cindy o'hara/abogada, eeoc 26:30:00 es un caso muy claro para nosotros que es una violación de la ley de igualdad en el trabajo dice que la ley de discapacitado s prohibe la discriminacin por padecimientos mdicos, y demand a walgreens alegando que la empresa despedi a hernndez sabiendo que se haba comido los chips por su enfermedad.. s.o.t. cindy o'hara/abogada, eeoc 26:52:00 es tan obvio para mi que deberían de dejarla comer para mantener su azucar, porque qué quisieran ellos que se desmaya ahí mismo cuando está trabajando, es absurdo.. en un comunicado escrito, un portavoz de walgreens le dijo a telemundo que an cuando suelen no comentar sobre litigios, parece que en la fecha del incidente, la empleada no cit su diabetes como la razn por haberse comido los chips antes de pagar por ellos.. s.o.t. josefina 10:42:00 mi patrona de 12 años, ella sabía que yo tenía diabetes.. s.o.t. o'hara/abogada eeoc 26:10:00 es una sorpresa para nosotros porque además walgreens como es una farmacia uno supondria que debieran de saber cuales son los problemas y como la persona tiene que mantener su azuc

but i think the eeoc should appeal. and i think it needs to go back for further consideration. >> there may be an appeal f. there's a higher court, there may be an appeal. let's talk about the next case. this is my saifrt case of the day, the bad mothering case. two adult children, 20 and 23 years old out of illinois sue their mother for $50,000 for pain and suffering saying that she didn't give the son christmas presents. she moved in with a man and the daughter was so distraught she gained a significant amount of weight. i understand where that's distressing but is there a legal case here, richard? >> no. apparently in illinois, if you can prove extreme and outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress, you can bring a lawsuit for this in illinois. but this case is absolutely ridiculous. these two kids need a good kick in the ass, really. this is nothing but spoiled brats. they're in their 20s. their father's a lawyer. he's promoting it. he's bringing it. it's ridiculous. >> you do have to ask yo

most frequently people are coming to the eeoc with issues related to accommodations but harassment is something covered by the americans with disabilities act and if somebody is experiencing comments or inappropriate behavior or it could be images based on a disability, then that is something that is covered and that certainly we would like to hear about. >> but it is difficult to prove. >> it can be difficult to prove. as with all forms of discrimination. and there are ways to help somebody to arm themselves. one is to take notes. to keep a diary when something happens. but the best way is to raise the issue with the employer immediately once somebody is beginning to harass you. >> what if you actually had done all of that, took your notes, kept your diary and things like that and you still got laid off? >> if you still got laid off, then that's the time to come and talk to somebody at the equal employment opportunity commission and we can try to assist you. and certainly not every case results in a favorable resolution to the employee, but that's what we are there for. we are the fe

reporter: well, walgreens is not talking tonight, but the main plaintiff inside this lawsuit filed by the eeocs. >> i want my job back. >> reporter: that's what she wants, the former walgreen's employee who worked as a cashier for 18 years was fired for allegedly eating chips to avoid a sudden drop in blood sugar. her attorney says she's diabetic. >> she reached for a piece of candy in her pocket, she didn't have one, so she grabbed a $1.39 bag of chips and ate some to avert an emergency. >> reporter: the assistant manager saw what happened. hernandez says she was suspended for three days. after that, she says she went on vacation and when she came back, she was pulled into the office and fired. hernandez says the reason -- >> for grabbing the chips, eating before i pay. >> reporter: hernandez said she did pay the $1.39 before leaving that day. a lawyer for the u.s. equal employment opportunity commission, the federal agency filed the lawsuit against walgreens because it believes it is a clear-cut case of discrimination. >> an employer has got an affirmative duty to accommodate people who have

and the first step towards that is finding a complaint with the eeoc. secondly, you know, i'd like to take a moment just to talk a little bit about the bright side of this, which we do face a headwind of intolerance in many cases, but we also face, you know, the universe where diversity is valued in government. it's valued in the private sector. it's valued in academia, and it's something which i think is an asset to our country, and and it's something that is a real blessing for us here in america. and it's not true in many other parts of the world that have similar demographics to the united states. and i think it's something we ought to be proud of. yes, there's absolutely work that needs to be done, and you know, as reverend king said, you know, and in justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, but let's not lose sight of, you know, the blessings of living in the united states and in the diverse society in which we live, where we can say a man by the name of barack hussein obama is the president of the united states. [applause] >> are there

. >> a federal government through eeoc now suing for violating the americans with disabilities act.it believes it acted lawfully. >> the woes continue for net flix. is there more trouble coming up for black berry maker? hi, emily. >> and this rivalry is heating up between hewlett-packard and oracle, again. bloomberg learned directors are worried about a hostile takeover bid from oracle. shares of hp plummeted by 47% under ousted ceo so hewlett-packard has armed itself by hiring goldman sacks to help defend the company from any possible moves by active investors. the question is will meg whitman engage or ignore larry ellison? we know ora cell may be interested in buying server and storage business but has no interest in the pc or printer business. and there is black berry maker research in motion spokesperson announced today the head of developer relations will leave the company in the coming weeks this after two other departures. separately we're in the tablet business may be losing steam. and saying rim alted -- halted production of the play book z in an e mail, rim says it remain

actually the eeoc has reported that the complaints they received about anti-muslim discrimination inhe workplace has been on the rise five years in a row. and when you look on the other side, you look at stats and polls that come out, for example, usa today gallup poll, the reports that 39% of americans said they favored requiring muslims, including american citizens, to carry special identification, a time poll showed one third of americans believed that muslims should be barred from running for president the united states. american citizens who otherwise would qualify. >> bill: all right. those are stats to bolster your argument. but i will point to the fact that in the economic realm, muslim americans doing pretty well. doing pretty well. >> i would live in america more than anywhere else. but we have an issue and we need to deal with this issue. >> bill: that's why we have you on the program, then people can make up their own mind and we don't want anybody to be anti-muslim. thank you for coming on. as "the factor" moves along, jesse watters and maxine waters together for the fir

ay >>hen it comolacks eeoc rats w>>re ihe is i cock herm an ce ehiocts w so. is d rm co. p zadusas mor. t eyave m bn bwashed. afr anme ranseyavee beenn b wa edbrai.ashe intoot b angr s eopeninded,eeot en ai hent cooiderg cngservative en de poino v ew. co ierav ceiveseatomee inw. of titav ve saomeitriol becset am sa nninfor e replinitri nomiections a nseative. inso ir is rustlin b ramiwashona gendiv pe le n i beis ont mded b ash pu ag splpe nei n >>de andson cpe r lpuooke apl ally >> c peso hmanke t hinks blylacks m no t ike h hnor bei tnk s bckblics. no anaccoeing orei j ic ancog j garafoloecau i black he ishy. ra lo >> hauman ne ila s shy pbay hn likys se of tse y because id es theik riste telsets othe ubcacae id es hepart conse rvat iveoemen oteub ca antea arty rt movement, cnseat eo thene se. ana ty peopov lenikrlnoveike t oth s e. keephe reism opee ep rovsmt. an so herman ce pvideov t. this gat o pp tuni so y hman e pn sayde l oo is thi g o ippni so sotoo hiraci antimantot ci a-gay movemant. lookwe he a ackan. >> gayd mem s gotressed up ok ha k or g cudrren t s gress

some companies have taken eeoc to court and they have had to pay attorneys' fees, $2.6 million in one case, two runs and $25,000 in attorneys' fees to another company. $225,000 in attorneys' fees to another company. this is the situation with the underlying cause of action is extremely for the list. courts rarely step in and did this. real money coming out of the taxpayers market. it comes out of the eeoc budget but out of the taxpayers' pockets, and it takes them away from legitimate cases it can be pursuing. we can talk about the law, statutes, and regulations but the murky area of enforcement often gets lost. you could at the best laws in the world but if you have an agency of using its discretion bigot be just as bad as a bad law. it costs employers real-time and money which takes away from their ability to create jobs. that is just a few cases. you could imagine a number of employers just confronted with an agency that they can't afford to fight and they are bludgeoned and sediment. we have seen similar action with contract compliance programs. i am just going to mention immigrat

you know that is a law which reinforces when it comes to public entities and it is a law which the eeocrces and i'm sure you effort about that earlier today. so you know it is a question of demanding that your rights are respected once you are aware of a violation and the first step towards that is filing a complaint with the eeoc. secondly, you know, i would like to take a moment just to talk a little bit about the bright side of this, which you know we do face a headwind of intolerance in many cases but we also face you know, a universe of -- where diversity is valued in government. it is valued in the private sector. it is valued in academia and it is something which i think is an asset to our country and it is something that is a real blessing for us here in america and it is not true in many other parts of the world that have similar demographics to the united states. i think it is something we have to be proud of and yes there is absolutely work that needs to be done and, as reverend king said, you know an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, but let's not lose si

why is this -- >> it's unclear because this office which essentially serves as the eeoc or the hr officeol hill has been pushing lawmakers to do this for years. >> okay. >> but, you know, just like everywhere else -- and this has always been the big complaint, it creates a lot more work, more paperwork, more red tape and why should they have to do it? for whatever reason, through the year, they have ignored the pleas to fix this problem, i think mostly on the belief that, you know, there aren't workplace issues up there. if you look at the numbers, just a fraction, not even really a fraction of hill staffers have reported complaints as far as discrimination or being passed over for promotion. you see most of these complaints are coming from congressional agency offices, the architect of the cop toll, the folks that keep the place in good working order, the capitol police which, of course, is their big law enforcement agency and other offices which sort of support the traditional congressional offices. >> that was my next big question. do they do this in secrecy? we really do want to help

>> well, the eeoc, which is in full, entitled to enforce american with disabilities act says yes.lly, before 2011 when the ada had some amendments to it, obesity was not protected so courts never really enforced that. i think it's too soon to tell whether it's a disability, but the eocs position learnsy is that it is a disability. >> are there any circumstances for which an employee could be fired for being too fat? >> you know, the issue is what most people are employees at will, right? they don't have employment contracts. they can be fired for no reason or any reason at all as long as it's not a discriminatory reason. so if being fat isn't a disability, then sure you can be fired for that reason or any reason. so, bottom line is it's too soon to tell, but the eoc's position is that if you're overweight, then you are disabled and an employer has to make a reasonable accommodation just as the way an employer would have to make an accommodation for someone who can't see or hear. >> it's an eye opener for sure. what about the company? what's their response? >> we got, we did get a

. >> but the thing is, it is not just that eeoc turned around and he drove to the site.the universe was telling him no, you can't and he was telling the universe, yes,ky. to strap on the gear. to run through the tunnel. to run with that kind of gear on all that way just to try to help his fellow human beings. did it surprise you at all? were even you floored to hear that story? >> i was floored to hear it because he is my brother and when we didn't know for sure how he got there but we had no doubt that he got there. >> how did you find out it was in that way? >> well, we went around to different firehouses and talked to different firefighters and he was seen at the tunnel running through. his truck was parked right at the entrance of the tunnel. as a matter of fact, somebody who comes to the run said that he saw him come up to a screeching halt, get out of his truck, calmly put his gear on and ran through the tunnels. >> there had to be that moment back ten years ago today when you obviously saw it was happening on the television and there had to be at least a moment of

some companies have taken eeoc to court and they have had to pay attorneys' fees, $2.6 million in one case, two runs and $25,000 in attorneys' fees to ather compa. $225,000 in attorneys' fees to another company. this is the situation with the underlying cause of action is extremely for the list. courts rarely step in and did this. real money coming out of the taxpayers market. it comes out of the eeoc budget but out of the taxpayers' pockets, and it takes them away from legitimate cases it can be pursuing. we can talk about the law, statutes, and regulations but the murky area of enforcement often gets lost. you could at the best laws in the world but if you have an agency of using its discretion bigot be just as bad as a bad law. it costs employers real-ti and money which takes away from their ability to create jobs. that is just a few cases. you could imine a number of employers just confronted with an agency that they can't afford to fight and they are bludgeoned and sediment. we have seen similar action with contract compliance programs. i am just going to mention immigration at s

know that is a low which law which we enforce when it comes to public entities and a law in which the eeoces and i'm sure you have heard about that earlier today. so you know it is a question of demanding that your rights are respected once you are aware of a violation and the first step toward that is filing a complaint with the eeoc. secondly, you know, i would like to take a moment just to talk a little bit about the bright side of this, which you know we do face a headwind of intolerance in many cases but we also face you know, a universe where diversity is valued in government and it is valued in the ear. it is valued in academia, and it is something which i think is an asset to our country and is something that is a real blessing for us here and it is not true in many parts of the world that have similar demographics to the united states. i think it is something we ought to be proud of. yes there is absolutely work that needs to be done and you know, as reverend king said, and injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, but let's not lose sight of you know, the blessings of