Las Vegas Injury Attorney Blog

One of the most frequently asked questions by clients is how much money they can recover under Title VII (the main federal anti-discrimination law). For many people, this can be a confusing area of the law. "How much" a discriminated employee can recover is a function of what the employee is suing for. In the "news you can use" category, a Nevada employee should understand that the basic types of relief (i.e. awards) in Title VII cases are as follows:

Back Pay

This is typically the most common type of relief. Basically, back pay consists of the salary wages (and other fringe benefits) the employee would have earned from the date of the adverse employment action (i.e. wrongful termination) to the date of trial. For example, if an employee is fired on January 1st and trial ends favorably for the employee on October 1st, the employee would be entitled to the salary she would have earned had she still been employed for the 10-month period from between being fired to winning at trial.

Front Pay

Front pay is a type of damages award that covers the period of time from when a worker wins at trial to the period when they are able to locate employment offering similar wages to what they were earning at the previous job in which they were discriminated. Front pay is basically a monetary award that is forward looking and intended to cover the period until a worker can get back on his or her feet. A worker can recover for both back pay and front pay.

Compensatory Damages

The easiest way to think of "compensatory damages" is to think of this as money to compensate a worker for what he or she has lost as a result of the illegal discrimination. For example, if a worker is fired for refusing the sexual advances of her employer, she could sue and receive compensatory damages for future lost opportunities that she would have received had she not been fired in the first place. Also, these types of damages can compensate a worker for emotional distress, inconvenience, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

It is important to understand that there are defined limits to compensatory damages. In other words, a worker's ability to recover compensatory damages is capped at certain amounts depending upon the size of the employer. The limits are as follows:

The reason these caps exist is because, in passing anti-discrimination laws, Congress wanted to balance an employee's right to be compensated for discrimination while at the same time protecting businesses from jury awards that could bankrupt an entire company. Thus, the caps exist as a tradeoff between these two important interests.

Many times people will read in the newspaper that a jury awarded a multimillion dollar verdict to a discriminated employee. It is important to remember, because of the caps, very high jury verdicts will be reduced to fit the maximum allowed under the cap. Thus, what an employee wins may not be what she receives.

Punitive Damages

If an employer has engaged in "intentional discrimination" or has acted with malice or reckless indifference for the rights of the employee, they can be punished through an award of punitive damages. As the name would imply, this type of damages award is intended to punish the employer for wrongful conduct.

The same caps that apply to compensatory damages apply to punitive damages awards. Thus, how much an employee can recover in punitive damages will depend on the size of the employer.

Injunctive Relief

This is not a type of damages award but rather a form of relief where money is not enough. For example, a worker who enjoys her job but is experiencing ongoing harassment can file a claim with an appropriate court seeking to have the harassment stop. In those cases where the worker is fired, she can seek to have the court order her reinstatement and order the company to stop future discrimination.

Attorney's Fees

Litigation can be expensive and complicated. A worker who sues and wins based upon a discrimination claim can recover attorney's fees.

A hostile work environment occurs when unwelcome comments or conduct based on sex, race, religion or other legally protected characteristics unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance by creating an environment which is intimidating or offensive. This is a form of discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Employees should understand, federal law does not prohibit offhand comments, simple teasing or isolated incidents. The conduct must be objectively offensive to a reasonable person and alter the conditions of your work environment in order to constitute a hostile work environment claim.

A few examples of a hostile work environment can include:

• Sexual harassment


• Using derogatory words to describe race or sexual orientation


• Disparaging comments about an individual's gender that are not necessarily sexual in nature


• Negative comments about religious (or lack of religious) beliefs


• Derogatory references to a person's mental or physical impairment

Hostile work environment claims require specific elements. First and foremost you must give the company a chance to resolve the problem. In other words, you cannot hold the entire company responsible for an issue they do not know exists. Sometimes simply reporting the problem to the Human Resources Department or a manager allows the victim to find a resolution. It is necessary to have complete information when presenting the problem to the organization or a court of law. Cohen & Padda, LLP has developed a simple log for you to use. Click here to download the log (harassment log.pdf).

If you have notified the organization and not received a resolution, you may then notify the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Generally, the EEOC must be notified within 180 calendar days of the date the discrimination or discriminatory event took place. Failure to file within this deadline, can render a claim untimely.

Given that we spend the majority of our waking hours at work and you should not be forced to deal with continual harassment. If a hostile work environment is keeping you from excelling at your job, you owe it to yourself and your employer to speak up and exercise your rights.

Exercise your rights, consult an attorney and know all your options.

Nevada, like many other states, is an at-will employment state. This means, as an employee working in Nevada, you can be fired for almost any reason. However, you cannot be fired for an illegal reason. An "illegal reason" would be a reason expressly prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII is the key federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees.

What is prohibited under Title VII?

Title VII protects applicants and employees against discrimination based upon factors such as race, color, religion, gender (which includes pregnancy and sexual harassment) or national origin. It does not cover age discrimination or disability discrimination, both of which are covered by the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As an employee, you should be aware that Title VII generally makes it illegal for employers to make employment decisions where the decision is based upon a person's protected trait (race, religion, color, gender or national origin). So for example, favoring one employee over another simply because of race would be illegal.

Title VII also make it illegal for an employer to retaliate against an employee for engaging in "protected activity." Protected activity is any type of act that you are legally permitted to do. Being punished for exercising a right, therefore, is illegal. Examples of protected activity include the following: filing a claim of discrimination with an agency, requesting medical leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act or filing a claim for worker's compensation. Another example of protected activity would be complaining to anyone, like a co-worker or your spouse, about your employer's discrimination and then being punished for it. The key is to show that you were punished because of the protected activity.

Are All Employers Covered By Title VII?

No. An employer must have 15 or more full-time employees to be covered by federal anti-discrimination laws.

How Do I File A Claim Under Title VII?

To file a claim under Title VII alleging discrimination or retaliation, a person must first "exhaust" his or her "administrative remedies." What does this mean? In simple terms, it means you are required to file a claim with a federal agency called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") or a state counterpart. In Nevada, the equivalent to the EEOC is the Nevada Equal Rights Commission ("NERC"). Every major American city has an EEOC office. In Las Vegas, the EEOC is located in the federal courthouse located at 333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, near old downtown.

One of the most important things to remember in filing an EEOC claim is that, generally, it must be filed within 180 days of the unlawful treatment which forms the basis for your discrimination claim. For example, if you are fired because you employer is punishing you for filing a worker compensation claim, you have to file an EEOC complaint within 180 days of the date of your termination.

After you file a complaint with the EEOC or NERC, the agency will conduct an investigation into your claims. Often, as part of that process, the agency will contact the employer and attempt to conduct a mediation to resolve the dispute. Sometimes mediation can be successful, often it is not.

Going through the EEOC or NERC is a mandatory prerequisite before you can file a lawsuit against your employer for violation of your rights. After the agency's investigation is complete or mediation is unsuccessful, the agency will issue a "right to sue" letter which permits you to proceed to the next step and file a lawsuit if necessary. Even if the EEOC finds that your claims have no merit, it is required to issue you a right to sue letter permitting you to proceed to court. Thus, a right to sue letter should not be viewed as a determination that you have a case. Instead, it just means you have the right to pursue a case. Likewise, the fact that the EEOC does not find discrimination does not mean you were not discriminated against or that you will lose in court.

Employment law can be tricky with many pitfalls and nuances. It is essential, therefore, to consult with a good attorney before deciding how to proceed to protect your rights.

Sexual harassment has been prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law. Despite the existence of the law designed to protect workers, this has not stopped the problem. With an astounding 31% of female workers (7% of male) reporting they have been sexually harassed in the workplace, it is an issue that deserves more attention. In recent years the number of sexual harassment claims by men has tripled.
Unwanted sexual advances, forced sexual activity, statements about sexual orientation or sexuality, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature (including jokes and off-handed comments) constitute sexual harassment. The behavior does not have to be direct. Sexual harassment can exist with implied sexual innuendos as well.
One of the biggest misconceptions about sexual harassment is that the harasser must have sexual intentions towards the target. A person can be the victim of sexual harassment without any sexual intentions on the part of the harasser.
Accoridng to statistics compiled by the United States Equal Employment opportunity Commission, the federal agency that deals with discrimination, only 5-15% of women formally report the sexual harassment (according to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). This suggests that the actual problem is much more wide spread than the current statistics exhibit. Whether it is fear or retaliation or a belief that nothing will be changed targets of sexual harassment often feel powerless. However, change can only occur if people take action to end the behavior.
Documenting your case is crucial to finding solution. You should document the sexual harassment behaviors (noting the date, other witnesses and sexually harassing behavior). Keeping a log of this kind will help you to approach your superiors or human resources department to first report the problem and give the business the chance to resolve the issue. Sexual harassment must be reported to a person at the organization in a supervisory position. Although one act is generally not actionable under the laws, you should report harassment to your supervisor to permit him/her to address the situation before it gets worse.
As you approach the appropriate person at your workplace, you will want to note the person to whom you reported the issue as well. Many sexual harassment targets find counseling to be beneficial. The therapist's notes can also serve as documentation for your case.
Harassers often choose their behavior because it makes them fell powerful to dominate and humiliate their targets. If you are the victim of sexual harassment there is no need to feel isolated and alone. You can get the help you deserve. Contact our offices for a confidential consultation to assess your legal rights and regain the power in your life.

After a four-day trial in federal court, an eight person jury ruled that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district in North Carolina violated a school teacher's rights when they coerced his resignation. The jury awarded the school teacher approximately $1.1 million dollars.

The case arose from an incident in which the teacher, Jeffrey Leardini, was accused of improperly touching female students. The school district, without conducting any type of informed investigation, told Leardini he could resign immediately in lieu of dismissal. He was further told that an investigation, should he choose to have one, would likely lead to his termination.

Subsequently, the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police conducted an investigation and brought crimnal charges against Leardini. A jury, however, acquitted him of all criminal charges. After clearing his name in the criminal case, Leardini filed a civil lawsuit alleging the school district violated his due process rights when it misled him into believing that an investigation would lead to his termination, essentially amounting to a coerced resignation.

Commenting on this case, Cohen & Padda partner Ruth Cohen commented that employers need to be mindful of public employees' rights to due process. "Being falsely accused is bad enough, but then to be misled by your employer regarding your rights i equally offensive" stated Ruth Cohen. "The jury sent a loud message," noted Ruth Cohen, "that violating an employees constitutional right to due process will carry a price tag."

Cohen & Padda routinely represents public employees facing discipline and employment discrimination.

A former Lake Tahoe casino hostess (Andrea McNulty) previously sued football star Ben Roethlisberger, quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers, alleging that he raped her while he was visitng Lake Tahoe for a celebrity golf tournament in 2008.

In her lawsuit filed in 2009, McNulty clamed Roethlisberger lured her into his penthouse suite at the Harrah's Lake Tahoe casino and hotel and forced her to have sex with him. The lawsuit also named several of McNulty's co-workers as defendants alleging they covered up the incident.

In her lawsuit, McNulty sought general and punitive damages, as well as $380,000 to cover medical expenses for care McNulty claimed she needed to deal with the emotional distress she suffered from the alleged rape. However, the parties recently filed stipulations to dismiss the lawsuit and both sides refused to discuss the terms of the stipulation to dismiss.

It is not uncommon in cases such as this for parties to move to dismiss a case after reaching a confidential settlement. Commenting on this case, Cohen & Padda partner Ruth Cohen noted that allegations of abuse at the hands of a celebrity can be difficult to bring "which is why aggressive representation is always necessary." Ms. Cohen added, "a celebrity is going to have top notch lawyers, which is why you need to let the other side know you mean business right out of the gate."

At Cohen & Padda, we frequently get asked by clients what the personal injury claim process entails in auto accident cases. While every case is of course different and unique, there are similarities that offer a roadmap of what to expect.

Step One -- Taking Care of Yourself

The first step following any auto accident is to get medical care. Even if you think you're perfectly okay, it is highly advisable to seek the opinion of a medical professional. Injuries can manifest themselves and show up at a later stage. Accordingly, in order to assess damage, the examination of a medical professional is necessary. If your doctor or chiropractor orders you to follow a certain therapy regimen, follow that advice closely. In other words, make sure you keep all your appointments. Gaps in treatment can be used against you by an insurance company to deny full compensation.

Part of the first step is to also gather evidence that will be useful to your claim. This means documenting injuries to both yourself and your vehicle. Take pictures and identify witnesses that can be helpful to your claim. If there are visible injuries to your face or body, make sure you photograph these. This can be very powerful evidence that can help you maximize recovery on your claim.

Step Two -- Lawyer Up

Right after the accident is the best time to hire a lawyer. At Cohen & Padda we represent our clients in car accident cases on a contingency basis. This means you do not pay us anything. Our legal fee comes out of whatever we recover on your behalf.

Once you retain us, we do all the work to pursue your claim aggressively. This means gathering your medical records and communicating with your health care professionals to assess the full extent of your damages. We also notify the insurance company that we represent you. This stops the phone calls and letters from the insurance company to you. Often, after you report an accident, an insurance company will want to immediately take your recorded statement. Offering a statement without legal representation can be a big mistake. In order to protect your rights, it is very important you consult with an attorney before communicating with the insurance company.

Step Three -- Making The Claim

Once you have completed your medical treatments or have reached your "maximum medical improvement," we begin the process of compiling all your medical records, bills and other expenses into a demand package that will be sent to the insurance company. In making the demand, we also take into account any wage loss you might have experienced. With 45 years of combined litigation experience, Cohen & Padda is adept at presenting a demand package that is persuasive and designed to obtain maximum recovery.

Step Four -- Litigation

In some cases, the insurance company will be unwilling to pay out a claim or pay it out on the terms demanded. In those circumstances where the parties are unable to reach a resolution, Cohen & Padda will have a meeting with the client to assess the best path forward -- which often will include filing a lawsuit. Again, with extensive litigation experience, the firm's partners have proven track records of aggressive and successful advocacy. While litigation can be time consuming and costly, it is sometimes the only appropriate avenue for relief. When this is the case, Cohen & Padda is ready to move forward aggressively and with full dedication to obtaining the maximum recovery.

With the start of 2012, you can add another resolution to your list that will provide significant security and comfort to you and your loved ones -- updating your auto insurance policy to include medical payments or "med pay" coverage. Med pay coverage provides money for doctor visits and hospitals when you, a passenger or someone on your policy is involved in an accident tha results in injury or death -- regardless of who is at fault.

Why Do I Need Med Pay If I Already Have Health Insurance?

Many people believe that med pay is redundant to their health insurance and will only increase their insurance premium and therefore avoid adding it to their coverage. This can be a big mistake. Given the limitations in many health insurance policies, combined with the slow pace of insurance settlements med pay can provide instant money to deal with injuries and other needss following an accident. Here's the bottom line, med pay covers your medical bills up to the coverage limit for you, your family and others riding in your vehicle. The coverage travels with you, whether you're walking, riding with a friend or happen to be on public transportation, in-state or out -- as well as with your insured vehicles regardless of who is driving. Med pay does not require a deductible or co-pay.

For example, if you're injured in an accdent caused by another insured driver, it could take months for their car insurance company to cover your medical bills. Even if you have health insurance, the high deductibles and co-pays could require you to shoulder some of the payments. The beauty of med pay is that it kicks in immediately. And, it covers expenses that might not be covered by health insurance, such as chiropractor visits, dental examinations and prosthetics.

According to Christy Moulton Perry, directror of product management for Great Northwest Insurance Company, med pay makes sense even if you already have health isnurance. For example, if your health insurance has a $1,000 deductible and a 20% co-pay, you would end up being responsible for paying $1,800 on a $5,000 medical bill. With the ever increasing cost of medical care, even having health insurance does not guarantee you won't have to pick up the costs in the event of an accident. As noted by Ms. Perry, "but with med pay, you would have to pay zero out of pocket." That can make a world of difference.

Will Med Pay Increase My Premiums?

Many people decline med pay as part of their insurance coverage, or opt for a very small amount, based on the belief that it will increase their premiums. This is misplaced thinking. According to Shawn Wainwright of Brown & Brown Insurance of Florida, the cost to move from $2,000 to $10,000 in med pay coverage on a Travelers auto policy is only around $10 a year. Despite the obvious advantages of med pay, only one in four drivers insured by State Farm choose to have it states company spokesman Kip Diggs.

According to Christy Moulton Perry of Great Northwest Insurance Company, "going up to $50,000 or even $100,000 usually costs very, very little and can be worth it." Perry states "I know one case where the driver only had $5,000 in med pay and had a serious accident in which she was disabled for a long time. A year and a half later after her accident, her credit had been ruined because she had all of the hospital bills she couldn't pay. Even though the other car insurance company acknowledged liability, she had to wait for the entire claim to be closed before she could get that recovery."

Get Med Pay!

These days, the road is an unpredictable place. In the event of a tragic and catastrophic accident, a person needs all the help and resources they can get. At Cohen & Padda, the law firm deals with injured persons day in and day out. The effects of injuries can linger for years. Before you get behind the wheel, you need to make sure you're covered in the event the worst happens. Not having med pay is risky and foolish, especially when it only cost a few extra dollars per year. Get med pay!

An Orthodox Jewish rabbi who was barred from serving as an Army chaplain because he refused to shave his beard, which is required by his faith, has won the right to serve as a military chaplain. Rabbi Menachem Stern of Brooklyn will be officially admitted to the chaplaincy in a ceremony at The Shul Jewish Community Center in Surfside, Florida.

According to a federal lawsuit filed by Rabbi Stern, he was initially accepted by the Army to serve as a chaplain but notified later that it was rescinding its offer on account of the fact that he has a beard. Rabbi Stern, who has ministered in prisons, hospitals and nursing homes, taught at a Hebrew school, volunteered as an EMT and directed children's summer camps, believed that the military chaplaincy would offer him an opportunity "to make the world a better place with acts of goodness and kindness."

After filing the lawsuit, the Army agreed to accommodate Rabbi Stern by allowing him to serve as a chaplain. Observers noted that it is only the second time ever -- and the first in 30 years -- that a bearded Jewish rabbi has been granted an exemption to serve as a military chaplain. Army regulations require men to be clean-shaven except for neatly trimmed mustaches as part of a long list of grooming standards. However, like many Orthodox Jews, Rabbi Stern does not shave because he believes a passage in Leviticus -- "Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard" -- specifically outlaws it.

Rabbi Stern's lawsuit accurately noted that, aside from another rabbi in the 1970s, a handful of Sikh and Muslim chaplains have been granted exemptions from the beard ban in recent years. Additionally, it notes that members of the Special Forces are routinely granted exemptions, purportedly for missions in the Arab world, where a beard could allow a soldier to blend in more easily.

Rabbi Sanford Dresin, a retired Army chaplain, noted that if the military can live with "don't ask, don't tell," it should certainly be able to live with a few bearded rabbis. Commenting on the Army's decision to permit him to serve, Rabbi Stern stated: "I was expecting that I would be accepted the way I am, not that I would have to fight and make headlines."

Addressing this case that was filed on Rabbi Stern's behalf by the Aleph Institute, Paul Padda of Cohen & Padda noted that it was gratifying that the Army came to the right decision. "No one should be excluded because of their religious beliefs, especially when they desire to serve their country as Rabbi Stern certainly wanted to do" stated Padda. Padda further added, "at this firm we are dedicated to protecting the rights of people, especially when it comes to religious beliefs." "The military, like the rest of the country, is becoming more diverse," stated Padda who added "I'm glad the Army realized that Rabbi Stern is someone that should be welcomed rather than excluded."

The Fort Wayne-South Bend Roman Catholic Diocese of Indiana, and the parents of two students from Most Precious Blood Catholic School, have agreed to pay nearly $20,000 to the family of another student that was victim of repeated bullying at the school run by the Catholic Diocese. According to the lawsuit filed by the parents of the student that was bullied, their son, who suffers from cerebral palsy and is required to wear leg braces, was subjected to near daily abuse by other students.

The lawsuit alleges the boy was pushed down a flight of stairs at least 25 times by other students and on several occasions, punched, jumped on and taunted with slurs regarding sexual orientation. When the parents of the student complained to school officials, they failed to take appropriate or timely action.

Commenting on this case, Ruth Cohen of Cohen & Padda noted that school officials who turn a blind eye to bullying do so "at their own peril." "No child deserves to be bullied at school and adults who have a responsiblity to act had better do so" according to Cohen or risk the possibility of a lawsuit. "With the greater awareness developing in society regarding the harm resulting from bullying, courts and juries are becoming more sensitive to this form of tortious conduct" Cohen stated.

An Alabama jury awareded Ronald McCarter $1.5 million dollars for shock injuries caused by low-hanging power lines. Mr. McCarter, who worked for a paving company, was shocked by low hanging utility lines while performing his duties. His vehicle struck the lines, sending 7,600 volts of electricity through his arm.

According to the allegations in the lawsuit, Mr. McCarter received twice the amount of electricity that was used for the "electric chair" in state executions. As a result of this tragic incident, he is left with limited use of his right hand and constant, excrutiating pain. Two doctors testifed at trial that Mr. McCarter will suffer from pain for the rest of his life.

Commenting on this verdict, Cohen & Padda partner Ruth Cohen noted that $1.5 million dollars is small consolation for someone in Mr. McCarter's situation. "This is a very sad case," noted Cohen who further added, "at this law firm, we are dedicated to ensuring that those whose negligence causes injuries to others are held accountable to the full extent of the law."

A police officer in Arizona who was acquitted of rape charges has filed suit against the Pima County Attorney's Office and the Pima County Board of Supervisors claiming defamation and malicious prosecution. The lawsuit also alleges negligence, abuse of process and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The lawsuit alleges that, even though the Tucson Police Department determined that no probable cause existed to substantiate the allegations of rape, prosecutors from the Pima County Attorney's Office still brought a criminal case against him which subjected him to hatred and contempt in the community. After a criminal case was filed, a jury acquitted the officer of the rape charges.

Commenting on this case, Cohen & Padda partner Ruth Cohen observed that reputational damages cases such as this, while difficult to bring against government officials for a variety of reasons, can be successful. Cohen added, "clearly the officer was put through the ringer in this case and a jury ultimately found that the government failed to meet its burden, hopefully he can now get back his reputation." Cohen, who represents the rights of employees, added that at Cohen & Padda, "the firm will fight aggressively for those that have been harmed by defamatory comments and abuse of process.

Following a six day jury trial in federal court in Baltimore, Maryland, a veteran police officer won a $225,000 damages award after the jury concluded that his rights were violated under the Americans With Disabilities Act by Baltimore County.

According to the federal lawsuit filed by Detective William Blake, a 24 year veteran of the police force, Chief Terrence Sheridan retaliated against him when he ordered Detective Blake to take neurological and fitness-for-duty tests in 2006, 10-years after he suffered what his lawsuit characterizes as a "potential seizure" on the job. The lawsuit claims that, even though Blake was pronounced fit for duty after the "seizure" incident, the fact that he would be required to undergo neurological testing 10-years after the incident was clear retaliation for Blake's testimony before the County Board Of Appeals in support of another police officer who was challenging his forced retirement for health reasons. The federal jury agreed.

Commenting upon this case, Cohen & Padda partner Paul Padda (a former federal prosecutor) stated that "men and women that wear the uniform and face threats to their lives on a daily basis in an effort to protect the rest of us are not immune to discrimination and retaliation in the workplace." Padda added, "when workplace discrimination and retaliation occur against a police officer or other law enforcement officer, it is doubly sad and disappointing given the incredible stress these individuals have to endure as a result of their jobs." "I am gratified for Detective Blake that he achieved justice and stood strong against the retaliation that attempted to derail an honorable 24-year career" stated Padda. He concluded, "at this law firm, we fight hard to protect the rights of all employees -- including those that serve society by wearing the uniform and selflessly protect the rest of us."

Imagine being on vacation at an upscale hotel enjoying a cold beverage poolside only to have large glass panels fall on top of you. To their horror, that's what happened to Susan Davis and Prashanth Magadi according to a lawsuit filed in Texas.

According to the suit, the pair were injured when glass panels fell more than 20 stories into the pool area at the W Hotel (owned and operated by Starwood Hotels). Two weeks after they were injured, the lawsuit alleges Davis and Magadi are "still removing glass from their bodies." The lawsuit further alleges that after the panels fell, the hotel's response was inadequate because more panels crashed down subsequent to the first incident.

Commenting on this litigation, Cohen & Padda partner Paul Padda stated that businesses must be mindful that they owe guests and patrons certain duties of care. "The fact that these people were not killed is amazing given the nature of the accident" commented Padda. Indeed, although significant, the acccident could have been much worse. While most accidents such as this are generally rare, Padda noted that "slip and falls occur all the time in hotels on account of negligence" and can result in certain cases in significant injuries to hotel patrons.

A Dunkin' Donuts franchise in New York will pay $290,000 to settle allegations of sexual harassment brought by female employees. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the female employees, alleged that a male manager routinely engaged in unwanted touching and hugging of young female workers -- some of whom were as young as 16 or 17 years old.

Although the store manager was fired at the time the EEOC filed its lawsuit, store management allegedly permitted him to continue harassing employees for two years after some employees first complained. As a result of the settlement, the Dunkin' Donuts franchise will pay the victims $290,000 in compensatory damages, agree to a six year consent decree that requires the appointment of an equal employment opportunity coordinator and for all employees and managers to undergo sexual harassment training and prevention. Commenting on the settlement, EEOC trial attorney Adela Santos stated that "sexual harassment is never acceptable, but it is especially troubling when the victims are teenagers."

The problems encountered by the Dunkin' Donuts franchise in this case could have easily been avoided by taking the allegations of sexual harassment, when they were first made, seriously. Smart business owners realize that an uncontrolled employee that engages in sexual harassment not only destroys the morale of the entire workforce but can destroy the business as well.

At Cohen & Padda, partner Ruth Cohen is an aggressive advocate on behalf of victims of sexual harassment. Commenting upon this settlement, Ms. Cohen stated that the business in question committed a costly mistake when it deliberately failed to consider the concerns of its female employees. Ms. Cohen stated "Sexual harassment is like a virus, if left unchecked and unaddressed, it will infect and destroy the entire office atmosphere." She further added, "there is no reason for victims to remain silent in the face of sexual harassement, speaking out is actually doing the business a favor before things get out of hand and result in costly settlements."