Approximately 250 employees of Sterling Jewelers have testified about sexual harassment in the workplace. Sterling is the company that owns Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelry.

According to the Washington Post, multiple women who worked for the company allege that their male bosses and managers groped them or pressured them to engage in unwanted sexual activities in exchange for raises and promotions. Others have reported gender-based pay and promotion discrimination.  

Since 2008, a class action suit against the company has expanded to include 69,000 women. But the attorneys representing the hundreds of men and women who testified received permission to release their clients’ statements on February 26.

The statements detail incidents that occurred in the late 1990s and 2000s. The women who are part of the “class”–or group of people suing the company–are seeking punitive damages and work compensation they say they never received.

Because Sterling makes its employees agree not to take employment lawsuits to public court, the case will go to arbitration court, which means it will be heard in private and the details of the proceedings could remain confidential.

A spokesman for Sterling told the Washington Post that the company had investigated the accusations and found that they were “not substantiated by the facts,” and added that there are “multiple processes in place to receive and investigate allegations of harassment or misconduct.”

However one of a handful of women who spoke to the Post said that a few days after reporting that a male manager had tried to kiss her, she was accused of stealing jewelry and money by one of her bosses and subsequently fired.

According to the Post, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) wrote in a report last year that arbitration policies such as Sterling’s could “prevent employees from learning about similar concerns shared by others in their workplace.”

Sexual misconduct is an ongoing issue in work spaces. Two years ago, Cosmopolitan Magazine published a survey in which one in three women aged 18-34 reported being harassed at work. In June, the EEOC released a report which found that workplace harassment in general–whether on the basis of sex, race, orientation, or other factors–often goes unreported (the study also found that at least 25 percent of women experience harassment in the workplace).

Sterling isn’t the only company at the center of a high-profile sexual harassment case these days. Uber is currently facing widespread claims of mishandling harassment complaints from its female engineers.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hundreds of Jewelry Store Chain Employees Testify About Workplace Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, Saks Fifth Avenue took a page from the book of fellow upscale department store Barneys New York and attempted to justify its discriminative policies. But instead of partaking in racist actions against customers, Saks is discriminating against a transgender employee.

Former employee Leyth O. Jamal filed a sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit against a Texas Saks, claiming she was fired for being transgender. So instead of owning up to its mistakes and offering an apology, Saks tried to find a loophole to justify its actions. The company claimed that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not include trans* people. Meanwhile the Supreme Court has concluded that Title VII could qualify for discrimination “based on sex” in the past. And if that’s not convincing enough for you, both the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Justice Department have also ruled that Title VII includes people of any trans* identity.

While these laws should definitely be properly amended to explicitly mention people on the trans* spectrum, that doesn’t get Saks off the hook. The company also insisted on using male pronouns to identify Jamal throughout its filings, even adding a “[sic]” every time it quoted Jamal referring to herself as female. Just as Leelah Alcorn’s parents continued to refer to her as male in their statements, referring to a person by anything other that the gender that he or she has chosen is ignorant and just plain disrespectful.

It is absolutely unacceptable for Saks to try to get away with such putrid behavior when the fashion industry is peppered with people who identify all across the LGBTQ spectrum. It shouldn’t be okay In any industry to mistreat trans* people, but it breaks my heart to hear that this is still happening in the progressive industry that I love. Both Saks and the government need to update their perspectives and become more inclusive of both trans* and LGBTQ people, so no one has to fall victim to discrimination, self-harm, and violence like Jamal, Alcorn, and Kimy Hartman all did.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Saks Defends Discrimination Against Transgender Employee appeared first on Law Street.

The world we live in today makes it hard for any twenty-something to find a decent-paying, full-time job. Although we may search and search, many of us retreat back to school, taking on more debt while seeking higher education.

Even so, we have all accepted unpaid internships with the hope that there is a sliver of a chance that we may be hired as a full-time employee. Despite working for free, we expect to be treated along the same lines as any other employee, entitled to certain rights such as lunch breaks, vacation days, and freedom from sexual harassment, right? WRONG!

David Yamada reported that a New York Federal District Court held that an unpaid intern could not bring a sexual harassment claim against her employer, Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., under NYC Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, Liuhuan Wang sustained injuries as a result of quid pro quo sexual harassment and sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment created by her supervisor Zhengzhu Liu.

As a 22-year-old student at Syracuse University, Ms. Lihuan claims that during her four weeks at Phoenix Satellite US, Mr. Liu had almost complete supervisory authority in the New York and D.C. bureaus. Ms. Lihuan’s complaint alleges that Mr. Liu had a history of sexual harassment throughout his employment with Phoenix Satellite and he would prey on female employees just starting their career in America and lure them to his hotel room where he would grope and kiss them, and attempt to have sex with them. He is accused of insinuating that in order to have a successful career, female employees and interns at Phoenix would have to submit to his unwanted sexual desires.

Ms. Lihuan claimed that Mr. Liu had similarly invited her back to his hotel after treating her and several co-workers to lunch when he was in town. After asking her to stay behind to “talk about her job performance,” Mr. Liu guided Ms. Lihuan back to his hotel room, under the guise of an work-related issue, and attempted to grope and kiss her, forcing Ms. Lihuan to push him back and leave the room immediately.

Her grievance is due to the fact that she believes her refusal of Mr. Liu’s sexual advances is the reason she was denied full-time employment. The complaint also mentions that a fellow Syracuse student, Qian Chen, worked for Phoenix and was also sexually propositioned by Mr. Liu. Perhaps Mr. Liu and the people over at Phoenix Satellite need a visit from this guy.

The U.S. District Court judge, Judge Kevin P. Castel, ruled that Ms. Lihuan could not bring a valid claim of sexual harassment under New York City Human Rights Law against her employer because her lack of compensation rendered her unable to meet the employee status required by the statute.

Using federal and NY case law, the district court determine that unpaid interns are not employees as defined under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or NYC Human Rights Law. The district court stated that remuneration or the absence of remuneration is an essential element to determining the existence of “the employer-employee relationship.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports the U.S. District Court’s position that sexual harassment laws don’t cover interns unless they receive “significant remuneration,” according to an EEOC spokesperson, Joseph Olivares.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Phoenix denies that Ms. Lihuan ever applied for a position and Mr. Liu is no longer with the company. This wasn’t the first case, and it surely will not be the last. Although the workplace dynamic for unpaid interns is already changing, maybe it’s time to take another look at the rights unpaid interns are entitled to while working. Perhaps something slightly more than a video at orientation.

And no live demonstrations are necessary.

And remember, its not just women who suffer from sexual harassment in the workplace.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Melissa Gira via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tragedy of the Unpaid Intern: No Money – No Rights appeared first on Law Street.