Allwebco Web Templates · Build your own toolbar · Site Building Articles · Audio, Fonts, Clipart
powered by
bravenet.com
|
|
EMPLOYMENT ISSUES UNIQUE TO JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYEES
MISCELLANEOUS JEHOVAH'S WITNESS EMPLOYMENT SCENARIOS I
******************
PALOMARES v. PIZZA BOBS is an ongoing 2008 Hawaii court case. In March 2008, a Jehovah's Witness, named Carolyn Palomares, filed a triple-discrimination complaint of religious, sex, and age discrimination against her former employer, Pizza Bob's in Haleiwa. Carolyn Palomares worked as a food server, and alleges she was discriminated against for being a Jehovah's Witness. Palomares alleges that she was forced to work odd shifts, or left to wait on a high volume of customers with no help from her colleagues. Such may have been as a result of the restaurant's efforts to "accomodate" Palomares' religious meetings at her local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Carolyn Palomares also alleges that she experienced unwelcome sexual comments by other employees and a manager, and nothing was done to protect her when she complained about such to management. Palomares also alleges that she was passed over for a manager promotion, and that the promotion was given to a younger, less-experienced male employee.
******************
******************
TEXAS v. TRUJILLO was a 1997 Texas murder court decision. In March 1997, a Mexican National Jehovah's Witness Employee, named Benjamin Trinidad Trujillo, 35, of Conroe, Texas, shot and killed his long-time Employer, 50 year-old Joseph Sanchez. Trujillo shot Sanchez once in the head with a 9 mm pistol, which apparently was kept in the business for security purposes, shortly after Sanchez opened his St. Chez Shoe Repair shop on March 5. Trujillo claimed that Sanchez had "harassed him" for three weeks prior to the incident, and that he intended only to scare Sanchez with the pistol when it accidentally fired. Trujillo was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
Although Benjamin Trujillo had worked for Sanchez for several years, the pair evidently had a history of arguments and problems. Sanchez was a Pentecostal, and the pair reportedly had argued about "religion" on occasion, as well as Trujillo's job performance. Interestingly, Sanchez had even once fired Trujillo sometime around 1994/5, but had hired him back (discrimination complaint/lawsuit???).
After the "accidental" shooting, Trujillo had the presence of mind to wipe the pistol clean of fingerprints before he fled the shop. When initially questioned by police, Trujillo claimed that he had not yet arrived for work when the shooting occurred. When that lie fell apart, Trujillo then claimed that Sanchez had accidentally shot himself. When that lie fell apart, Trujillo then claimed that the pistol accidentally fired while he was attempting to scare Sanchez.
At any rate, there is little doubt that as "a devout Jehovah's Witness", Odessa King would have made every effort to rear Rodney and her other children as Jehovah's Witnesses. That would have included not only efforts at home, but likely would have included activities at Odessa King's Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses, and even possibly doing recruiting door-to-door. However, Odessa King is more than just a mere "devout Jehovah's Witness". Odessa King is, in "WatchTower-speak", "one of the 144,000", or "one of the Anointed". Currently, less than 8000 of the nearly 7,000,000 Jehovah's Witnesses on the planet profess to be "one of the 144,000", or "one of the Anointed". The WatchTower Society teaches that the "Anointed" are the only Jehovah's Witnesses who go to heaven, and that it is they who will rule the world during the Millennium. This is one of the WatchTower Society's most sacred teachings, and no JW takes their claim to be one of the "Anointed" casually. This means that the most important thing in Odessa King's life is her religion. Given that some JWs report that over the years that they have seen Rodney King attending "meetings" at the Kingdom Hall, and even WatchTower assemblies and conventions, then those JWs who claim that "Rodney was never a Jehovah's Witness" are simply playing Clinton word games.
******************
PETER A. NEDD v. HOME DEPOT was a 1995-8 New York federal civil court case, which involved a Jehovah's Witness named Peter Nedd. UNITED STATES v. PETER A. NEDD was a 1999-2000 Massachusetts federal criminal court case, which also involved Peter Nedd. These two federal civil and criminal cases which should be studied over and over before any employer decides that it is wise to allow his own case with a Jehovah's Witness Employee to go before a judge or jury.
In 1998, in New York, a Jehovah's Witness named Peter A. Nedd sued his employer Home Depot in federal district court alleging employment discrimination. Although Nedd had only worked as a hourly sales clerk at a Home Depot store, he chose to represent himself as his own attorney against Home Depot. After two days of trial, and two days of deliberations, the jury decided in Nedd's favor, and awarded him $210,000 in compensatory damages and $1,000,000 in punitive damages. Not bad for a first time trial lawyer. However, because of the statutory damages cap, the judge had to reduce Nedd's total award to $300,000.
All the specifics presented during the trial are not known, but Nedd, who was a large black man, made several allegations of discrimination. There was an unclear incident when Nedd was injured on the job, and he claimed there was several hours delay in getting him medical assistance. There was also an vague allegation that Nedd had been "detained" after his shift had ended, supposedly two or more times. Nedd also alleged that racist cartoons were placed in his locker. Nedd also alleged that his supervisor had called him a "nigger" the day he was fired. Nedd generally alleged that he was treated differently than white employees and that his termination was due to race.
Nedd's supervisor did take the witness stand and swore that he had never ever called Nedd the N-word. Home Depot stated that Nedd was fired because "he posed a threat" to the other Home Depot employees. Unfortunately, this post-trial order does not provide the "specifics" provided by Home Dept's defense team, if any. Even the USDC Judge rushed to Peter Nedd's defense in response to Home Depot's assertions that Nedd had posed a threat to co-workers. The Judge stated:
"While Nedd is, indeed, a physically large individual, no evidence was adduced to suggest that he has ever assaulted, threatened, or in any way imperiled anyone. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that Nedd, a Jehovah's Witness minister, has devoted his adult life to activities designed to foster peace in the community."
Peter Nedd's case against Home Depot was finalized in mid 1998, and he probably received his $300,000.00 check in the summer of 1998.
In December 1999, "Brother Nedd" was arrested by the FBI on multiple charges of interstate threats and stalking. Nedd had been threatening to rape and murder three members of a Jehovah's Witness family that lived in Massachusetts. Need, 38, had become obsessed with and started stalking a young teenage JW around the same time he was fired from Home Depot (1995). After years of calls and letters from Nedd, the JW parents obtained a restraining order against him. However, Nedd repeatedly violated that order in 1999 by telephoning them, threatening them, and appearing at their residence in an attempt to visit the now young woman. Approximately 80 harassing telephone calls were recorded. In 2000, Nedd was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 33 months of incarceration. During this trial, the federal prosecutor presented evidence that Nedd had been diagnosed with a mentally illness as far back as 1989, but that Nedd had not continued to get psychiatric care or take his medication. Maybe the judge and jury from NEDD v. HOME DEPOT, in partnership with Home Depot's legal defense team, should be forced to reimburse Home Depot.
******************
PEDROZA v. CINTAS CORP was a 2003-5 Missouri federal lawsuit filed by a Jehovah's Witness named Terri Pedroza. Pedroza alleged sexual harassment (hostile work environment), retaliation, constructive discharge and religious discrimination under Title VII and the Missouri Human Rights Act. Pedroza also brought a separate claim that she characterized as a claim for punitive damages alleging that Cintas acted with a conscious disregard for her federally protected rights. Pedroza worked as a non-supervisory team leader in one of Cintas's uniform manufacturing plants. In 2000, Pedroza began to have ongoing problems with a co-worker, which management tried but failed to resolve. The other female employee did not like Pedroza, and found out that Pedroza was easily flustered by making quasi-sexual remarks at her. Pedroza eventually resigned, and filed this suit. Cintas moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court held that there was insufficient evidence to create a question of material fact as to the issue of whether the harassing conduct was based on sex. In addition, the district court found that the harassing conduct was not so pervasive as to constitute a hostile work environment. Finally, the district court found that there was no adverse employment action. Pedroza abandoned her religious discrimination claim during the summary judgment process, and the district court dismissed all of Pedroza's remaining claims. Pedroza appealed, but the appellate court affirmed.
The USDC Opinion contained a couple pieces of very interesting information about this case: First, Pedroza's own psychologist testified that she was borderline mentally retarded, and that she had problems understanding and communicating with others. Second, more interesting was the revelation that Pedroza had SECRETLY TAPE RECORDED two or more meetings with her Cintas supervisors and managers.
******************
GROESSLER v. CINEMARK USA was a 1999-2000 Kentucky federal case which involved a Jehovah's Witness named Tom Groessler. Groessler was employed at Cinemark's Louisville Tinseltown USA movie theaters for only nine weeks from November 1998 to January 1999. Groessler alleged that during the nine weeks that on a daily basis three assistant managers directed a pattern or series of ethnic and religious slurs, taunts, and, on one occasion, physical assault, against Groessler based upon his national origin (Germany) and his Watchtower religion. Groessler further alleged that his complaints, and the complaints and threats of litigation from his father, to both the location manager and the regional manager went unheeded. Groessler was fired, and thereafter filed a federal lawsuit alleging employment discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliatory discharge. Cinemark's motion for summary dismissal was rejected by the USDC, but the outcome is unknown.
One extremely interesting incident occurred in this case, which is similar to the SECRET TAPE RECORDING incident in the PEDROZA v. CINTAS CORP case above:
On January 30, 1999, Groessler met with Cinemark's Region Leader while he was in Louisville on a routine inspection. While waiting in an empty conference room for the Region Leader to arrive, Groessler called his father on his cellphone. Groessler's father (most likely an "Elder" in the Jehovah's Witnesses) told Groessler to leave the cellphone on during the meeting, so that he could secretly eavesdrop on the meeting. When the Region Leader unexpectedly entered the room, Groessler dropped the phone into his lap, where it was out of the Region Leader's view. During the meeting, the Region Leader noted that Groessler kept speaking downward into his lap, and thus suspected that Groessler was talking into a cellphone. The Region Leader asked Groessler if he had a cellphone, and Groessler admitted such, and stated that the cellphone was on and that his father was listening on the other end. The Region Leader grabbed the cellphone and exited the room. Shortly thereafter, he returned and fired Groessler. Interestingly, when the illegal eavesdropping issue came up during the subsequent litigation, Groessler's father stated that the cellphone cut off when it hit Groessler's lap; thus he supposedly did not hear any part of the meeting.
You may believe Groessler's father if you like, but I don't. Although the record doesn't state such, the Region Leader probably attempted to speak to Groessler's father after exiting the conference room only to discover that the cellphone was off. The cellphone was probably turned off when he snatched it from Groessler's hand.
Employers should be aware that there are a number of anecdotal stories posted on the internet which contain allegations of Jehovah's Witness "Elders" secretly carrying tape recorders and cellphones on their person and in their briefcases into the homes of Jehovah's Witness members who the Elders were investigating for violating Watchtower rules. In fact, one group of JW Elders were even caught by the police and prosecuted for videotaping activity at one member's home from a van parked across the street from such.
******************
******************
NAWROT v. CPC INTERNATIONAL D/B/A BESTWAY FOODS illustrates why Co-workers of Jehovah's Witness Employees should never allow the Jehovah's Witness Employee to discuss the WatchTower religion with them, plus a Co-worker should never ever make any comment about a Jehovah's Witness Employee's WatchTower religion.
Ralph Nawrot was a warehouse supervisor who sued his employer for allegedly wrongfully terminating him due to the effects that his diabetic condition had on his job performance. Bestway's defense was a series of alleged inappropriate actions committed by Nawrot over a period of several years. Those "inappropriate actions" included three interactions with a Jehovah's Witness co-worker named Bertha Dandridge. Bertha Dandridge reported such to Nawrot's supervisor, who documented such in Nawrot's employee file.
In one instance, when Dandridge refused to assist a delivery driver with his packages, Nawrot had muttered to the delivery driver: "And she's supposed to be a Jehovah's Witness!!!" Evidently, Dandridge heard and reported Nawrot's remark.
On another occasion, Bertha Dandridge was upset at work, and Nawrot had told her, "... calm down, you're a Witness, you know. Don't start yelling and screaming."
On a third occasion, when Dandridge refused to make coffee for Nawrot but did so for another colleague, Nawrot commented, "I thought you told me Jehovah's Witnesses don't make coffee."
Dandridge complained about the three incidents to Nawrot's supervisor, who met with Nawrot to discuss Dandridge's complaints. Nawrot explained to Thompson that he had been interested in learning about Dandridge's religion and had conversed with her about theology on numerous occasions.
Nawrot then relayed to Thompson the context in which his comments were made. In the first instance, he said, he had tried to relieve the tension between the driver and Dandridge. The second comment was intended to pacify Dandridge by reminding her of her faith. The last remark was made in jest in reference to Dandridge's prior statement to Nawrot that Jehovah's Witnesses did not make coffee. Nawrot thought that the matter had been resolved as a misunderstanding.
******************
MONTEIRO v. SCHOOL DISTRICT. In 2005, in Middletown, Rhode Island, an African-American Jehovah's Witness named Frank A. Montiero filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the local School District. Montiero had worked for seven years as a maintenance technician and a carpenter for the local school system before he was fired. Montiero alleged that he was fired because of his Jehovah's Witness religious beliefs. Outcome unknown.
Interestingly, in 1980, an African-American named Frank Montiero was involved in a federal discrimination lawsuit filed against a Massachussetts employer located in Falls River, Massachusetts -- less than 50 miles from Middletown, Rhode Island. See MONTEIRO v. POOLE SILVER COMPANY.
******************
FEATHERSTONE v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE was a 1994/5 federal lawsuit filed in Maryland by an African-American Jehovah's Witness named Lurenda Featherstone (now a famous musician). Featherstone sued UPS in a Title VII action alleging racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and retaliation. The lawsuit was summarily dismissed by the USDC, which was affirmed on appeal.
Featherstone had a long history of fully documented problems at UPS, in which he made repeated allegations to customers, the Union, and UPS, that his supervisors did not like African-Americans or Jehovah's Witnesses. However, at trial, Featherstone's chief evidence that he was harassed based upon his race or religion was a supervisor's statement that 'it's not right for Jehovah's Witnesses to be knocking on peoples door.'" UPS denied discriminating against Featherstone and outlined numerous instances over several years of Featherstone's inefficiency and failure to follow company policies which led to disciplinary actions and Featherstone's eventual termination. The district court found that Featherstone failed to "articulate specific evidence to support his allegation[s]" and instead relied upon "his own assertions" and "conclusory allegations" which were inadequate to create a genuine issue of fact. UPS was able to document that their actions toward Featherstone were directly related to Featherstone's unacceptable job performance. The appellate court agreed.
******************
EEOC v. ARIZONA PAPER BOX CO. was a 2004 federal lawsuit filed on behalf of three unnamed Jehovah's Witnesses, who were "recent immigrants" to Arizona who could not speak English. The three "recent immigrants" claimed "religious discrimination", alleging that their supervisor circulated offensive cartoons depicting Jehovah's Witnesses having sex with a goat, and preaching while drunk, and made jokes and derogatory comments about the Jehovah's Witness religion. After they threatened to file a company complaint, they were laid off. The decision granted $48,000.00 in backpay and penalties, an injunction against future religious discrimination and retaliation, and Arizona Paper Box was forced to revise their antidiscrimination policies and post such in English and Mexican. This is an extremely informative case for employers as it demonstrates well how Jehovah's Witnesses are educated about their civil rights before they are even taught to speak English.
**************
"... Torres did not bring marijuana into his workplace (I specifically find that the workplace is where one works; there was no showing that “work” occurred in the parking lot), nor is there any credible evidence that he was ever impaired at work, missed work due to drug use, or sold drugs to co-workers."... Torres committed no crime on City property. Oregon takes a very lenient approach to marijuana possession and, under Oregon law, possessing 3.7 grams of marijuana is a violation, not a crime, akin to littering, jaywalking, or exceeding the posted speed limit, and the maximum sanction is simply a fine. Again, this is also not a case of an employee taking drugs into the plant, using drugs at work, or selling drugs to co-workers. There was no evidence to contradict the Grievant’s testimony that the marijuana in is car was a mere oversight.While there is no question in my mind that Mr. Torres should be reminded through the use of progressive discipline not to leave dope in his car, I also believe that the majority of arbitrators would not uphold more than a one day suspension as a penalty. While many arbitrators would impose no penalty, I am not among them. A one day suspension is appropriate.
"There is no question that Mr. Torres deserves to be disciplined for his conduct in stating to a co-worker that he 'f***ed three Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door.' However, the City mischaracterizes this conduct as religious discrimination and harassment. Despite Mr. Lazarcik’s status as a Jehovah’s Witness, Mr. Torres’ statement was not an act of religious discrimination or religious harassment. In fact, the statement was not religious at all; it was simply an angry reaction to Mr. Lazarcik’s inquires regarding Mr. Torres’ recent arrest. Mr. Torres did not display hostility toward Mr. Lazarcik because of his religion; rather, he was hostile towards Mr. Lazarcik because of what he regarded as a smarmy attempt to bait him; the religious taunt was simply the vehicle he used to lash out at Mr. Lazarcik."The record is clear that it was not Mr. Torres who initiated the conversation that led to his termination. Mr. Torres and Mr. Lazarcik were not friends, despite Mr. Lazarcik’s efforts to proselytize Mr. Torres, and I can think of no other reason for Mr. Lazarcik to initiate the conversation other than to bait or taunt Mr. Torres.In its brief the City argues that:'Grievant mocked the accent of Jan Lazarcik during the hearing further confirming the appropriateness of discharge. Jan Lazarcik is an immigrant to the United States with a noticeable accent and strong religious beliefs. Grievant mocked the accent of Jan Lazarcik during the hearing in the course of his testimony. The grievant seemed to be trying to convey how annoying it was to be asked about what happened as a way to excuse his discriminatory outburst. Even during his own arbitration the grievant appears to have little or no awareness that he has done more than commit a technical violation, and he is clearly not a candidate for reinstatement.'"I disagree. Witnessing Mr. Torres testifying at the hearing I saw an individual who was trying to accurately describe what had occurred and explain his actions. I find it more-likely-than-not that Mr. Lazarcik was trying to be annoying. As Mr. Meyer testified:'MEYER: So, when I was out in the smoking area I said why don’t you just leave Gil alone, he doesn’t need anybody kicking him when he’s down so to speak, I don’t know if that’s verbatim and I just told him to leave the guy alone, he’s already been through enough and let him go do his job. I felt that he was, that him and Jan were both kind of, they were needling him. And they’re not the best of friends so, why would you be so concerned with what this guy’s problems or his well-being is if really it’s just phony and fake and you just want to get under his skin. So, I asked Mike, just leave the guy alone, several times, a couple of times. And you know, I don’t know whether he did or not, but that’s how I deemed it to be, it was kind of futile actually.'"When interviewed for the investigation Mr. Lazarcik stated:'And I didn’t want to ask him in front of other people because it is embarrassing… what he wanted to say because there were a number of rumors going around, what really happened so he could just tell me this happened instead of having some… so I can have some knowledge.'"Clearly Mr. Lazarcik knew that he was asking an 'embarrassing' question of Mr. Torres, 'so I can have some knowledge.' Others concluded that Mr. Lazarcik’s motives were anything but benign, as stated by Mr. Davis; Mr. Lazarcik was simply trying to 'poke at the injured dog with a pointy stick.'"As a general rule, where an employee is the victim of a provocation which will foreseeably provoke an ordinarily reasonable person into a heat of rage and aggression, the conduct of that employee may be excused (as opposed to justified) either partially, so as to mitigate against the full degree of penalty, or completely, so as to mitigate against any penalty whatsoever."Further, for Mr. Torres’ conduct to constitute 'harassment' his conduct must be both objectively and subjectively offensive, conduct that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive, and one that the victim in fact did perceive to be so."One could argue that a reasonable person in Mr. Lazarcik’s position would have expected Mr. Torres’ lashing out, as this was exactly the sort of reaction he was trying to elicit. ..."In any event, the fact remains that Mr. Torres made the inappropriate statement and that he clearly should be disciplined for it. ..."What is more problematic is that Mr. Torres repeated his comment to co-workers later on that same day. The City argues that Mr. Torres 'broke the camel’s back' by repeating his insult to other co-workers and that any excuses or mitigating arguments about a 'one time event' or 'immediate regret' went out the window at this point. I agree; if repeating of the statement to others was motivated by nothing more that a desire to show his friends that he had told Mr. Lazarcik off and if a substantial period of time had elapsed after the initial comment. If Mr. Torres had made further comments regarding Jehovah’s Wittiness’s at this juncture, I would sustain a far more severe penalty. However, it appears that all Mr. Torres did was simply tell his co-workers of his prior statement. At this time Mr. Torres made no further pejorative remarks about Jehovah’s Witness’s in general, or Mr. Lazarcik in particular. Is this second statement worthy of discipline? In review of all BNA publications and published awards on-line I can not find a comparable case. Further, the parties in their lengthy, exhaustive, and well written briefs were unable to provide me with any authority."I specifically find that Mr. Torres should not be disciplined for repeating the statement that he 'f***ed three Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door.' The statement itself may be completely innocuous depending on its context. If Mr. Torres was trying to communicate 'wow, I can’t believe that I just said that I f***ed three Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door to Mr. Lazarcik, I’m so embarrassed,' his speech would be acceptable. If however, Mr. Torres was trying to communicate 'wow, I sure showed Mr. Lazarcik; I just said that I f***ed three Jehovah’s Witnesses who came to my door,' the speech would be worthy of discipline. What was the context of the statement in the Lead Office and how much time had elapsed after the initial comment? I’m not really sure."Mr. Torres indicated in his testimony that he was simply letting people know what he had stated so that they didn’t hear it from others. Mr. Taylor testified that he thought it was an attempt at humor. However, almost all of the testimony surrounding the statements in the Lead Office were simply unclear as to context. Further, the comment in the Lead Office may have occurred less than a minute after the initial comment while Mr. Torres was still up-set by Mr. Lazarcik’s questioning; again, the facts are simply unclear. While there is evidence that Mr. Torres’ repeating of the statement was maliciously motivated, the evidence does not rise to the level of a preponderance."In the instant case, the City has chosen to terminate Mr. Torres for his conduct. ......"Torres did not initiate the altercation with Mr. Lazarcik and there were no physical threats. Given the isolated nature of the outburst, and the provocation, I find that a five day suspension would be the most severe penalty that a majority of arbitrators would uphold; even if they allowed the city a great degree of deference in selecting the punishment."... While just cause existed for discipline, the City has not met its burden of proof as to discharge, and the discipline is reduced to a six day suspension. ... ."
******************
RENTSCHLER v. TLC OFFICE SYSTEMS was a 2007 Texas court case which involved a Jehovah's Witness named Daniel Rentschler. Dan Rentschler alleged religious discrimination in that he was fired from his sales job at TLC Office Systems because he was a Jehovah's Witness. Two other former employees testified that they heard TLC's President make disparaging remarks about the JWs to Rentschler. TLC denied such, contending that the two witnesses were disgruntled, and maintained that its reasons for firing Rentschler were insubordination and poor performance. TLC also counter-claimed that Rentschler owed it $5,337.00 for draws against future sales commissions that he had received. A Harris County jury ruled in TLC's favor -- awarding TLC $5,337.00 on its counterclaim, plus $15,000.00 for TLC's attorneys fees.
******************
******************
DIVISION OF HUMAN RIGHTS v. GORTON was a 1969 New York state case involving a Jehovah's Witness named Hortensia Stoyan. Stoyan was a librarian employed by the Farmingdale Public Library. She filed a complaint with the New York Commission for Human Rights alleging racial (Puerto Rican) and religious discrimination against Gorton, who was an elected member of the Farmingdale Library Board of Trustees. Stoyan's initial complaint was filed on March 4, 1968. On March 12, Gorton filed written charges with the Board of Trustees against her, which stated: "Mrs. Stoyan falsely accused this Trustee of racial discrimination and lodged a complaint with the N.Y. State Human Rights Commission. ... Furthermore, although no fault of her own and certainly of no consequence when dealing with books, her language background hardly qualifies her to instruct children in a course of 'remedial reading' sponsored by the Farmingdale Library. In addition, and at the risk of being accused of religious prejudice, I must take exception, as I believe the majority of District 22 residents would also, to having a person who is a member of a religious sect that rejects loyalty to the United States, in a position to influence our children." On May 17, 1968, Stoyan amended her original complaint. She reiterated her initial charge that Gorton had attempted to incite, compel, etc., the Farmingdale Library Board of Trustees to discharge her because of her creed and national origin; and she added the charge of "retaliation" because she had filed the initial complaint.
After two hearings, on July 22, 1968, the Commission ruled in Stoyan's favor, and Gorton was ordered to cease and desist from (1) attempting to incite or compel the trustees to discharge Mrs. Stoyan because of her creed, her national origin and her filing of the complaint against him and (2) retaliating or discriminating against her because of her filing of the complaint. Gorton was also directed to withdraw the charges he had filed against her with the trustees of the library, pay her compensatory damages of $100 plus [$500] attorneys' fees, refrain from retaliating or discriminating against anyone who had testified or assisted in any proceeding under the Human Rights Law, etc.
On appeal, the New York appellate court blasted Gorton, but interestingly negated the order for Gorton to pay Stoyan $600. The decision was likely a compromise given the concurring opinion that made the point that Gorton was an elected public official who "had a legitimate interest, and even a duty, to report his feelings regarding Mrs. Stoyan's qualifications or what he considered (rightly or wrongly) her lack of qualifications as a librarian and teacher of remedial reading. Surely, as far as the latter is concerned, her 'language background' is not totally irrelevant. There is no claim that respondent acted in bad faith."
KINNIBURGH, KISER, WAGER, ET AL v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL was a 1983 federal lawsuit filed in Montana which appears to have involved one or more plaintiffs who were Jehovah's Witnesses and/or one or more plaintiffs who employed a significant number of Jehovah's Witnesses. The various plaintiffs were loggers who had previously done logging for defendants via routine business contracts. Around 1978-9, troubles developed between plaintiffs and defendants, and plaintiffs either reduced or stopped doing business with defendants. The vague court record seems to indicate that Robert Wagar may have been a Jehovah's Witness. Dale Kinniburgh may also have been a Jehovah's Witness, or if not, at least he employed a significant number of Jehovah's Witnesses. The vague court record seems to indicate that the plaintiffs were "reaching" to find some reason to sue the defendants for exercising their right to contract with whomever they wished. The court record seems to indicate that the plaintiffs were raising the "Jehovah's Witnesses" issue only in an effort to find some legal basis to sue, since there really was no other basis for this lawsuit. The USDC dismissed.
******************
PEREZ v. PAPPAS was a 1983 Washington state court case involving the Jehovah's Witness family of Richard and Charlotte Perez and children. In this lawsuit, the Perez family sued their attorney for return of ALL or part of the contingency fee from a previous employment related lawsuit in which the attorney had negotiated a settlement for the family, which the attorney initially had "net present valued" at $1,000,000.00 (due to a settlement which was a combination of cash, life insurance, and annuities), but which he and the Perez family negotiated down to a NPV of $850,000.00. The Washington Supreme Court ruled that the attorney's repayment of $37,500 and the Perez family's acceptance of that amount before trial constituted an accord and satisfaction.
Interestingly, the court record revealed that this attorney was the third attorney who worked for the Perez family in their employment related lawsuit. The Perez family fired their first attorney after only a few weeks. After two years, the Perez family went looking for a third attorney. Apparently, there were problems between the Perez family and the second attorney over the fact that the attorney was seeking substantial damages for an alleged permanent disability, and Richard Perez in the meantime was performing activities as a full-time Jehovah's Witness "minister".
The Washington Supreme Court actually complimented the settlement which Pappas had negotiated, stating: "The success of the case was questionable as [Perez's] fellow employees had disposed of the Signode ratchet shortly after the accident, the manufacturer of the banding material was unknown, and [Perez] had been misusing the tool by employing a 'cheater' bar to gain extra leverage which may have contributed to or caused the accident. Additionally, Mr. Perez' decision not to seek paid employment posed problems in proving damages. In spite of these facts, and within a matter of months from the time Pappas took the case, Signode's insurers began making settlement offers, ... ."
******************
GARRICK v. WEAVER ET AL was a 1989 New Mexico federal appellate court decision which, like the case above, involved a contingency dispute between a family of Jehovah's Witnesses and the attorneys who were fired while representing the JWs in a civil lawsuit. Roberta Garrick, and her two minor children, Sandi Jean Garrick and Jamie Alan Garrick, were injured in an automobile accident in which a fourth passenger was killed. While represented by their third attorney, they settled their claims for $338,755.00.
During the settlement approval proceedings, the first attorney employed by the Garricks presented his claim for 25% per a valid contingency fee agreement. This first attorney had been fired after presenting to the Garricks a settlement offer which Roberta Garrick apparently thought was too little. The Garricks argued that this first attorney should not receive any compensation given that he had failed to adequately explain the "conflict of interest" of his representing both the Garricks and the fourth passenger. The court ruled that although no "actual or substantial prejudice" to Garrick's interests occurred, this first attorney should receive quantum meruit rather than the contracted fee. Affirmed on appeal by Garrick.
A second attorney also presented his claim for 33.3% per a series of letters between Garrick and himself, which the attorney alleged combined to form a valid contingency fee agreement. However, the court ruled that the multiple letters did not constitute a "standardized, unambigous contingency fee contract". Additionally, Roberta Garrick and this second attorney had also had problems, and he had notified Garrick that he was withdrawing from the case, and indicated that he would "assert only the reasonable value of my services in generating an eventual recovery". However, before the court granted his motion for permission to withdraw, this second attorney signed a settlement offer on behalf of Garrick with her approval. Roberto Garrick thereafter retained a third attorney. The Garricks argued that this second attorney should not receive any compensation. The court ruled that this second attorney should receive quantum meruit rather than the contracted fee. Affirmed on appeal by Garrick.
As an interesting sidenote to this summary, Roberta Garrick also challenged the court's decision to place the two children's portion of the settlement in a trust. Garrick claimed that such violated the family's "freedom of religion" on the ridiculous reasoning that the trustee might try to force the children to have a blood transfusion in some hypothetical future scenario.
******************
EEOC v. THE ORDER PEOPLE was a 2002 Maryland federal court case involving a Jehovah's Witness named Geoffrey Gard. Gard worked as a sales representative for a company whose products included Playboy and similar companies. After being terminated for refusing to handle such orders, Gard filed a complaint with EEOC, who inturn filed a federal lawsuit under Title VII for the employer's failure to accommodate Gard's religious beliefs. Gard received $10,000.00.
******************
******************
MILLER v. IAN GRAHAM INSURANCE ET AL and BENARDELLO v. IAN GRAHAM INSURANCE ET AL initially were two separate lawsuits filed by two female Jehovah's Witness Employees against the same insurance agency employer, and its employees. Miller and Benardello each alleged sexual harassment and religious discrimination. After an abundance of pre-trial maneuvers, including the consolidation of the two cases, the case was settled on the eve of trial for a confidential amount.
******************
GIVENS ET AL v. GENENTECH was a 1997 California federal court case. In April 1997, two African-American Jehovah's Witnesses, named Ricardo Allen and Francisco Givens, filed a discrimination lawsuit against their longtime employer, Genentech Inc., and several individual supervisors.
Ricardo Allen and Francisco Givens, who had been employed at Genentech since 1987, alleged that between 1991 and 1996 that they had both been discriminated against because of their race and religion, resulting in their being forced to take medical stress leaves during which they were only partially compensated. Apparently, Genentech had already remedied the alleged discriminatory conduct prior to the lawsuit given that the JW Duo had returned to work, but the lawsuit was apparently over $$$.
******************
LARRY LYNN HEATER v. MONONGAHELA POWER was a 1998-9 West Virginia state court decision, which involved a Jehovah's Witness named Larry L. Heater. Larry Heater sued his employer alleging that he had been discriminated against due to his WatchTower religion. The trial court granted the employer a summary dismissal. The West Virginia Supreme Court declined to hear Heater's appeal.
<<<------PREVIOUS PAGE----------HOME PAGE----------NEXT PAGE ------>>>
JW LAWSUITS - Page 12
bravenet.com