Law Office of Twila S. White

Featured – Twila S. White

2022-10-07T11:16:37Z

Twila White was recently featured in an article for Los Angeles Daily Journal publication 2/9/22.

Twila White featured in Los Angeles Daily Journal

2022-08-12T05:10:52Z

Twila White was recently featured in an article for Los Angeles Daily Journal. Twila discussed how Law Office of Twila S. White has fought sexual harassment since 2005.

Featured – Twila S. White

2022-08-12T05:10:39Z

Twila White was recently featured in an article where Twila discussed how Law Office of Twila S. White has fought sexual harassment and how she encouraged her clients and got them to tell their stories in pre-#MeToo environment.

How professionals of color deal with bias

2020-05-12T19:39:27Z

Racism and bias don’t exist in professional circles of American society, right? Try telling that to professionals of color who deal with racial bias every day. The bias is so prevalent that some professionals alter the most basic things about themselves to avoid conflict. Below are examples of small ways professionals choose to live their daily lives, in the face of bias and prejudice. Not wearing casual clothes on “casual Fridays.” A lawyer in South Carolina told the New York Times he never wears casual clothing on Fridays. Instead, he opts for his everyday “uniform” — a suit and tie. He also hangs his work ID from his rear view mirror, in case he’s asked to show his credentials. Kyle Strickland, an analyst at the Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity at The Ohio State University, says people should not have to wear different clothing to feel comfortable. “But at the end of the day, you are still a person of color in America, because we have not necessarily confronted the issue of race head-on,” he says. The default is “you’re not a doctor.” Several physician interviewed by the New York Times said they routinely are mistaken for a nurse or orderly. Patients ask, “When will I see the doctor?” When a white nurse enters the room, patients assume he’s the doctor. One Latina doctor said she alters her speech patterns, so she won’t sound menacing or scary. “The default is never ‘you are the physician,'” one doctor said. “This is the tricky thing about bias and talking about it,” she said. “It is not macroscopic anymore. It is all underlying.” And the insults don’t come only from patients. One doctor said colleagues have accused her of playing the “race card” to get into medical school. Keeping his distance. A black entrepreneur in New Jersey says he will modify his walking paths in parking lots, to avoid coming into close vicinity of white women. “Why cause drama? I just wait,” he said. If you believe you are being discriminated against due to race, contact a lawyer who is experienced in this area of the law.

IKEA accused of age discrimination

2020-05-12T18:55:36Z

IKEA is coming under attack for alleged age discrimination. In the past year, five lawsuits have been filed nationwide against the home furnishings retailer. In the latest lawsuit, a 48-year-old Connecticut man alleges IKEA has a "corporate culture of age bias" and repeatedly violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiff says he was repeatedly passed over for job promotions, in favor of younger candidates. The suit also alleges that the employee was later demoted and his pay was reduced by $10 an hour. IKEA took the actions despite stellar job performance, the lawsuit says. When the man asked a supervisor why he was passed over for yet another promotion, the manager said an outsider was hired because the store wanted "new, innovative ideas." The legal action was filed in the form of a class action lawsuit. In response, IKEA said in a statement that it is "committed to creating an inclusive work environment that is free of discrimination." Previous lawsuits against IKEA In February 2018, a 54-year-old IKEA employee in Pennsylvania alleged that he was not promoted, despite outstanding performance reviews. A lawsuit filed in August 2018 alleged that IKEA's "strategic initiatives" favored employees under age 40 for management positions. Do you have questions? Human resources authorities say that when managers use an age stereotype to describe an ideal candidate, it can be an indicator of bias. Examples of those buzzwords are: new, fresh, innovative, energetic. If you have questions about age discrimination or if you believe you are a victim of age discrimination, contact a lawyer who has experience in this area of the law.

Is sexual misconduct to be expected in male-dominated workplaces?

2020-05-12T18:57:08Z

"This job was everything I'd ever wanted," Jennifer G. told the New York Times. It was a physical job, but Jennifer was a bodybuilder. The job involved guarding a highly classified Energy Department site where scientists perform top-secret nuclear tests and work on our nation's responses to nuclear, chemical and biological emergencies. The position was with a group called the Proforce, which is managed by government contractors. It involved 12-hour shifts, sometimes longer, of armed patrol. It sometimes involved simulated attacks on the facility, with Proforce members working both sides. Jennifer, who had once been a gun range safety officer and owned an armory, was among a dozen women among 150 guards. The atmosphere on the job was hyper-masculine. Moreover, there is a longstanding culture of sex discrimination, according to current and former guards interviewed by the Times. Harassment began during training The sexual harassment against Jennifer began during training, when senior guards found a Facebook photo of her in a bathing suit and passed it around. Men catcalled her from passing cars on her first work day. In the car pool, a colleague exposed his genitals. False rumors began to fly that she was sleeping with co-workers. Complaints to management went nowhere. She tried to shake it off. She tried to laugh it off. She changed her schedule to avoid her harassers. She made official complaints. Everything she tried seemed merely to make her a bigger target. The assault happened during a simulated attack on the site. As Jennifer worked, a monitor in her helmet indicated that she had been hit so she fell to the ground. She expected to be "arrested." Instead, she was hit in the mouth with a rifle. As she lay stunned, a man -- a coworker -- ran his hands over her legs and then squeezed her buttocks and groin. Another man put his hands inside her shirt, squeezed her breasts and removed her nipple piercing. Attackers couldn't be identified The assault happened amid chaos -- loud noises and fog from a machine. Jennifer couldn't identify her attackers. Jennifer complained, but that put a target on her back. A manager told her directly that this sort of thing happens when women do male-dominated work. An investigation of the harassment led to two male guards being disciplined for spreading malicious rumors. But Jennifer was interviewed about her dating habits and given two psychological evaluations. Ultimately, Jennifer was fired in apparent retaliation for complaining. The official reason was for scheduling violations, "hostility and aggression." Are women doomed to suffer sexual harassment and misconduct simply because they're in a male-dominated job? Are they destined to face retaliation if they complain? Abuse and harassment break the law, and lawbreaking cannot be excused by a hyper-masculine culture.

Guest sexual misconduct is a serious issue in hospitality industry

2020-05-12T18:58:08Z

In 2017, a drunken male guest barged into a Marriott hotel lobby bathroom that a housekeeper was cleaning. He groped her and offered her $50, presumably in exchange for sex. The woman’s supervisor joked that the man should have offered $100. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for guests to sexually harass or even assault hotel housekeeping staff. According to Leticia V., the plaintiff in a recent lawsuit, men frequently urinate in front of her and make lewd comments or sexual advances. She’s suing the Marriott Irvine, claiming that management hasn’t done enough to stop sexual harassment and misconduct by hotel guests. Are employers legally responsible for guest misconduct? Employers can be held responsible, if they fail to take reasonable action to stop it. Both the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require employers to protect their workers from sexual harassment, even if it is caused by clients, customers or guests. According to this lawsuit, the Marriott Irvine failed to perform any investigation of the lobby bathroom incident. Furthermore, the housekeeper says the company used to provide them with a large sign that prevented guests from entering the restroom when it was being serviced, but the signs were taken away because management felt they were “old fashioned.” Eventually, the signs were replaced with an 8-1/2 x 11-inch version that does nothing to deter guests from entering. Management also experimented with panic buzzers, although they were not effective. “It wasn’t connected to anything; it would just make a noise,” says Leticia. “I used it, but I didn’t feel any security.” The buzzers were taken away in 2012. The lawsuit accuses the Marriott Irvine of “failure to provide adequate protection” resulting in a “consistent pattern of conduct which occurred on a regular and frequent basis.” That may be enough for the hotel to be held legally responsible for the harassment and misconduct guests afflict on housekeepers like Leticia. Workplace harassment is common in the hospitality industry Sexual harassment and misconduct by bosses, co-workers and clients is rampant in the hospitality industry. The Center for American Progress analyzed claims filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and found that over one-fourth of sexual harassment complaints come from industries that employ large numbers of service workers. Earlier this winter, Marriott workers struck for almost two months after attempting to make their demands heard at a shareholder meeting in May. Their demands? Higher pay and better protection from harassment. Unfortunately, the Marriott Irvine was not part of the strike. “I don’t want other people to go through this,” says Leticia. “Somebody needs to listen to us. This is enough.” If you have questions about workplace sexual harassment, contact an attorney who is experienced in this area of the law.

Chili’s server denied promotions due to her gender nonconformity

2020-05-12T18:59:14Z

When Meagan H.’s supervisors at a Phoenix Chili’s Grill & Bar invited her to apply for a manager training program, she was thrilled. She loved her job as a server and was good at it. Things began to go bad when Meagan appeared at a seminar regarding the company’s Certified Shift Leader program. A district manager saw her wearing a men’s button-down shirt, fitted pants and boat shoes and told Meagan’s general manager she had been “inappropriately dressed.” After her interview for the promotion, her general manager told Meagan, “We really want to hire you,” but added that she needed to begin dressing “more gender appropriate.” She asked if she could wear a chef-style coat like the general manager was wearing, but he responded, “It’s for boys.” As Meagan later learned, this wasn’t the first time she had been targeted. Her general manager had previously denied her a position as a bartender, telling co-workers that he “didn’t want a gay girl behind the bar” because it wouldn’t attract the “right kind” of customers. Meagan is indeed a lesbian, and she says that it does affect her wardrobe decisions. Outraged and hurt, Meaghan felt compelled to quit. Adverse decisions based on gender expression are discrimination If this situation had occurred in California, there is no question it would be considered discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The FEHA explicitly includes gender expression and sexual orientation in its definition of discrimination. Federal law also protects people from discrimination based on gender expression. In 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins that employers cannot rely on sex stereotypes about how people should dress or behave when making employment decisions. Such activity violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination “because of sex.” In fact, the Price Waterhouse case involved a woman who was told she wouldn’t make partner unless she acted and dressed “more femininely.” Discrimination based on sexual orientation also prohibited The federal courts have been somewhat divided on whether Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of sex” includes sexual orientation discrimination. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken the position that sexual orientation discrimination violates Title VII and is actively pursuing cases based on that position. By our very nature, human beings come in nearly infinite varieties. There is nothing inherently male or female about a button-down shirt, fitted slacks and boat shoes. Even if there were, there is no law or regulation requiring women to wear only those clothes manufactured especially for them. In fact, both California and federal law prohibit employers from any such requirement.

Majority of workers over 50 face unwanted termination, report says

2020-05-12T19:00:17Z

Age discrimination may be far more common — and more damaging — than most people ever thought. The nonprofit news organization ProPublica and a think tank called the Urban Institute recently analyzed data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a detailed survey of the work lives of Americans over 50. What they found was disheartening: 56 percent of U.S. workers will be laid off, forced out of a job or feel compelled to quit between age 50 and retirement. Worse still, only 10 percent of those workers will ever earn what they had before. The HRS is a detailed survey of older Americans’ economic conditions and health. The University of Michigan administers the survey, which is funded by the federal government. The survey is routinely cited by academics and provides a basis for business and government policymaking, according to ProPublica. It is considered a gold-standard source of information about the lives of older Americans. Job losses affect those in full-time, long-term positions The nonprofits’ analysis of age-related job losses focused on responsible, long-term workers. Even so, these workers experienced employer-driven job losses at an alarming rate. Again, 56 percent of those who enter their 50s working in a full-time, long-held position experience at least one employer-driven job loss between age 50 and retirement. Those job losses were categorized as follows:

28 percent of all the workers were laid off.
15 percent of all the workers felt compelled to leave due to deteriorating working conditions.
13 percent of all the workers entered retirement under circumstances indicating the decision was not voluntary.

Then, consider that another 9 percent of these workers quit working for personal reasons such as health or family issues. When those workers are considered, we see that nearly two-thirds of older Americans are experiencing involuntary job losses. The Census Bureau says there are approximately 40 million working Americans over 50. The analysis indicates, at the very least, that some 22 million will experience an employer-driven job loss. Only 10 percent of these will find replacement jobs that pay as well as their previous jobs. Discrimination against those 40 and over is illegal under California and federal law Age discrimination against people age 40 and over is prohibited by the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). These laws not only prohibit clear examples of age discrimination but also subtler forms. How to take action We’ve all heard stories about age discrimination, but this report is alarming. It requires us to take action. If you have questions about age discrimination, contact an attorney who has experience in this area of the law.

Judge says African-Americans can proceed with class action against Kaiser

2020-05-12T19:01:21Z

Two former Kaiser hospital employees claim Kaiser has a policy of discriminating against workers on the basis of race, gender and age. The workers allege their own experiences of being harassed, being denied promotions and ultimately being wrongfully terminated are common to other female, African-American employees over 40, and Kaiser Permanente uses a totally arbitrary, subjective system when making employment decisions. Although the two women worked in different areas, their experiences were similar. Lunell Gamble worked in human resources for Kaiser for 16 years before being allegedly wrongful terminated. She claims that, despite being qualified and having an excellent performance record, she was denied promotions for years. Then, in 2012, a new supervisor began harassing her. The supervisor once followed Gamble into a bathroom to accuse her of being lazy, according to the complaint. She scolded Gamble in front of others for laughing. She claimed the entire department had complained about Gamble’s perfume — then admitted that she alone had complained. In 2014, Gamble received a negative performance evaluation containing allegedly false accusations that she had been hostile toward the supervisor who had been harassing her. She was given a final written warning. Despite making improvements and also trying to address the issue with hospital officials, Gamble was fired within a month of the final warning. Sheila Kennedy worked in Kaiser’s chemical dependency and rehabilitation programs for 16 years. She says that she, too, was denied promotions, pay raises and transfers that were given to non-black employees. When she complained, she was fired. Federal judge turns back Kaiser’s defenses Kaiser claimed that neither of the two plaintiffs had described plausible claims that class-wide discrimination was occurring at Kaiser. A federal judge in Oakland ruled that they didn’t have to do so; their allegation that Kaiser’s system for making employment decisions is arbitrary and subjective is sufficient for the case to move forward. Kaiser also argued that neither plaintiff identified a specific policy that had a tendency to harm African-Americans more than other people. The judge ruled that Kennedy had indeed raised such a claim and that Gamble could piggy-back on Kennedy’s claim for the purpose of determining if they had a case. It’s too early to know whether class-action status will be granted in this case. Also, the judge did not rule on the merits of the case. She merely determined that the plaintiffs’ claims were substantial enough that their lawsuit should not be turned away.