If you’ve been the victim of discrimination, harassment or retaliation in your employment in California, visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

Despite the economy and the current economic condition of the State of California, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the EEOC and the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) division of the Department of Industrial Relations still advise California labor attorneys that they have the resources to investigate complaints.

Employees who have signed arbitration agreements or who have received threats of legal action if they file a claim with any of these agencies should first contact a California labor lawyer but should also note that the State of California and the Federal Government generally will not recognize such restrictions on California and U.S. employees. Indeed, attempts to restrict employees from having government agencies investigate wrongdoing by employers may undergo severe scrutiny.

Generally, valid waivers of rights must specifically refer to the rights or claims that are being waived. They may not generally waive rights or claims that may arise in the future without additional language. And they must advise the individual in writing to consult an attorney before signing the waiver.

The position of the EEOC, for instance, is that even a valid waiver of rights by an employee does not affect the EEOC’s rights and responsibilities to enforce the law. While a valid arbitration agreement may require arbitration between an employee and an employer, it does not bar the EEOC from seeking judicial relief on behalf of an employee.

Indeed, retaliation against an employee after she reports harassment or discrimination by terminating the employee, and then a company’s further retaliation either by threatening legal action or by termination may constitutes a separate claim on top of the original claim for harassment or discrimination. Unfortunately, employees without the benefit of counsel from a California labor lawyer may be taken in by such threats.

Both the DFEH, the EEOC may handle a discrimination, harassment and retaliation claim and the DLSE/DIR’s Sacramento office which enforces retaliation laws, may act simultaneously, so long as the matters are timely filed with each agency within the appropriate statutes of limitations.

With the DFEH, once the employee or ex-employee makes an appointment to start the process, the wheels will begin turning but the statute of limitations is not tolled until a complaint is filed by the employee. With the EEOC, once the employee files an intake questionnaire and an affidavit describing the discrimination, the filing requirement will be met with the EEOC, after which the EEOC will notify the employer of the filed charge. After the EEOC receives the charge, they are obligated to conduct an investigation and they have the power to issue subpoenas in connection with their investigation. If the EEOC finds unlawful discrimination, they have the power to eliminate such unlawful practices. Even an enforceable agreement binding an employee to arbitrate disputes with the employer does not affect the EEOC’s power to sue the employer to enjoin further violations. Nor does it bar the EEOC from seeking victim-specific relief, including money damages.

If the EEOC is unable to secure a conciliation agreement with an employer within 30 days after a charge is filed, the EEOC may file a civil action against the employer and may seek temporary or permanent relief.

If the DFEH decides to pursue a matter themselves, they may issue an accusation and prosecute the claim before the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC). Like the EEOC, the DFEH has the power to issue subpoenas, take depositions and serve written interrogatories. If they find a violation, they will seek to eliminate it.

The DFEH has the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders, and to award reinstatement, backpay, front pay, emotional damages, and an administrative fine. The amount of that fine is determined by factors which include willful, intentional or purposeful conduct, refusal to prevent or eliminate discrimination, conscious disregard for the rights of employees, commission of unlawful conduct, intimidation or harassment, conduct without just cause or excuse and multiple violations of the FEHA.

While the amount awarded for emotional distress may not exceed $150,000 for each person, an additional amount of $150,000 may be awarded for intimidation. The FEHC may also award reasonable attorney fees, including expert witness fees to the prevailing party. However, the award to the prevailing party is discretionary and the courts generally do not require a losing plaintiff to pay the employer’s California labor attorney’s fees and costs.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color, as well as national origin, sex and religion. It applies to employers with 15 or more individuals. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual, even if that discrimination is prompted by the racially motivated actions of other employees.

Title VII prohibits offensive conduct that is unwelcome and offensive, and that is severe or pervasive. Employers are required to take appropriate steps to prevent and correct unlawful harassment. Employers may not fire or otherwise retaliate against or take an adverse action against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination.

Adverse actions include an action taken to try to keep someone from opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an employment discrimination proceeding. Prohibited acts of retaliation can occur after termination and receive the same scrutiny by the DFEH whether they occur before or after termination.

Protected activities of employees include complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or others, taking part in employment discrimination proceedings, and filing a charge of employment discrimination.

While the amount of damages that can be awarded for compensatory and punitive damages recoverable under Title VII go up to only $300,000 against companies with 501 or more employees, there are no such limits under the FEHA. Even under Title VII, damages for emotional distress may be awarded. Title VII specifically authorizes compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1991, neither compensatory nor punitive damages were recoverable under Title VII. By contrast, both types of damages were and are available under the FEHA. Punitive damages are also now available against nongovernmental entities under Title VII for cases of intentional employment discrimination, including cases proved by disparate treatment where the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual. The standard is similar with the FEHA.

One of the recurring themes employers use to justify the termination of an employee they have harassed or discriminated against to California labor lawyers, is that the termination was part of a planned reduction in employees. However, under the law, even if good cause exists for a reduction in force, an employer’s decision to lay off certain employees while retaining others may be challenged by a California labor attorney under applicable anti-discrimination laws. A case involving just this situation receiving a great deal of national publicity involves the lay offs of a disproportionate number of women from Wall Street institutions.

Employers are bound by state laws that provide greater protection for employment than comparable federal laws, which is the reason most employment claims are filed with the FEHA.

When it comes to harassment and retaliation, the California constitution prohibits harassment based upon factors which include race, color, sex, national or ethnic origin. Discrimination based on physical or mental disability, marital status, a medical condition (including pregnancy and child birth) and sexual orientation is also prohibited. The FEHA also requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.

With the DFEH, the interviewing consultant drafts a formal complaint. If the complaint is accepted for investigation, the complaint is also filed with the EEOC. After the DFEH issues an accusation, the DFEH may litigate the case in a public hearing before the Fair Employment and Housing Commission. If emotional distress damages or administrative fines are sought, the employee can have the case moved to a civil court. If the case is moved to court, the DFEH prosecutes, but the complainant is the real party in interest.

Government codes section 12965(b) requires that individuals must exhaust their administrative remedies with the DFEH by filing a complaint and obtaining a “right-to-sue notice” from the Department before filing a lawsuit. The DFEH, however, will accept requests for an immediate “right-to-sue-notice” from persons and from their California labor lawyers for clients who have decided to proceed in court. A DFEH complaint must be filed within one year from the last act of discrimination or you may lose your right to file a lawsuit.

Once a “right-to-sue-notice” is received from the DFEH, the employee has one year to file a civil lawsuit. Failure to do so may again cause you to lose your right to sue.

Common mistakes by harassment victims are not telling the person doing the harassment to stop, not documenting the harassment by that person, not reporting the harassment to your superiors, not making sure the employer is taking action to end the harassment, not obtaining medical or psychological help when needed, not realizing that retaliation is illegal, accepting the word of your employer that you do not have a case for harassment or discrimination, not filing a DFEH, EEOC or DLSE/DIR complaint within the time allowed, not having an attorney assess whether any arbitration agreement is binding, and not consulting with an attorney.

A complaint to the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be made within 180 days from the date of the incident. This period, however, is extended to 300 days if the employee also files a complaint with the DFEH. Complaints of discrimination commonly include discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, sexual orientation and retaliation or reprisal. That time period, however, can be reduced to as little as 30 days after a complainant receives notice that a state agency such as the DFEH has terminated its processing of a charge. It is thus best to contact the EEOC immediately whenever discrimination is suspected because of its short statutes of limitations.

In addition, many governmental agencies require that for an employee or applicant for employment to preserve their rights under EEO laws, they must contact an EEO Counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. There are exceptions and grounds for extending this period, but neither a complainant nor his or her California labor attorney does not want to be in a position to be having to argue those grounds as the complaint may be deemed too late to be accepted.

Once a complaint is filed with the EEOC, if the EEOC finds substantial evidence of discrimination, it will file a lawsuit. If the EEOC does not find sufficient facts to support the complaint, it dismisses the complaint and issues a “right to sue” letter to the complaining party. A lawsuit must then be brought by the complaining party within 90 days of receiving the Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.

A much less publicized and less known agency, even among California labor attorneys in the State of California at which complaints for retaliation and discrimination can be filed is with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). An employee or job applicant alleging violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner must file a complaint with the DLSE within six months of the adverse action. Adverse actions include unlawful discharge, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay or hours, refusal to hire or promote and other actions. There are, however, some exceptions to the 6-month deadline, but again, it is best to file a complaint as soon as possible to ensure that it is timely.

Filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner does not prevent a person or their California labor lawyer from filing a private lawsuit.

Visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us if you have been the victim of harassment, discrimination or retaliation in your employment in California.

Finally, an employee or job applicant who alleges retaliation for having complained about a workplace health or safety issue has the right to file a concurrent complaint with the federal OSHA within 30 days of the occurrence of the adverse action.

The juvenile lawyer is special in that, in addition to a degree in law, the lawyer must possess a vast amount of patience and a fine understanding of the thought patterns of teens and other children. The reasons for this are simple. Children, like their older models, adults, lie. While it’s generally more transparent when a juvenile is being dishonest, there are often extenuating circumstances for such deception, usually involving protecting a friend or family member from incarceration, and thus emboldening the child to maintain the lie at all costs.

For this reason, juvenile lawyers have the added task of determining whether their client is the true culprit, or if he or she was influenced by an adult or an older child.
Further, the arrest itself is important. It is of great importance that the police follow proper procedure in all arrests. Due to the nature of arresting a youth, many police while polite, will often violate the legal rights of a child, feeling that a child is beneath such understanding or need of such procedure. It is the duty of the juvenile lawyer, subsequently, to determine if procedure was followed correctly, and if not, to document this and prove it in a court of law.

Moreover, sometimes getting at the truth is more than just sifting through a pile of police reports and ruminating upon the tangled cobweb of data. It is with the art of the interview where the juvenile lawyer either shines or falls flat on her face. This includes speaking not only with police officers, hospital personnel, witnesses, and other relevant people, but especially with discussing the situation with the child in question.

This involves not only gleaning information about the case from the youth, but comforting him or her, while at the same time explaining the legal situation in terms the child can understand. In some cases, juvenile lawyers have had to explain the law in simplified terms for the minds of children as young as 9 or 10 years of age.
It is no easy task, yet the juvenile lawyer also gains great joy when she can aid her clients successfully.

 

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the first bill signed into law by the President paving the way for these lawsuits to require that equal pay be given to women, by way of seeking back pay awards for the difference they were paid and what men were paid for the same work.

 

If you have been discriminated against in your employment in California by receiving less pay for the same work performed by persons of the other gender, even though the statute of limitations has been extended by this Act, you still need to speak with a women’s rights lawyer or an employment attorney as soon as possible.

 

If you are a woman and you’ve been receiving less pay than men are receiving for the same work from the same employer, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

 

Prior to the Act becoming law, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, women were required to file suit within 180 days after first being paid unfairly, even if the discrimination of being paid less than male workers in the same jobs continued.

 

And if a woman failed to discover that male workers were being paid more for the same work, a woman still could not hold her employer accountable if she didn’t learn of the unfairness and take action within 180 days of first being paid the lesser rate.

 

Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 signed into law by President Obama, the statute of limitations of 180 days starts with each discriminatory paycheck, rather than when the employer starts to discriminate. So long as a woman in CA files her claim within 180 days of receiving any discriminatory paycheck, not just the first one, she is considered timely in bringing her claim.

 

An important aspect of the Act is that the effective date of the Act is retroactively set at May 28, 2007, which will allow it to apply to all compensation discrimination claims that have been filed on or after that date.

 

Women can sue for back pay awards for up to two years before she files her employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair Pay Act of 2009 does not change the two-year back pay limit.

 

The Fair Pay Act is a major victory for women in California who have long been discriminated against in the pay they receive for the same work that men perform and are paid substantially more in many places. It has been determined that women have been earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This Act will likely go a long way in addressing that unfairness, although it will likely require a good many lawsuits to hammer this home to employers who discriminate against women in their pay guidelines.

 

With the signing of this Act into law, initial victories in CA against an employer will likely lead to settlement of other lawsuits for co-employees who have been discriminated against in the same manner by the same employer.

 

Those who would say that the Act will lead to the employment of less women in such positions by employers fearful of such lawsuits simply don’t understand the anti-discrimination laws in this country and the greater risk employers would be taking if they adopted such a discriminatory stance in their hiring practices.

 

Even with the retroactive effect of the Act, employers in California may be slow to increase the salaries and hourly rates of their women employees until lawsuits begin to fly. Employers who have previously gotten away with discriminating against women in CA may only react in more numbers when they begin to feel the full weight of the law themselves or see large judgements against other employers who have discriminated against women.

 

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have been discriminated in your pay from an employer in California based on your being a woman, compared with the pay received by men for the same work

 

The votes in favor of the bill in the Senate included every Democratic senator except Senator Edward Kennedy who was absent because of his health, and all four Republican women senators. Every Republican male senator except Arlen Spector voted against it. If that won’t come back to haunt the Republicans in the next election, it is hard to imagine what else they will do to alienate themselves more from the women’s vote.

 

Under the Act, an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits or other compensation is paid.

If you have a legal issue involving art, antiquities or have a claim to a maritime shipwreck, sunken or buried treasure under California, martitme, or international law, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

Maritime Shipwreck Treasure

Recently, a number of prized shipwrecks have been found, one as recently as February 2009 when a U.S. salvage company, Odyssey Marine Exploration found a prized British warship believed to be the HMS Victory, lost in 1744, which just may hold four tons of gold. The HMS Victory discovery may solve one of the most intriguing naval mysteries in history. Why did this ship with one of the most famous admirals of his time, disappear with a crew of 1,100 men with one of the largest shipments of gold and silver, including four tons of gold coins, and why has it eluded treasure hunters for so long?

Believed sunk near the Channel Islands by a fierce storm that separated the Victory from other ships that broke through a French blockade at Lisbon and were returning home, the Victory (a later version which would be commanded by Admiral Nelson) had the sons of some of Britain’s most influential families on board when it sunk with perhaps the largest collection of bronze cannon as well.

In a less important find of another English shipwreck, Odyssey negotiated a deal whereby it received 80 percent of the first $50 million salvaged, and then a sliding scale up to $500 million, after which the profits were split 50-50. Since that time, however, the British government adopted a set of UNESCO guidelines that will complicate any hope of a similar arrangement.

Two years earlier, the same company, Odyssey, located the mystery ship, the Black Swan” believed to be a Spanish galleon, the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes y las Animas, that sank off the coast of Portugal, with seventeen tons of gold and silver coins.

The Spanish government has sued Odyssey in a Florida federal court on the basis that it never abandoned the shipwreck. One could say, they simply lost it for a few hundred years. The British government is believed to be negotiating with Odyssey about a collaboration to salvage the warship.

Maritime Shipwreck Treasure Law

What’s important in sunken treasure cases is where the treasure is found, whether the ship was owned by a government or a private entity, and whether there has been any dishonest conduct by the treasure hunters.

Most countries and their maritime lawyers claim anything to be within 12 nautical miles from their coast as their territorial waters. Additionally, if the ship was owned by the state or government, Law of the Sea Conventions come into play, which again allow the state or foreign country to determine what compensation the treasure hunter is entitled to. Finally, if the treasure hunter or salvage company has been guilty of any fraud or dishonest conduct, they can be deprived of any or all of any payment due them. Entering a foreign state’s territorial waters to look for a sunken ship counts as such misconduct.

International Maritime Law and The Law of the Sea

Under international maritime law and the law of the sea, if an owner abandons a vessel, it can be claimed by the finder. When a vessel has not been abandoned, it can still be salvaged by the finder and is usually compensated by the sovereign state claiming ownership. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 encourages cooperation between sovereign governments and states and private entities.

The rule of “finders, keepers” applies only where the previous owner of a ship is found to have abandoned its property. Under various state laws, treaties and conventions, however, the positions taken by most governments, including the U.S., is that the state only abandons its sovereignty over, and title to, sunken U.S. warships by affirmative act. Mere passage of time or lack of positive assertions of right are insufficient to establish such abandonment. Thus, France’s claim with respect to the Griffin (or Griffon) that it never abandoned its interests in the ship.

Sorting out these competing claims can take awhile. In 2001, the Great Lakes Exploration LLC found a 17th Century ship, the Griffin, in northern Lake Michigan, near Wisconsin. One might think that Michigan or Wisconsin would have good claim to the ship. But just in January 2009, France filed papers with the court hearing the case that claims the ship expedition was undertaken on behalf of the French Crown and was not a private enterprise.

The Richest Shipwreck Ever Found

And then, just when you thought the scale of these discoveries could not be topped, they have been, at least monetarily, with the discovery of a British merchant ship, sunk by a Nazi submarine, that was transporting just goods from a European port, to the U.S. with repayment to the U.S. Treasury for the Lend-Lease Program that gave support to the Allied war effort. And what was this ship, code named the Blue Baron carrying? Just the world’s richest shipwreck cargo ever. The ship is thought to have been carrying a $3.7 billion cargo of gold, platinum and diamonds.

Believed to have been found about 40 miles off the coast of Guyana by Sub Sea Research, a U.S.-based marine research and recovery firm, the shipwreck will be the richest find ever. It was reportedly carrying at least ten tons of gold bullion, 70 tons of platinum, one and a half tons of industrial diamonds and 16 million carats of gem quality diamonds.

So far, no counter claims have been filed in the federal admiralty court case relating to the find, but it is likely that a number of countries may make claims to possessions on board that originated in those countries, including Russia which, like Britain, shipped large quantities of precious goods to the U.S. in payment for the war effort by the U.S. The question for historians who may have some influence in this case, is whether the Soviet Union paid subsequently for the Lend-Lease war effort after the ship was sunk.

Stolen Art and Antiquities Law

The law with respect to stolen art as opposed to lost shipwrecks is quite different, but no less complicated. Some countries view the movement of stolen works of art as the smuggling out of its country of a “national treasure,” even if it was previously, privately owned. Other countries view the contents of tombs and other relics to be the property of the state and their taking as “theft.” Another view of situations in which a work of art is previously owned by one person and then appears in the collection of another, is viewed as a further variation of theft. In this last variation, most legal systems provide protection to the bona fide purchaser, unless the property is stolen.

Unfortunately, the laundering of stolen works of art is facilitated by the lack of consistency of state laws and international law, statutes of limitations, the bona fide purchaser defense and the burden of proof on the person claiming that the art work was stolen.

Under a common law rule in Anglo-American law, a person cannot give what he or she does not have. Thus, a thief cannot convey good title to a stolen work of art, even where there have been several subsequent purchases by bona fide and unsuspecting persons acting in good faith. However, the vast majority of western countries with civil law systems accord protection to the purchaser in good faith of stolen art. While there are international treaties and conventions which are gaining supporters, for the most part, it has been said that international law on the illegal sale of art works and cultural treasures is not retroactive.

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have an issue involving stolen art or any art issue, maritime shipwreck sunken treasure, or with regard to international or cultural antiquity treasures.

The FBI now maintains a National Stolen Art File (NSAF) which is a computerized index of stolen art and cultural property reported to the FBI by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and the world. The primary goal of the NSAF is to serve as a tool to assist investigators in art and cultural artifact theft cases and to function as an analytical database providing law enforcement officials with information concerning art theft.

It has been reported that the trade in illegal art and antiquities in the U.S. is exceeded only by the trade of guns and drugs. It is believed that most of the stolen art in the world (over 100,000 objects since the 1980s) comes to London or to the U.S. with much of it bought secretly by persons for their private collections, for a fraction of their market value.

If you need legal assistance in connection with any type of art, treasure or antiquity, look to our California art, antiquity, maritime and international law firm for representation in the U.S. and throughout the world.

Myriad states have been under serious pressure to lower the thresholds for evidentiary prosecution and to raise the bar in regards to ramifications and punishments. Activist groups like SADD and MADD have for many years led the charge for reform and are no longer small groups with a weak cry. In fact, they are well organized and well funded. The type of resources they wield equates to political clout.

It is no secret that politicians whether incumbents or those up for first time election make DUI reform part of their political platform. This is despite opposition by civil rights groups who will argue that many of the changes border on violations of civil rights. Many of the tactics and procedures being used in the majority of the United States by police officers and sheriff departments have been characterized as being Draconian and at minimum onerous.

The opposition has achieved little traction in their efforts to dilute widespread reform as it is has become clearly politically incorrect to appear to condone drunk driving especially when so many states can tout death rates due to alcohol related accidents diminishing at an unprecedented rate. These statistics have been the impetus to quickly attract some of the states that were lagging in DUI reform.

Some states have actually initiated test programs whereby under specific circumstances if a police officer who senses a motorist may be intoxicated to the point they exceed the legal limit (in most states is .08 for Blood Alcohol Content), then the motorist is subject to immediate imprisonment if they do not agree to a field chemical test. The motorist in some scenarios is then taken to the police station whereby a round the clock rotating judge system awaits them. It could be adjudicated that a blood sample be drawn voluntarily or involuntarily.

If the above sounds over the top to you, you are by no means in the minority. Few individuals realize that the majority of states require a series of implied concessions to receive a driver’s license in their state. You have agreed to many of the procedures and potential consequences as a predicate to the issuance of your license.

These laws are sometimes referred to as a violation of the state’s per se laws. In addition, most states are now moving to what is called an actual physical control state. This means any individual, not just the driver, may be prosecuted. The law stipulates that an individual must have exclusive physical power and present ability to operate, move, park or direct whatsoever a motor vehicle.

Types of DUI laws can be complex and confusing. If a person is asleep or simply sitting in a motor vehicle they may be guilty of DUI. It is critical that you research and hire a quality DUI attorney. Do not settle for deals or vague promises of success. The cold truth is that the prosecution is not looking to find you innocent. A skilled and experienced DUI attorney is paramount in order to have a chance for a positive outcome.

Businesses such as petroleum products –a global economy driving factor- need special legal and business expertise. All business legal solutions under one roof might relieve the pain of finding specialties in every legal issue.

Al-Khalifa- legal is such a business oriented legal service provider for all businesses in and around UAE. Understanding the need of specialization

In complicated legal business advice it has deployed specialties for each segment.

We have legal experts who can empathize with you and an eye for details.

You can go for specialties in Administrative law, criminal and penal, International sales of goods, Project financing, Arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, Islamic banking and Islamic project financing, Real estate and construction, Banking and finance, Information technology and ecommerce, Investment banking, Restructuring and corporate Recovery, Commercial, Insurance, Labor and employment, Taxation and financial structuring, Competition, regulation and trade, Intellectual property, copyrights and multimedia litigation, Corporate, International offshore incorporation, Maritime, aviation and transport.

If you have been the victim of discrimination toward Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans, visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

While America has always stood for being a country with diverse ethnic cultures that make us great, the fear is that those who have the least, may suffer the most in this economic downturn as unemployment rises and jobs, even those that were previously unwanted, now become a precious commodity.

At the Law Firm of R. Sebastian Gibson, California Hispanic, Latino and Mexican-American Discrimination Lawyer, Sebastian Gibson has always stood for the protection of the civil rights of everyone living in the U.S. We fight for the rights of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans to be treated with the same respect and the protections afforded to them under the law as every one else should be in America. And we are concerned that in these uncertain times, Hispanic, Latino and Mexican-American families do not become the object of discrimination when we should all be pulling together to help each other in times of need.

While African-Americans in this country have for many decades, always suffered the most unemployment, Hispanics and Latinos are not far behind. And while African-Americans can now look to President Obama as an inspiration to what a person can do of any race, Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans as well as other minorities, still suffer from discrimination in the work place and in daily life.

Instead of becoming a society where the rich cultures of Hispanics and Latinos are shared with other cultures in America, too much of the country remains segregated where Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans either choose to live or can only afford to live where the majority of their citizens are concentrated in parts of cities away from where Caucasians, African-Americans or other minorities live. There are many causes of discrimination, all of which are idiotic, but the less interaction different cultures have, the more likely it is there will be discrimination by those who do not relate to each other.

Studies have found that nearly three in every ten Hispanic workers feel they have been discriminated against in their employment. Some report being referred to with racial slurs at work while one in four feel they are paid less and have reduced career advancement prospects than their Caucasian counterparts. In many organizations, there is a scarcity of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans in management positions.

FBI statistics show a dramatic increase in anti-Hispanic hate crimes. And sadly, hate groups are increasing due to anti-illegal immigration concerns.

One would have thought that as a result of this situation, that there would be a flood of civil rights advocates and anti-discrimination lawyers fighting for the rights of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans. Yet, that is not the case.

A symbol of discrimination to many Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans is the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border fence which is actually several separation barriers designed to prevent illegal movement of goods and people across the U.S. and Mexico border.

The U.S.- Mexico border fence is reportedly nearing completion as this article is being written in March 2009. While much of the purported reasoning for the multi-billion dollar fence was based on preventing the entry of terrorists into the country, many feel that reasoning is flawed while our border with Canada remains open. While the efforts have also been aimed at stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S. a secondary effort is to prevent the flow of weapons bought in the U.S. and smuggled into Mexico.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said that even the fence will not stop illegal immigration along the border with Mexico, although it may help prevent those who are crossing illegally from blending immediately into some town populations. However, the fence is not continuous and where there are gaps, surveillance technology must be utilized. And then, there remains the fear that tunnels will be used even more extensively than in the past.

Over forty tunnels have been found since 2001 and some have been extremely sophisticated. One such tunnel from Tijuana to San Diego was half a mile long, sixty to eighty feet deep, and eight feet tall. It had drainage, electricity and a concrete floor, and its entrance from the California side was in a modern warehouse. The entrance to the tunnel in Mexico was in another building.

It should be noted that the border with Mexico is 1,951 miles in length. The fence that is reportedly nearing completion was only completed for approximately 600 miles in February 2009, when news reports came out that the fence was nearly finished.

As a result of the construction of the barrier, there has now been an increase in the number of people trying to cross in such areas as the Sonoran Desert and over the Baboquivari Mountain in Arizona where no fence exists. This requires crossing 50 miles of inhospitable terrain to reach the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation, which many fear may lead to an increase in migrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border if the smugglers try these more difficult routes.

In the last thirteen years, there have been around five thousand migrant deaths along the border. The U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector reported on October 15, 2008 that its agents saved 443 illegal aliens from almost certain death after being abandoned by their smugglers. Without the efforts of these border patrol agents, many more deaths would have occurred and may occur in the future.

The U.S.-Mexico border fence has been controversial, to say the least, since its inception. It has been condemned by the government of Mexico and opposed by many in the U.S. as well. Tribal lands of three American Indian Nations will be divided by the border fence and the campus of the University of Texas at Brownville will be divided into two parts according to a vice president of the university. A section of the barrier was even mistakenly built inside Mexican territory requiring its removal and rebuilding at a cost of over three million dollars.

Visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us if you have been the victim of discrimination toward Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans.

There is no excuse for discrimination in America. If you have been the victim of discrimination against Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans, call California Civil Rights Lawyer Sebastian Gibson for a consultation.