Sacramento firm helps women reach $3.25M settlement
Court Alerts
The city of Modesto has agreed to pay $3.25 million to settle allegations of sex discrimination, harassment and retaliation filed by a Sacramento law firm on behalf of three female employees.
The settlement was confirmed by Stanislaus County Superior Court Judge Roger Beauchesne on Monday. The women were represented by Susan Kirkgaard, a trial attorney at Diepenbrock Harrison who specializes in employment law.
City employees Karin Rodriguez, Jocelyn Reed and Debra Eggerman alleged that high-level managers in the city created a workplace that discriminated against and was hostile to women.
The women complained they were denied promotions and pay equal to their male counterparts, in violation of state law. When they reported the problems to city officials, the city did nothing to stop the discrimination and harassment; instead retaliating against them, the women alleged.
"Unfortunately, gender disparity has historically been a systemic problem within the city," Kirkgaard said in a prepared statement. "During the time we have been fighting this war, we have seen the city attorney, city manager and a number of deputy directors leave the city's employment -- and I believe it to be caused in part by the claims we were raising."
The city settled the case to avoid complex and protracted litigation, said litigation counsel Shelline K. Bennett. The city did not admit liability.
"This resolution provides an opportunity to conclude a difficult chapter so that the organization can move forward," city manager George Britton said in a prepared statement.
Related listings
-
Insider trading trial of former Qwest CEO starts
Court Alerts 03/19/2007[##_1L|1191734510.jpg|width="90" height="119" alt=""|_##]The US District Court for the District of Colorado began jury selection Monday in the trial of former Qwest Communications CEO Joseph Nacchio. Nacchio was indicted on 42 counts of insider tradi...
-
U.S. Supreme Court to decide Alaska case
Court Alerts 03/17/2007[##_1L|1080082489.jpg|width="104" height="138" alt=""|_##]The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in the case of Joseph Frederick, the Alaska high school student who was suspended for displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. Other cases involvin...
-
Detroit Man Sentenced for Child Prostitution
Court Alerts 03/16/2007[##_1L|1024039944.jpg|width="120" height="107" alt=""|_##]Robert Lewis Young of Detroit was sentenced today to 25 years in federal prison for running a criminal operation prostituting adults and children, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.