up an advisory board to support women pursuing trucking careers and identify practices that keep women out of the profession. Robin Hutcheson, the administrator of the agency, said requiring same-sex training would appear to be a barrier to entry. “If that is happening, that would be something that we would want to take a look at,” she said in an interview. Ms. Streeter, a mother of three, said she had applied to Stevens because it hired people straight out of trucking school. She told Stevens representatives that she was willing to be trained by a man, but to no avail. Bruce Dean, general counsel at Stevens, denied the allegations in the suit. “The fundamental premise in the charge — that Stevens Transport Inc. only allows women trainers to train women trainees — is false,” he said in a statement, adding that the company “has had a cross-gender training program, where both men and women trainers train female trainees, for decades.” Some legal experts said that, although same-sex training was ruled unlawful in only one federal court, trucking companies would struggle to defend such policies before other judges. Under federal employment discrimination law, employers can seek special legal exemptions to treat women differently from men, but courts have granted them very rarely. “Basically, what the law says is that a company needs to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Deborah Brake, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in employment and gender law. “They need to be able to give women equal employment opportunities and prevent and remedy sexual harassment.” Ms. Streeter said she had made meager earnings from infrequent truck driving gigs while hoping to get a position at Stevens. Later this month, she will become a driver in the trucking fleet of a large retailer. Kim Howard, one of the other women who filed the E.E.O.C. complaint against Stevens, said she was attracted to truck driving by the prospect of a steady wage after working for decades as an actor in New York. “It was very much a blow,” she said of being rejected because of the training policy. “I honestly don’t know how I financially made it through.” Ms. Howard, who is now employed at another trucking company, said she had worked briefly at a company where she was trained by two men who treated her well. “It’s quite possible for a woman to be trained by a man, and a man to be a professional about what the job is,” she said. Other female drivers said they had been mistreated by male trainers who could be relentlessly dismissive and sometimes refused to teach them important skills, like reversing a truck with a large trailer attached. Rowan Kannard, a truck driver from Wisconsin who is not involved in the complaint against Stevens, said a male trainer had spent little time training her on a run to California in 2019. At a truck stop where she felt unsafe, Ms. Kannard said, the trainer demanded that she leave the cab — and then locked her out. She asked to stop the training and was flown back to Wisconsin. Yet she said she did not believe that same-sex training for women was necessary. “Some of these men that are training, they should probably go through a course.” Click the article to read more. The author is Peter Eavis.

[contemplatingoutlander]

A Trump judge sends Southwest Airlines to right-wing reeducation camp

Ruth Marcus does an excellent job of pointing out how another Trump appointed judge (from Texas) is stomping on the Constitution when it comes to the separation of church and state. The judge in this case doesn't seem to understand the difference between people being allowed to hold religious beliefs and religious people harassing others who don't share their religious beliefs. The article is well worth reading. Here are some excerpts:

Another day, another extremist ruling by another extremist Trump judge, and this decision — from Texas, no surprise — is straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale.” The judge held lawyers for Southwest Airlines in contempt of court for their actions in a religious-discrimination case brought by a former flight attendant and ordered them to undergo “religious liberty training.” And not just any instruction, but training conducted by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative group that litigates against same-sex marriage, transgender rights and abortion rights. [emphasis added] The issue arises from a lawsuit filed by Charlene Carter, a flight attendant for more than 20 years and a longtime antagonist of the Southwest flight attendants union. In 2017, after union members attended the Women’s March under a “Southwest Airlines Flight Attendants” banner, Carter sent Facebook messages to the union president containing graphic antiabortion messages.

[See more under the cut.]

“This is what you supported during your Paid Leave with others at the Women’s MARCH in DC …. You truly are Despicable in so many ways,” Carter wrote in one message accompanying a video of an aborted fetus. After the union president complained, Southwest fired Carter, saying her conduct “crossed the boundaries of acceptable behavior,” was “inappropriate, harassing, and offensive,” and “did not adhere to Southwest policies and guidelines.” An arbitrator found that Southwest had just cause for the firing. Carter, represented by the National Right to Work Committee, sued, claiming Southwest and the union violated her rights under federal labor laws and Title VII. The federal job-bias law bars employers from discriminating on the basis of religion, and Carter claimed she was dismissed because of her sincerely held religious beliefs against abortion. [...] The scary part is what came next. [U.S. District Judge Brantley] Starr instructed the airline to “inform Southwest Flight Attendants that, under Title VII, [Southwest] may not discriminate against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs.” Instead, Southwest said in a message to staff that the court “ordered us to inform you that Southwest does not discriminate against our Employees for their religious practices and beliefs.” This sent Starr into orbit.... “In the universe we live in — the one where words mean something — Southwest’s notice didn’t come close to complying with the Court’s order,” Starr said. “To make matters worse,” he said, Southwest had circulated a memo about the decision to its employees repeating its view that Carter’s conduct was unacceptable and emphasizing the need for civility. “Southwest’s speech and actions toward employees demonstrate a chronic failure to understand the role of federal protections for religious freedom,” Starr decreed. He proceeded to order three Southwest lawyers to undergo eight hours of religious-liberty training — a move he described as “the least restrictive means of achieving compliance with the Court’s order.” Luckily, Starr observed, “there are esteemed nonprofit organizations that are dedicated to preserving free speech and religious freedom.” [...] Adjectives fail me here. This is not even close to normal.... the notion of subjecting lawyers to a reeducation campaign by the likes of the ADF is tantamount to creating a government-endorsed thought police. Imagine the uproar — and I’m not suggesting these groups are in any way comparable — if a liberal-leaning federal judge ordered instruction on women’s rights (those are constitutionally protected, too) by Planned Parenthood. [...] This is the alarming legacy that former president Donald Trump has left us — a skewed bench that he would augment if reelected. The Trump judges seem to be competing among themselves for who can engage in the greatest overreach. [...] Conservatives are quick to balk at anything resembling the order that Starr issued when they disagree with the underlying principle. [...] I need no excuses for calling this what it is: a reeducation program — outrageous, unconstitutional and an abuse of judicial authority. [emphasis added]

[akajustmerry]

I haven't finished Quiet On Set yet but I keep seeing people who were not involved judging workers who witnessed abuse on those sets and didn't appear to speak up. As someone who's worked in multiple abusive workplaces where I've both witnessed and experienced abuse, i need you to understand it's not that simple. Speaking up about abuse in a systematically abusive workplace at best does nothing and at worst makes you a target for abuse and can even lead you to losing your livelihood and support in your industry. I was gaslit for years about sexual harassment I myself witnessed and experienced in my first ever workplace, which I reported several times. In my most recent workplace, I had union support and a lawyer helping me deal with workplace discrimination and I was still iced out, blacklisted, and unfairly dismissed and my abusers in both cases faced no consequences. All this is to say that if you haven't been an abusive top-down workplace, you have no idea what it's like trying to keep yourself and others safe, and you have no idea how traumatising it is to even witness abuse and know you're powerless. In the same way that you as an outsider will never know the worst of what happened, you'll also never know how people tried to stop it because that in of itself is evidence of abuse. I'm not asking anyone to sympathise with people who intentionally enabled abuse, but there is a big difference between those people and people intentionally disempowered to stop abuse when they try.

[mariacallous]

There’s a growing trend of people and organizations rejecting the unsolicited imposition of AI in their lives. In December 2023, the The New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. In March 2024, three authors filed a class action in California against Nvidia for allegedly training its AI platform NeMo on their copyrighted work. Two months later, the A-list actress Scarlett Johansson sent a legal letter to OpenAI when she realized its new ChatGPT voice was “eerily similar” to hers.

The technology isn’t the problem here. The power dynamic is. People understand that this technology is being built on their data, often without our permission. It’s no wonder that public confidence in AI is declining. A recent study by Pew Research shows that more than half of Americans are more concerned than they are excited about AI, a sentiment echoed by a majority of people from Central and South American, African, and Middle Eastern countries in a World Risk Poll.

In 2025, we will see people demand more control over how AI is used. How will that be achieved? One example is red teaming, a practice borrowed from the military and used in cybersecurity. In a red teaming exercise, external experts are asked to “infiltrate” or break a system. It acts as a test of where your defenses can go wrong, so you can fix them.

Red teaming is used by major AI companies to find issues in their models, but isn’t yet widespread as a practice for public use. That will change in 2025.

The law firm DLA Piper, for instance, now uses red teaming with lawyers to test directly whether AI systems are in compliance with legal frameworks. My nonprofit, Humane Intelligence, builds red teaming exercises with nontechnical experts, governments, and civil society organizations to test AI for discrimination and bias. In 2023, we conducted a 2,200-person red teaming exercise that was supported by the White House. In 2025, our red teaming events will draw on the lived experience of regular people to evaluate AI models for Islamophobia, and for their capacity to enable online harassment against women.

Overwhelmingly, when I host one of these exercises, the most common question I’m asked is how we can evolve from identifying problems to fixing problems ourselves. In other words, people want a right to repair.

An AI right to repair might look like this—a user could have the ability to run diagnostics on an AI, report any anomalies, and see when they are fixed by the company. Third party-groups, like ethical hackers, could create patches or fixes for problems that anyone can access. Or, you could hire an independent accredited party to evaluate an AI system and customize it for you.

While this is an abstract idea today, we’re setting the stage for a right to repair to be a reality in the future. Overturning the current, dangerous power dynamic will take some work—we’re rapidly pushed to normalize a world in which AI companies simply put new and untested AI models into real-world systems, with regular people as the collateral damage. A right to repair gives every person the ability to control how AI is used in their lives. 2024 was the year the world woke up to the pervasiveness and impact of AI. 2025 is the year we demand our rights.

[gacha-incels]

“Isekai Pongongnam”, a work that falls short of standards and a red pen correction for Naver

published Oct 17 2024

this article is originally in Korean and has been mtl and edited into English here. it’s not going to be 1:1 but the basic info should be there, if you see any discrepancies though lmk and I’ll edit it asap. thanks everyone for your continued help and understanding.

This article is not a critique of the controversial webtoon Isekai Pongpongnam. Critique, even when highly critical, involves reading between the lines to understand the context. Such a process is unnecessary—more accurately, impossible—when it comes to Isekai Pongpongnam. The webtoon recently passed the first round of Naver Webtoon’s 2024 Grand Contest and is now available on “Best Challenge.” As the title suggests, it actively utilizes the concepts of the “dishwashing theory” and “Pongpongnam,” which were popular around three years ago. Here’s the premise: Park Dong-soo, a 39-year-old man who has devoted himself to his family as a husband and father for 10 years, discovers his wife's affair and prepares for a divorce. Despite having grounds for divorce, he is devastated to learn that, after 10 years of marriage, they must split their assets 50/50. During the custody dispute, his wife self-harms and falsely accuses him of domestic violence, leading to his arrest. Overwhelmed with regret, Park attempts suicide and is transported to a parallel world.

So, what is there to critique about this story? The issue isn’t with the repetitive narrative patterns or the convenient use of a parallel world, like in other generic fantasy stories. The webtoon has been criticized for its misogynistic elements, with a boycott campaign against Naver Webtoon gaining traction on social media, especially on Twitter (now X). While I fully agree with this criticism, it’s not the only issue. The creator of Isekai Pongpongnam hasn’t actually done anything of substance. He hasn’t portrayed any meaningful representation, structured a coherent narrative, or even developed any characters.

The webtoon merely cobbles together and regurgitates misogynistic internet memes, including the term “Pongpongnam,” without any coherent structure. For example, in episode 2, a character from the parallel world reacts to Park's story, exclaiming, “A person who didn’t contribute to the assets just because they were married for a few years gets to take more than half? And the law even protects the cheater? That’s ridiculous! There’s no way a world without a proper system like that exists! If it did, it would’ve collapsed by now!” This line, which some have praised as a “refreshing statement” on Namu Wiki, merely echoes the grievances often found on male-dominated online communities. The setting of Dongtan as Park's hometown, often referred to as “Pongpong City” in discussions about “Pongpongnam,” the lawyer’s line about how “the law favors women too much,” and Park’s monologue about the police taking his wife’s consistent (but false) statements about domestic violence seriously—all these elements are simply recycled memes about male discrimination that have circulated online for years.

In reality, testimony is significant in legal cases, and the credibility of statements is empirically proven through consistency and non-contradiction. However, after the controversial 2018 conviction in the “Gomtang Restaurant” sexual harassment case, the concept of “consistency in statements” was derided as a tool that could turn innocence into guilt, forming a kind of “alternative fact” that continues to circulate in these communities. As of now, three episodes have been released, listing various events, but the creator of Isekai Pongpongnam hasn’t expressed any original ideas or insights. If there’s an actual author behind this webtoon, it isn’t the person named “Pongpong” (the actual pseudonym), but rather the communities like DC Inside, Ilbe, or Femco.

Therefore, Isekai Pongpongnam is not something that can be critiqued as a proper webtoon submission. Instead, it would be more appropriate to mark it up with a red pen. First, the title itself deserves a red line. In response to the controversy over misogyny, the creator claimed, “I do not incite hatred. This story was created based on advice from a divorce lawyer and is based on real events.” If that’s the case, it’s close to an admission that the title was chosen without much thought. While it’s certainly possible that there are real-life cases like Park Dong-soo’s, using such a specific term in the title positions the story within a context of misogyny.

The so-called “dishwashing theory,” which compares a marriage between a respectable man with a stable job and a woman with a promiscuous past to doing the dishes, isn’t an inductive theory but rather a baseless assertion aimed at justifying hatred toward women by creating an imaginary strawman. When the creator chose “Pongpongnam” instead of a more neutral title like “Divorced Man in Another World,” the work had already begun promoting hatred. Therefore, the creator should accept the criticism, not deflect it. The next red line goes to Park Dong-soo’s line about doing “almost all the housework, childcare, and earning money.” The webtoon portrays him as a perfect husband to highlight his wife's wrongdoing. However, the story shows him often away on long-distance business trips, nearly missing holidays with his family, which contradicts his claims of doing most of the childcare.

Similarly, the line about the wife “spending hundreds of dollars a month or overspending while managing finances” also deserves a red line because it conflicts with Park's earlier statement about doing most of the household work. How much of the household chores did this man, who was indifferent to household finances, actually think he was doing? The extent likely matches the narrow range of imagination from a creator who relies on male-dominated online communities and is oblivious to reality.

If this webtoon were a learning material, every line and scene would be marked with red, scoring zero. It mindlessly parrots misogynistic community slang, but in trying to recreate an entire world from such language, contradictions arise at every turn. The one transported to a parallel world isn’t Park Dong-soo but the webtoon’s own logic. Thus, the real target of this critique is not Isekai Pongpongnam itself, but Naver Webtoon for allowing it to pass the first round of screening.

In a Money Today article, a Naver representative said, “There are basic guidelines regarding issues like explicit content or violence. Since no guideline violations were found, it passed the first round.” In other words, despite past controversies over misogyny in webtoons like The Sound of Heart and True Education and the resulting criticisms and revisions, Naver has admitted it lacks guidelines to screen out discriminatory or hateful language targeting specific groups.

The creator of Isekai Pongpongnam argues that the term “dishwashing” is derived from stock trading rather than something as egregious as group rape, trying to suggest that terms like “dishwashing theory” and “Pongpongnam” aren’t expressions of hate. However, the origin of the term is secondary (though not unimportant). When a marriage with a supposedly “promiscuous” woman is likened to dishwashing, the woman is portrayed as something dirty and detestable. Furthermore, the idea that such a marriage is a losing deal disregards women’s contributions to household labor, labeling them as freeloaders. It’s not as though these terms are secretly trending—they were already highly controversial three years ago, with their problematic nature well-documented. How powerless and irresponsible is a guideline that fails to filter out hate speech and discriminatory discourse?

[coochiequeens]

If they allowed one TIM in because he had the surgery and legal documents changed then it would open the floodgates to other TIMs in various stages of transition.

Females-only app that banned trans woman says it was creating a 'safe space'

This is the first time a case alleging gender identity discrimination has been heard by the Federal Court.

Roxanne Tickle was issued a birth certificate stating she was female a year after undergoing gender-affirming surgery in October 2019. Source: AAP / Bianca de Marchi

KEY POINTS

Trans woman Roxanne Tickle was banned from female-only social media platform Giggle for Girls.

Her lawyers argue this is discrimination on the grounds of gender identity.

Giggle's barrister Bridie Nolan said the app was created to give women a safe space.

Lawyers for trans woman Roxanne Tickle have argued she is a woman and was discriminated against when she was banned from using a female-only app.

The question of whether someone is a woman is not just biological but also social and psychological, a court has heard on the first day of a landmark trans-rights lawsuit.

Trans woman Roxanne Tickle is suing female-only social media platform Giggle for Girls after having her access to the app revoked in September 2021.

The app and its founder, Sall Grover, illegally discriminated on the grounds of gender identity, Tickle's lawyer Georgina Costello told a Federal Court hearing in Sydney on Tuesday

"The evidence will show that Ms Tickle is a woman," Costello said.

"She perceives herself as a woman. She presents herself as a woman."

'An online refuge'

Giggle's barrister Bridie Nolan said the app was created to give women a safe space, free from "male online digital violence".

Grover experienced sexual abuse during her time working as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had undergone trauma therapy, the court was told.

The app offered a range of ways for users to connect, including finding roommates and engaging socially or romantically.

"The vision was to create an online refuge," Ms Nolan said.

"It would be a place without harassment, mansplaining, d*** pics, stalking, aggression."

Nolan argued the app was not in breach of sex discrimination laws, which allow for "special measures intended to achieve equality".

The app created greater "equality between men and women in public life" by creating a safe space for women online, she said.

Therefore, excluding Tickle, who Nolan argued was a man, would constitute a "special measure" under the laws, she said.

Lawyers for trans woman Roxanne Tickle argue she was discriminated against when she was banned from using a female-only app. Source: AAP / Bianca De Marchi

Costello labelled Giggle's arguments "artificial, after-the-fact justifications" for discrimination against transgender women.

Tickle was issued a birth certificate stating she was female a year after undergoing gender-affirming surgery in October 2019.

Costello told the court in her opening statement that "gender is not merely a biological question, it is partly social and partly psychological".

"Ms Tickle was assigned male gender at birth but she has changed to being a woman and that fact is clear in this case," she said.

Representatives from the Australian Human Rights Commission, including Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody are assisting the court by providing submissions about the "meaning, scope and validity of relevant provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act".

"The commissioner is not a party to the proceeding and has not made submissions about whether Ms Tickle was in fact discriminated against," the human rights commission said in a statement.

It is the first time a case alleging gender identity discrimination has been heard by the Federal Court.

'Unwilling to tolerate any view contrary to their own'

Supporters for both sides gathered outside the Federal Court for the start of the proceedings, protesting within metres of each other.

Justice Robert Bromwich said the court would not tolerate any "intimidation or harassment" either within the courtroom or outside it.

Protesters against transgender rights gathered outside the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney. Source: AAP / Bianca de Marchi

"I appreciate that the issues from this case give rise to strongly held views and emotions," he said.

Some members of the public had shown they were "unable or unwilling to tolerate the existence of any view contrary to their own", Bromwich added.

Justice Robert Bromwich said the court would not tolerate any "intimidation or harassment" either within the courtroom or outside it. Source: AAP / Bianca De Marchi

In a statement filed with the Australian Human Rights Commission in December 2021, before the Federal Court case was launched, Tickle outlined the alleged discrimination.

"I believe that I am being discriminated against by being provided with extremely limited functionality of a smartphone app by the app provider compared to that of other users because I am a transgender woman," Tickle wrote.

"I am legally permitted to identify as female."

The hearing continues.

Published 9 April 2024 3:56pm

Source: AAP

[bursting-at-the-seems]

Housing Disability Discrimination Support

Hi everyone,

I'm reaching out to share my experience with my LL and to seek advice or support as I believe I am experiencing disability discrimination.

Questions:

Am I on the right track? Are they in violation?

What to I do next?

Can I represent myself? Do I need an attorney?

Is it time to file state and federal reports?

Know of an AZ attorney who can help?

Summary:

I've been facing significant issues with my landlord (LL) regarding delayed disability accommodations and incorrect billing. Despite requesting accommodations over three months ago, they has not resolved the issue. Additionally they have made billing errors, including unauthorized charges and fees that are connected to my accommodation request, and they have failed to communicate effectively. Additionally, their legal counsel has used ableist language and derailed conversations about accommodations, seemingly to discourage me from pursuing my rights; I also think they are misrepresenting the law. This situation has caused undue hardship, and I believe their actions may constitute harassment and discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Americans with Disability Act, and Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ARLTA). At this point I am prepared to take legal action if necessary and am seeking advice or support from others who may have faced similar issues.

Context:

- I and two roommates have lived here for 4 years. In December, my symptoms got worse, and I was diagnosed with chronic conditions. We have been in an ADA unit for 3 of the 4 years.

- I pay for a garage, one roommate pays for a carport, and the other utilizes the free parking option. There is no ADA parking on the shortest route to our ADA dwelling. Free ADA parking spaces are not accessible to me due to having to cross a parking lot and other spaces or walk through a handful of hallways.

- Many tenants complain of a lack of parking and often need to park far from dwellings, park illegally, in another’s paid spot, or leave the complex to park elsewhere.

- All dwellings aside from ADA units have top-loading washers. E-check payments can only have 2 fails before being revoked. During my flare of symptoms and unexpected medical costs, we had two fails. Our first two in 4 years.

- This is a privately owned complex with more than 4 units, built in 2009. AZ has one-party consent recording laws. LL office has a history of not answering the phone.

Timeline:

April:

-Concern (confidential per agreement)

-During this concern I began learning about my rights with regards to my disabilities

-Concern resolved

-Accommodations requested

-documentation submitted (doctors note, state issued Handicap Card)

-Maintenance staff states it would be easy to provide top loading washer, could do it right away

May:

-Attorney pushback need new medical note (dr signature not seen), states ADA doesn’t apply, doesn’t understand nexus

-New Medical Note submitted

-Detailed explanation o f nexus over and above required

-Lawyer states LL Not obligated to pay for modifications

-Approves some modifications at my expense

-Approves reinstatement of my ability to make echeck payments, one additional chance only

-Does not approve transition to top loading washer or elevating washer per doctors note or accessible parking

-LL legal rep implies I should be grateful for the upgrade despite stating why it is not accessible for me

-LL legal rep states ADA has no relevance

-LL states they have other top loading machines available but don’t want to have to deal with/ store our front loading.

-LL legal rejects accessible washer and dryer accommodation and accessible parking does not offer alternative solution

-LL states they will have maintenance build block under washer to raise it despite LL legal rep decline (this has been provided)

-LL legal rep states keep paying for garage or use covered parking space, despite covered spot irrelevance as it is another tenants

June:

-payed June invoice via e-check since ability reinstated (documented)

-Lease on dwelling needs to be renewed at the end of month, in reviewing contract notice garage rent has increased by ~67%

-Called City of Gilbert to review ada parking codes, informed that if in an ADA unit FHA states that there must be an ada parking space on shortest route to dwelling. Recorded call.

-Emailed regarding lease renewal and ongoing parking discussion pushing back on increase and restating my request for accessible parking accommodation

-LL legal rep states there is no such thing as an ADA unit, despite the property management referring to it as it and it being a colloquially accepted term.

-LL rep states they do not see why I need accessible parking when I pay for a garage, and we have a covered spot and nothing LL needs to do. That the city is incorrect.

-Push back on this, reexplain that I would give up my garage if g tr here was a free accessible parking option and once again that the covered spot belongs to another tenant.

- nearing lease deadline, reached out asking if we can sign bur leave the garage terms out until resolved or have an extension without fee

-Followed up again with no response onexpiring lease options, highlighting unresolved disability accommodations initially requested in April (over 3 months without resolution).

- LL acknowledged the need for review and suggested a month-to-month (MTM) option at no extra cost until disputes over increased garage rent and the request for accessible parking are resolved.(Documented)

- Received recurring payment reminder, states billing amounts may change based on account balance, account balance is controlled by LL

- while not required as auto pay established, checked ledger around 10pm on 6/30 and saw an amount of $99.76. (Documented)

July:

- In July 1 discovered LL increased the bill and auto-billed $2,943.81, including fees previously agreed not to charge (MTM fee and disputed garage cost).

- Called LLtwice, no response.

- Visited the leasing office with roommate 1; charges were adjusted but a refund was refused. LL assistant manager (am) asserted that only a credit for the following month could be issued, leaving us without $500 in our budget. LLAM said, “It’s not fair but that’s how it is.” Suggested we stop check if we needed another solution. The conversation was recorded.

- Emailed LL with an update.

- Called the bank and was informed of a $30 fee for stopping the check.

- Called LL and spoke with LLAM she stated LL would not cover the canceled check fee. Reminded LLAM this issue arose due to LL oversight and they should bear the fees. -Discussed an alternative solution of letting the check bounce, which LLAM confirmed would not incur a fee and would allow continued e-check payments per the accommodation terms, without a late fee. This call was witnessed by another resident.

- Emailed LL to summarize the call and communicated that we would not return from our holiday until July 7 and would make the payment once there was confirmation that the check had not gone through.

- LL acknowledged the situation, mentioned a grace period for late fees but incorrectly stated that we chose to make an overpayment.

-July 4 Leasing office closed.

-July 8 Received notice that the check was rejected by SanTan upon our return from holiday, attempted payment but was unable to do so online, called the office but was unable to connect with staff.

-July 9 Attempted payment again and found additional fees despite agreements from LL,LLAM

- Received a threatening eviction notice on the door with no prior communication from the leasing office.

-Emailed LL all the above, proving that we did not choose to make this payment; it resulted from LL error in not updating the system per the agreement to not charge for MTM or the disputed garage fee. The auto payment was triggered by LL incorrect managing of account balance despite stating we would not be charged fees and late payment was due to LLAM not following through with commitments on being able to make e-check payment and no fees.

-July Three calls to the office from various residents of 1086 went unanswered.

- Sent an email to LL seeking resolution.

- Follow-up emails from LL and LLAM stating they will get back to us

- Conversation with LL over the phone, who inaccurately asserted that the overpayment was our mistake and held us responsible for all fees. Clarified that the June 30 and July 1 amounts were both incorrect, and the automated payments were managed by LL. Call recorded.

- Left a voicemail for LL corporate office

- Paid July rent, excluding disputed fees and deducting $10 for the cashier check charge that was only needed to be obtained due to LL Error. LL spoke to other roommates incorrectly stating they didn’t understand why I chose to over pay. Roommate 2 states, auto payment controlled by them, and we had checked which we should not have needed to do -no one is checking their Spotify auto payments - recorded

- Submitted formal complaint for delayed accommodation and billing error highlighting the above information

- LL said was not needed as they had been communicating and that the billing and requests are a separate issue - says accepted partial payment as curtesy

- LL legal rep responds to earlier email, not formal complaint, and again rejects accessible parking accommodation, says not needed despite documentation, to keep paying or use other tenants spot, no other option provided, states rate increase is not discriminatory, says this is the last of the matter.

-LL states we are to sign lease by Aug 1, no reinstatement of epayment, offered to cover $80 of fees and we are responsible for over $250

-LL sends this in three separate emails

- Forwards Formal complaint to senior LL corporate staff, LL legal rep, and LL. States that billing errors and the 3 month delay in accommodation are inherently linked as the LL said no fee to extend while we sort through accommodation, then failed to ensure their billing was correct and put burden on me.

Key Points:

Untimely Resolution of Accommodation Request: Over three months have passed since the initial request for disability accommodations, an excessive and legally questionable delay under the Fair Housing Act.

Potential Delay Tactics: It appears that LL may have deliberately delayed the accommodation process, which coincided with our lease renewal period. This delay tactic is concerning as it suggests an attempt to force us out of the premises, especially given the sudden notice of five days provided after their billing mistake.

Legal Counsel's Conduct: LL legal counsel has repeatedly used ableist language and derailed conversations about accommodations by fixating on irrelevant information and nitpicking colloquial language. This appears to be an intentional strategy to wear out disabled tenants and discourage them from pursuing their rightful accommodations.

Legal Implications: Potential disability discrimination due to unresolved accommodation requests and mishandling of billing.

Definition of Harassment in Housing Context: Harassment in a housing context includes actions that create a hostile living environment, repeated and unreasonable demands, or failure to make necessary accommodations, particularly when these actions are taken against someone because of their membership in a protected class (such as individuals with disabilities).

Legal Case Summary:

LL actions constitute a blatant disregard for Arizona state law and federal housing regulations. Under the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (ARLTA), landlords are required to maintain fit and habitable premises and make all repairs necessary to keep the premises in a livable condition (A.R.S. § 33-1324). LL repeated billing errors and failure to address accommodations contravene these obligations. Furthermore, under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), it is illegal to discriminate against individuals with disabilities, including failing to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodations may be necessary to afford a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The excessive delay of over three months in addressing my accommodation request is unreasonable and likely a violation of the FHA. Additionally, the rent increase after the accommodation request, the assertion that paying for accessible parking is the only option, followed by an increase in garage rent (the accessible parking option), and the mishandling of July rent with associated fees and penalties, are all linked and indicative of a pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory behavior by LL. These actions, taken together, create a hostile living environment and impose undue financial and emotional stress potentially constituting harassment. Federal guidelines and best practices indicate that accommodation requests should be acknowledged within 3-5 business days, an interactive process should begin immediately and be completed within 1-2 weeks, and simple modifications should be addressed within a few weeks. The delay of over three months in resolving the request for accessible parking is excessive and fails to meet these standards. Timeline above illustrates LL failure to uphold agreed-upon lease terms and accommodate disability needs regarding accessible parking. Their actions have led to undue financial burden and threats of eviction, potentially violating both the FHA and state law. SanTan's conduct could be construed as harassment and discrimination, subjecting them to significant legal liability.

Action Needed from LL:

Immediate correction of billing errors, waiver of unauthorized fees, reinstatement of e-check payment ability, resolution of the accommodation request, and execution of the lease agreement. LL must address communication shortcomings and ensure compliance with the FHA and the Arizona Residential Landlord and Tenant Act to prevent further legal consequences, including potential lawsuits for discrimination, harassment, and breach of contract.Failure to comply to result in legal action seeking damages, including punitive damages, for the distress and financial losses incurred due to LL unlawful practices. We are prepared to pursue all available remedies under state and federal law to protect rights and ensure fair treatment.

Any advice, support, suggestions on the above much appreciated!