August 17, 2026 • 53 mins
Marjorie Mesidor the founder and chief visionary officer of Mesidor PLLC, which is a workplace discrimination law firm employment and workplace discrimination law firm dedicated to advancing justice, equity, and accountability in the workplace has a conversation with Angela Yee of WAY UP with Angela Yee on Building Black Biz in partnership with your local Toyota Dealers. Toyota, Let’s Go Places!
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
What's up his way up at Angela yee and my
girl Selena Hill is hanging out with me.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Yep, yep.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
I'm a journalist extraordinaire and we're really excited. We have
so many questions for you.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Today. We have Marjorie Mezzador here.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
She is the harassment slayer, but you're also the founder
and chief visionary officer of Mezzador PLLC, which is a
workplace discrimination law firm employment and workplace discrimination law firm
dedicated to advancing justice, equity, and accountability in the workplace.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Thank you for joining us today.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Man.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
We have so many things going on and so many
people call up for ask ye with questions when it
comes to you know, things that happen in the workplace
and how to go about it. And we know it's
something that's difficult for people to navigate.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
No, absolutely, I mean you would be surprised even when
people know they're being discriminated against. Just how uncomfortable that
people are even using the word discrimination. Right most of
the time when things are going on, they're like, oh,
this person has a personal problem with me. I don't
know what the issue is, I don't know why being
treated so differently. They'll run through the gamut of questions
(01:05):
all through their head and the very last thing that
they come up with this with is I think it's
because I'm a woman. I think it's because I'm black.
I think it's because I am not a Nate, I
am a foreign born national or something like that.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, And a lot of times we can feel powerless
to do anything about it. And it's interesting in this
dnage that we're in right now, Selena, you were just
covering a situation with Coca was this.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
Yeah, So, the EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against a
Coca Cola distributor for hosting a women only networking event.
The federal government is literally saying or claiming that this
company discriminated against men because they were not invited on
this retreat right, which was for you know, women's empowerment purposes.
(01:54):
So you know, my question is I want, as an
attorney who is working to protect underrepresented groups and historic,
historically marginalized groups, what are your thoughts on this? How
can both companies and these marginalized groups protect themselves when
in Trump's era, the federal government can actually sue for
(02:15):
something like.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
This, right, So a couple of different things. Right, First
and foremost, if a private company is putting forth programs
to push forth an agenda that helps their bottom line
that happens to align with gender or race or anything
like that, that is never going to be discriminatory in
(02:36):
and of itself. Right. So, if you if you are
tampaks and you are running you know, an empowerment group
for that, it's because you have you sell a product
that is directly geared toward women, right, that is going
to be otherwise helpful and beneficial to them. Where they
can run into tricky waters is because this particular administration
(03:00):
is putting this particular administration has taken a stance on DEI. Right,
that is that makes it like a four letter word,
a very very like de I is naughty. D I
is bad for this administration. They they see DEI and
putting forth and pushing for the agenda of one race
(03:22):
or one gender or one of them to be the same.
M So, because they just take a very cooker cutter
view of that, and they have the purse strings of
the federal government, they can weaponize. Right an agency like
the EEOC, and the EEOC only exists to investigate and
research any discrimination that takes places in places that have
(03:45):
fifteen or more employees. Okay, so because they have that
that that ability, they have that authority and that they
have that a power. If you have fifteen or more employees,
the EEOC can take a look at your policies, your procedures,
your DEI policies and say that, you know what, but
this doesn't align with what we think is appropriate or legal,
or any one of those things. So we're going to
(04:06):
investigate it. But what the EEOC does not have the
ability to do is declare it illegal just because they're investigating.
So none of the laws have changed. None of the
way that we look at the law that says that
when marginalized populations come together in order to create affinity
groups and to otherwise elevate agendas and the stuff that
(04:28):
in and of itself is not discriminatory, that has not changed.
But the government's ability to direct the EOC and say,
you know what, we're gonna we're not going to look
at these transgender issues anymore. We're going to focus on
just the DEI policies that are focused just for women
or just for people of color. Because we're calling that illegal, indiscriminatory,
(04:51):
even though they are saying that they can and they
can do that. They can go in and investigate and
they can make life very uncomfortable for Coco Cola. They
cannot declare it illegal though that only the law can do,
only the court can do. But they'll just make it uncomfortable.
And nobody wants the EOC in their backyard.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
And it's kind of like a warning for other companies too,
exactly when that happens, do you want to have to
deal with.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
All of this?
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Exactly? And this administration has been very effective by saying
by saying, we are going to throw our entire weight
and authority behind what we can do to make it
as uncomfortable for you as possible so that you can
do what we want you to do.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
And to Angela's point, like it's definitely setting our precedence
so that because we see a lot of companies are
no longer in acting DEI policies. But with the lawsuit,
they're saying the company violated Title seven of the Civil
Rights Act because men supposedly were not invited to this
women's retreat during work hours, during work hours, so they're
(05:58):
saying that's the case and I'm saying, like the pendulum
has definitely shifted because instead of protecting women, minorities, immigrants,
now it's like they're attacking them, and they're using the
same laws that were created to protect these groups now
to attack workers while they are on the job. Like,
(06:19):
how do we navigate that?
Speaker 2 (06:21):
So a few different things with this particular case, I
don't know like all the ins and outs of like
what kind of program it was under, what like how
they were able to otherwise nagle it, you know, before
or anything like that. But if the only criteria for
you to go to this retreat is your gender, then
that is discriminatory. If the only criteria only right, you're women,
(06:47):
you're a woman, you're in, your guy, you're out, that
on its face absolutely is discriminatory. However, right, a lot
of the programs that we're talking about, like the DEI programs,
the Infinity programs, a lot of them have to do
and invite anyone who is in support of anything that
(07:08):
is going to otherwise elevate support the cause of and
the issues of the affinity group so it doesn't become
a situation where it's only men versus women. This is
a woman's retreat for issues that are particularly important to women.
If you are a man and issues and issues are
of women are important to you, you are welcome to come. Right.
(07:31):
This is what makes it okay because it's not about
the setting up to who's invited and who's not based
on gender, but what is the platform, what is the
agenda here?
Speaker 1 (07:41):
We have International Women's Day here right now, and we
are doing all these different panels, and it specifically says
men are invited, right. They have to highlight that now
specifically says that right.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah. And then and then you have people who have
different philosophies about it. You'll have men who's like, you
know what, I'm a feminist too, I want to be
in the room and I want to help. And then
you'll have other men who will say, you know what,
this is a private space for women for them to
share and maybe in an intimate setting with only things
that they believe that other women would share. I'm going
to respect it, and I'm just going to refrain. But
(08:17):
you're invited, right. But you're invited right exactly, as long
as it's not a prohibition saying that you cannot come
because you are a male.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Yeah, man, this is just so much going on.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
I do want to know in this era right now
of what's going on. It's a lot of things have
been unprecedented, a lot of things have been rolled back.
How has your job and what you do for people?
What are the shifts that you've seen?
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Right? So, unfortunately, I'm busier than ever right And I
say that unfortunately because I would prefer not to be
doing this work. I would love if there was no discrimination,
no sexual harassment, and I was completely obsolete. That's actually
very much how our firm runs. We want to work
ourselves out of existence. But we are busier than ever
because now what people are doing is they're taking this
(09:07):
new anti DEI stance and they're using that to bolster
they're already existing prejudice and discrimination. So now they just
think that it's okay. They think that they're protected or
exactly they feel protected. And then on the other side,
those who are doing this work don't feel protected, right,
and they feel like they have to work on eggshells.
(09:30):
So that changes the level of aggression with which they
seek change. It changes with the type of programs that
they're putting forth and the kind of communities are that
they are supporting because everybody is running scared. So what
we're seeing is things like six hundred thousand black women
have been completely disenfranchised out of the workplace last year.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Absolutely, we're talking about that before you, right.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
So they're like, why is that? Why is that? Why
is that? You know, why is that the case? They're well,
let's look at it. Statistics say that black women are
the most educated demographic in the United States, So we're
if this is all truly based on a meritocracy, you
would find that the qualifications are there, the education and there.
Why is it in matching up? Because what people are
(10:17):
doing is because they are rolling back the support, the resources,
the financing, the head counts on these DEI programs. They're
doing that to a lot of the time. You'll find
that black women are the one and onlies right, they're
the one and only females in this, or they're the
one and only black person in this So as not
(10:37):
to rival the iriy of the administration, people are pulling
back those things too. So then what one after the other,
one after the other, Each one of these individuals are
ending up without a job under the excuse of the
temperature has changed the political climate has shifted. I cannot
tell you how many women who I have counseled who
have received letters that have literally said, the political climate
(11:00):
has shifted in regards to your blah blah blah, and
therefore we are going to be expending resources and X,
y and z on other things, on other things.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, you know, the most unqualified people work in our government.
It's crazy at that part, right, It's like because I
think they make it seem like DEI means it's unqualified
people in positions, when the two to the matter is
that for the bottom line, diversity with qualified people in
those positions is great for any company, and numbers reflect that, right,
(11:30):
And so that's what's really wild to me because it
doesn't mean that you're not qualified to.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Be there, absolutely all of that. The only thing that
d I really means is that you're going to be
taking a look at Yeah, that's all. You still have
to meet all the criteria for the job. It just
means that you're otherwise going to take a look at
you know what It's like, It's let's consider it like this.
The three of us are friends and we have a company,
and I say, Angela, who does your marketing? And you're like, oh,
(11:57):
I know so and so so and so does my marketing,
who does your whatever? And you're like, oh, so and so,
so and so does my security. These are people who
you have relationships with. It is not it wouldn't be
uncommon for the person who does your marketing to be
a person of color, or for the person who does
your security to be a female. And now we continue
to work and expand on our own, you know, based
(12:19):
on our own networks. This is what naturally happens. What
the I is forcing companies to say is like, you
know what, Angela, I can't just rely on your recommendation
for a marketing person or your recommendation for a security person.
We are three women of color already in this in
this in in in this company. We think there would
(12:39):
be value to have other voices, maybe different religions, maybe
different genders, maybe different raises, dispectives, with different perspectives that
we think that would be a value. So instead of
us just you know, kicking it to you know, the
one anybody who we have on our rollodecks, We're gonna
make a deliberate effort and reach out to as many
qualified marketing people, as many qualified security people as we can,
(13:02):
so that we can get a robust, you know, like
roster of individuals to look at so we can do
it the best way for you know, at the table,
that's all that DEI is saying. There is literally nothing
more than that. The only thing that inclusion does that's
a little bit more is it makes us always think
of other case in point, is this studio open on
(13:23):
Christmas Day on December twenty fifth?
Speaker 1 (13:26):
I think it is, Yeah, okay, bad example, And I'm
just like, but it wouldn't surprise.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Me if it was closed on Christmas Day, right, because
we live in the US and predominantly we are very
like Christian focused, like you know, around that focus. For
somebody who's Jewish, for somebody who's who's Muslim, for somebody
who's Buddhist, they have other holidays that they that they
don't get a day off. Yeah. So then you say,
you know, as inclusion, you know, as part of our
(13:57):
commitment to inclusion, we know bodhis you know, Buddhist holidays
exists and Jewish holidays exists. Instead of everybody just getting
off on Christmas, everybody has a floating holiday and whatever
religion or whatever they want to use it for. They
use it. If you know, if it's for Hanukkah, it's
for if it's for Duwali, whatever it is you use
it for. That's inclusion. That's just taking into considerate, into consideration.
(14:21):
You know what, there are other people besides.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Everybody is exactly right and this may.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
Be important to them. Let me take a look at.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
That, Marjorie. What got you into this particular specialty.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
I mean it kind of fell into my lap a
little bit. I when I was in law school, I
loved con law, constitutional law. I thought like all about
the civil rights movements and religious freedoms and all those
types of cases. I love those because I felt like
they touched everybody's like life in a way that was
(14:53):
really impactful and fundamental, and I could always get like,
really impassioned about it. But what really drives me in
this particular work is that I hate bullies. Yea, I
hate bullies. And because money makes the world go round,
(15:13):
and because money is what we use to feed our families,
to run our lifestyles, to pursue our dreams, our employers
are in a very unique position in our lives. They
hold a lot of power over us and don't get
me wrong. Not every employer is bad, right. There are
great employers who they work with their employees. They're like,
(15:35):
you know what, you bring something to us, we bring
something to you, and they make it balanced and fair.
But the overwhelming majority is that people are disproportionately you know,
imbalanced with their employers. And a lot of people abuse that,
and they abuse it by making people do things that
they know that they should not be they should not
be doing. They abuse it by taking credit for other
(15:58):
people's work, by diminishing other people's work. You know. Again,
if we went back to the you know, the company,
the fake company that we were starting, maybe Angela's like,
you know what, my marketing person is also my cousin,
so we got to hire her or him or whomever,
and we're going to bring them in. And I said,
but maybe your cousin doesn't know what they're doing, so.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
We're probably not right.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
So now we're going to use this other marketing company,
make them do all the work, pay them half the money,
and my cousin and then and there is the one
who's going to be reaping all the benefits. Right right,
This is just normal human dynamic.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
And sometimes people feel like it just is what it is.
This is corporate America.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Deal with it.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
And so the question is, how do people know when
it's an issue? Because I have to imagine that it is.
And I'm sure we've all been in situations that we
felt like there's something wrong here. When is it when
people come to you and sometimes people don't know is
this even a discrimination case?
Speaker 4 (16:56):
And I just I got a personal just to piggyback
off of that an employ there was a speaking of
that power dynamic an employer of mine. This isn't a past.
There was a person in power who hit on me right,
who made it very clear that they wanted to date me.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Right.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
I dismissed it, laughed it off, kept it moving. A colleague.
He did the same thing to a colleague. She reported
it because she felt unsafe and harassed. When is it
actual harassment? Because for me, I kind of felt like,
you know, let me just you know, brush his joker off.
So he's trying to shoot his shot. He isn't a
(17:35):
position of power, and I don't want to jeopardize anything.
So I was like, for in my mind, I was
just like, you know, it is what it is. But
she reported it and then did face some retaliation.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
So the answer to both of your questions, Number one
is you really have to trust your instincts and intuition.
There is something that I feel that everybody feels when
something's going on that just doesn't feel right. They may
not know what it is right. They may not be
able to call it. They may not be able to
say it's discrimination, it's sexual harassment or whatever. But the
(18:08):
moment that you feel that something is not right, you
should trust your instinct and watch it. That doesn't mean
as soon as you think something's wrong that you go
running too hr And here's the difference. You have the
autonomy right to decide what you are comfortable with and
what you are not okay. So when it comes to
discrimination and harassment, there are two parts that the law
(18:30):
looks at. It looks at objectively if it's harassing, and
then they look at subjectively if it's harassing. Right, let's
look at the subjective part. As women, we get hit
on a lot. And if you are comfortable standing your
(18:51):
ground and standing your nose and saying no and leaving
it at that, it may not offend you that somebody
even tried. Right, there are others who think this is
the workplace, and it's completely inappropriate because of this power
dynamic for you to ever even approach me, right and
that person and that person has the right in the
(19:12):
autonomy to do that too.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
M M.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
What makes it actually harassment is the lack of consent.
The fact that she was hit on and complained that
wouldn't have made it harassment, because if he asked the
question and she said no, and he accepted her no,
then it's then it's not harassment, right. But it's the
retaliation that came after she told them the no that
(19:37):
made this a wrong issue because she should not be
penalized right for saying her no.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
But it wasn't for saying no, is for reporting it right.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Yes, once it got reported and escalated, she felt like
there was retaliation when it came to just opportunities and
just like the tone, the way she.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Was treated, absolutely, absolutely, and all of that is one
hundred percent illegal. She can she cannot be punished for
reporting it. She was, she cannot be she cannot even
be punished for reporting it legitimately. But getting it wrong.
Let's say he wasn't even really hitting on her, and
she got it wrong completely complained to Hr they did
(20:17):
an investigation and he said, oh, I wasn't hitting on her,
and they found out whatever, he really wasn't hitting on her.
But then he's like, but oh, you're gonna complain to
me to HR, I got your number. That's still retaliation
so long as the person had a good faith belief
that what they were complaining about was legitimate, that it
was legitimately sexual harassment, legitimately discriminatory. Going back to your
(20:41):
question now, when you were talking about like, how do
I know, how do I know when it's the right
time to complain when it starts taking away things like
from your your money, your package, the kind of projects
you're being assigned to. You know, you're in your case,
like the slot that you get. You go from being
(21:03):
you know, right in the middle of the day, did
something at four o'clock in the morning. You're like, wait
a second. You know, as soon as it starts to
feel like the way that you're being treated is not
only along the lines of race, gender or something like that,
but it also begins to impact the way you do
(21:23):
your job, how you show up for your job, how
it impacts your money you're paid, time off, your overall
treatment and everything like that, that's when it's time to
really complain. And I always encourage people take note, take note.
You don't have to go to HR for each and
every single things. And there's so many things, even from
a technology perspective, that are really great. Like there's this
(21:44):
app called work Receipts right. So it's a free download
app that I recommend all of my clients and perspective clients.
You download it on your phone, it's free, you use
it and you can log in everything that's going on
at work. So maybe you just think that something's going on,
but you're not really sure. You're like, oh, today they
didn't give me a lunch break. Oh today they took
(22:04):
a d they put me on suspension. Oh today they
did X, Y and Z.
Speaker 4 (22:08):
So.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
But now by the time that you go to HR,
you have a list of things with date and time
stamp of everything that happened. Then it's up to HR
to investigate to find out if it is what you
think that it.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Is, because you know, sometimes people also feel like, well
HR works for the company.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Yes, but HR. You could go to HR. You can
go to a supervisor. But if you don't go to
somebody right and document that and document it some way,
then there's no possible way that it's going to stop. Right,
And not in New York City, but but in many
other places. If the if the company is not on notice,
specifically on notice that what's happening to you, then they're
(22:44):
not liable.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Right because people are very hesitant, correct.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
But in New York City, like if the if the
person who's doing the harassment is a supervisor, then the
company's automatically liable.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Now, Marjorie, I do want to switch gears a little
bit here because it's been so much going on in
the news and I just want to get from you.
You've dealt with so many different people and even us
thinking about everything, like with Diddy, because I know that
was something that you have a lot of information about.
But when we think about women who have been in
situations and men too, right and then people wait years
(23:18):
decades to come forward, and I always see people say,
why didn't they say something when this happened? Why didn't
this person say something right away? Why are all these
people coming out of the woodworks now? And they think
it's just like this person was trying to buy a network,
or you know.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
They always have a reason.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Why I just want to get from you, from people
that you've spoken to. Why is it that people wait
sometimes so long before they even come forward with something
that might have happened a long time ago, And then
a lot of times it's a snowball effect.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Fear of retaliation, fear of not being believed, which is
actually a bigger fear than retaliation. You know how many
women have sat cross from me and say, who's gonna
believe me? I'm a single mom, And I was like,
wait a second, Like let's roll this back. Your word
is enough. But not everybody gets treated like their word
(24:12):
is enough. There are people who believe that unless they
can get two or three to back up what they're saying,
that their word is not enough. This is where I
feel like the Me Too movement really did help. It
showed us that our word is enough. And when you
speak out, then you get courage to speak out, and
you get courage to speak out because if I'm the
(24:34):
only one who's suffering and I say nothing, all three
of us could be suffering from the same person. But
when we start to talk about it, there's a shared
strength that comes into it, and now we can advance
forward because they may be able to ignore me. But
if it's three or four or fifty, yeah, then it's
harder to ignore. So the fear of not being believed
(24:55):
is so strong it's palpable.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And sometimes legally it's also say somebody say you sue
for harassment and you don't win, then people think that
means you were lying and it didn't happen, when a
lot of times it just means you couldn't necessarily prove
that legally.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Right. And the thing is, and that's another thing too,
is that in most often in cases where there's sexual harassment,
it is always almost always a he said, she said,
She said, she said, right. It's always going to be
one person's word against the other. But that's what juries
are for, right, And the jury can decide. I believe
you and I don't believe you. The idea that you
(25:36):
need that you need additional proof than your word is
not true. It's helpful, Don't get me wrong. I cannot
understate that if you have a recording, a text, or
anything that supports you in any way, it's gonna be helpful.
But I tell clients who sit across me all the time,
your word is enough evidence. You're going to be sworn
(26:00):
under oath, just like they're gonna be sworn under oath.
They're gonna say what happened in that room. You're gonna
say what's gonna happen in what happened in that room?
And the jury's gonna believe somebody.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
You know, I'm so glad you said that that your
word is enough, because in my mind I was like,
if it's not documented, I have a witness, I would
never want to come forward because it's like you said
your word against another. But in the flip right on
another scenario, I have I know somebody who felt retaliated
against they were they had a workplace romance that ended
(26:31):
poorly and then he felt like the woman retaliated by
claiming that she was forced to do certain things because
he was in a position of power and it really
hurt him. And again it was his word against hers,
and there was context, right, there's nuance, It wasn't they
were in relationship. So in those type of circumstances, you know,
(26:51):
how do I don't want to say, how does how
can that the person in power be protected?
Speaker 2 (26:57):
But what happens, as as with anything, if you want
to protect your perspective. You always want to document it
in some way if you want to if you want
to protect your no document your no, if you want
to protect their yes document. There, Yes, it cuts both ways,
like that work receed app that you know it's you
(27:19):
know it cuts both ways. I say that because what's
good for the goose is good for the gander. Right,
Overwhelmingly people do not make up, you know, sexual harassments
and discriminatory claims, and overwhelming that is not the norm.
But we cannot ignore that that exists. Right, So that's
why there has to be a legal process. That's why
there has to be a proof, and that's why a
(27:41):
jury gets to decide who's telling the truth and who
is not. There are attorneys who will not take cases
that is only blased on their client's word, no matter
how good they think that it is. They just simply
will not do it. And that's where people get the
messaging that their word is not enough. Because the more
I'm able to establish what you said with something other
(28:02):
than your word, my risk goes down. If you told
me he said this and he said that, and you
show me a text, I don't even have to believe you.
The jury doesn't even need to like you. It's in
a text. Yeah, right, exactly, you know, exactly, that's all
really the proof they need. But now if I go
through this entire process and we get to the jury,
and now the jury doesn't like you, and all I
have is your word.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
That's a whole.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
That's a high risk. That's high risk, high reward. It
could go either way. It could go either way.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
I want to ask you this too, because here's another
thing in the work that I do and seeing what
people have to say.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Civil cases where people.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Are, you know, trying to get a settlement for a
cent amount of money or get paid people also tend
to look at that as this person's just trying to
get a paiday, right, And so I want you to
break that down to because I feel like there's a
misconception about why people file civil cases.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
First, right, So not everything that is discriminatory or harassing
is criminal. Not everything that's discriminatory or harassing is criminal.
So criminal has one standard above a reasonable doubt, right
beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard for criminals. So
(29:13):
that's high right beyond a reasonable doubt. Is if we're
gonna do in percentages let's say reason beyond a reasonable
doubt is probably like eighty five percent sure, right, civil
where you know, what you get is money, not not
jail or anything like that. That standard, that standard is
(29:38):
more likely than not forty nine fifty one.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
So if I'm like, so, if you have to prove
your case seventy five eighty five versus forty forty nine
to fifty one, which one you're gonna go for? You're
gonna go for the forty nine to fifty one because
it's easier, particularly if it's a he said, she said
type of thing. So many times even that acts that
are harassing and criminal, prosecutors will decline to prosecute, or
(30:05):
they won't charge them at the top charge. They'll do
it at a lower charge, for all sorts of reasons.
These these positions are politically elected, They have their own
stat you know, stats and stuff that they have to do.
There's all sorts of reasons why they don't they decide
not to prosecute. And if at every time that somebody,
you know, you know, somebody's ego was hurt and they
(30:27):
were turned down and they did something, you know, and
they did something and it was prosecuted each and every time,
then the courts would be overrun with that that sort
of thing. Right, So on the civil side, it gives
you an opportunity for there to be accountability, but instead
of somebody else deciding for you whether or not that
person is going to be prosecuted, you are the one
(30:47):
who gets to decide how much money is enough money,
and if neither one of you can decide that, then
the jury decides if any money is worth it at all.
So that's why civil is an attractive is an attractive
alternative because you are the one who makes the decision,
not a prosecutor, and you're the one who gets to
say how much is enough, not enough, not not a
(31:08):
third party. Now a lot of people will at the
other part of it with with the civil prosecution is
you have an opportunity to resolve it and nobody even
know about it. That's that's good for the person who's
been attacked and the person who who's allegedly did the attacking,
because the last thing the same way that the that
a lot of people that the same way that Diddy
(31:31):
is getting dragged to the mud for all of the
allegations there are Diddy accusers who are equally being dragged
through the money. Yes for even being bringing you know,
bringing up the accusation. So a lot of people decide said,
you know what, I don't want to deal with that.
This is this is something that impacted me. I'm in therapy,
I can't work anymore. I need money for my medical bills.
I need money to live. I'm gonna suit for this.
(31:53):
It's gonna be quiet and then it's all done. And
there's nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
I feel like people tend to look down on you
if you get a payment like a settlement, yeah, and
have something.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
To say about that. And you know, I want to
bring this back to our.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Theme for International Women's Day, Give to gain and mentorship,
and I want to talk about women giving their knowledge
and support to one another and how that is. How
can we do that more right in the workplace and
things you've seen.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
No, absolutely, I think that we're doing it right now,
just actively and earnestly participating in these conversations and saying,
you know what the resources I have are available to you.
I don't get keep I don't get keep with what
I know. I don't get keep with the information that's
available to me if you tell me so and so
has a problem of I'm like, okay, let's do it.
(32:43):
Let's let's I'm going to roll up my sleeves and
get in. That's the level, that's the level of collaboration
effort that that women are really you know, leaning into
all the way and it's and the momentum on this
is incredibly significant. The same way that I can say
the stat of six hundred thousand black women have been
forced out of the workplace is that the other millions
(33:06):
of black women in that same workplace are ushering their
sisters in and using all of their power, dynamics, information
connections to help them come right back into the market
marketplace again, because what we've realized is that collaboration is
better than competition, right.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
And you know, along those lines, even being able to
discuss salaries, because I know that's another conversation in the
workplace when it comes to discrimination, and so I think
that's important too for us to be able to discuss
with each other what.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
We're getting paid for things.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
So what we're getting paid, what kind of packages that
are you know, that are available, what worked for us,
what didn't work for us, Because at the same time.
It The mentality I think before used to be I
have to keep this close to the vest, because if
I don't, then what I have is going to be attacked.
What we've realized, what we have is going to be
(33:59):
a tacked regardless, right, there is no protection of that.
So the only way we're gonna protect ourselves is if
we're all on one accord and we know that this
is the standard, and we're not accepting any less, then
we force the hand. We forced the hand on the
other side to say, now you can't mess with either
you know, either three of us because now we're all
exchanging information.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
Wasn't there laws or policies that prevented employees from talking
about salaries? And wasn't that lifted a few years ago?
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Actually it's actually quite it's actually quite the opposite. Under
the NLRB, your your ability to talk about your salary
and workplace conditions is a right that you cannot that
can you cannot be terminated for, you cannot be disciplined for,
or anything of like. You have that right in any
(34:49):
workplace to discuss both the conditions of your workplace. And
that's not just like discrimination and harassment. I'm talking about safety.
You know I'm talking about like and salary are all
completely protected if you are being if you are being
terminated or disciplined for these for these types of for
(35:12):
these types of discussions, you should definitely speak to an
attorney about possible retaliation because that is a right that
every every employee has in the workplace.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Well, I appreciate this guy.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
I felt like this was a great empowering conversation for
people who are listening. We've had so many people call
in just to talk about things that have happened in
the workplace.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
What should I do?
Speaker 1 (35:32):
And felt like there's nothing that they could do, but
to know that these are the steps you could take.
And one thing I want to say that I got
from all of this is document, document, document.
Speaker 3 (35:40):
What is that app again? Work receipts, Work receipts, Yeah, periods.
You know they bring the receipts.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
Exactly that I think that I might inspiration, but no,
but exactly document document. Listen. Seventy percent of seventy percent
of Americans with paycheck to paycheck. Seventy percent means most people.
Seventy percent of people are one paycheck away from missing
their rents, not being able to put food on the table,
(36:07):
just so people are desperate to keep their jobs, which
is another reason why I always tell my clients there
are no friends at work, and it's like no, I mean,
it is fact because at the end of the day,
we could all be we could all be cool, we
can kick key it up as much as we want,
but it's like, uh, you know, somebody's getting fired or
somebody's like everybody's protecting their own because at the end
of the day, my check is not going to pay
(36:28):
for yours, right, and my check is not going to
pay for yours. So there is this idea of like
protecting you know, protecting themselves and protecting their own. Documenting
is one of those ways.
Speaker 4 (36:38):
Yeah, one of my biggest takeaways is your word is enough.
So hopefully that will encourage people if anything is happening,
speak up, you know how you know, how can they
get in contact with you or maybe somebody a local
lawyer or attorney, Like what type of help of resources
are out there for people who only have their word right?
Speaker 2 (37:00):
A majority of employment discrimination attorneys are contingency based, which
means they will take your case without you having to
paying money upfront, and most of the time consultations are free.
It costs you nothing to call an attorney for a
free consultation to figure out say is this a thing
or or is it not enough? If you get an
(37:21):
attorney that cares. Because for us, particularly at Mesodor PLC,
we are big with decline with dignity. I may not
take your case because I have six attorneys at my firm.
We can't take every case, right, we have to pick
and choose. But I'm not going to just decline you
and leave you high and dry. You're gonna walk away
with resources. You're gonna walk away with more information on
(37:44):
how to how to pursue this yourself. You may even
walk away with information on how to speak to the
next attorney about what it is that you have going on.
And if all attorneys do the same thing, then a
people would be a lot would be a lot better
off it because most of the time when they're like,
oh you don't have a text, Oh sorry, it can't
help you. I said, really, this person just open up
to you and said that their body was touched, right,
(38:06):
and you just said you don't have any proof. We're
just gonna leave them high and dard. Then what's the
point what's the point of being an attorney? Right? This
is why I don't gate keep because then then then
our positions mean nothing. What's the point of being a
black woman attorney if I.
Speaker 3 (38:21):
Gate keep right?
Speaker 2 (38:22):
Absolutely all my information, everything that's in here is available
to all of you and then some all our sisters, brothers,
you know, on all sides. When you think about policy too,
are there things that you would like to see happen?
Speaker 4 (38:34):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Yeah, there's so many things I would love to see happen.
One thing that I would sure love to see happen
is after you do all the hard work and you
actually win the case and you get a jury verdict.
I would love it if they couldn't send it back
to the judge and say, Judge, we think the jury
gave them too much. And the judge says, I think
you're right. We're just gonna slash it down remitted her.
(38:56):
So that's another thing that makes it very discouraging. You
can go through all of that. Yes, your word is enough,
you win. They believe you, they're on your side. They
give you exactly how much you need for you to
get your therapy and for you to be out of
work for some time for you to get yourself together
and then for the other side to say, you know what,
we're gonna prolong it even more. You know, everyone does
(39:16):
that exactly in addition to the two years that it
took you to even get to a jury verdict. Now
we're gonna go to the judge and we're gonna do
a post trial motion and we're gonna say the judge,
we think that they gave them too much. And the
judge may say one person can undo what a jury
just did. And I don't think that when you have
a jury of twelve people who sit down and look
(39:39):
at your client in their eye, they see the tears
in their face, they hear the breath when they testify,
that their assessment of how much that person should should
get is gonna be diminished by another judge that's just
looking at a transcript. They don't know when she said yes,
if she was bawling cry yes. They don't know whether
(40:02):
she could barely contain herself. They don't know. So that
is one thing that I would love to see changed,
is that remitted or would not be would not be
a pathway that defendants can use all the time, all
the time. But you don't really hear about it. You
always hear about the big verdict. People will tell you, oh,
(40:23):
didn't Tesla get one hundred million something verdict for race discrimination.
Most people don't know that that was slash.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
Yeah, they didn't have to pay it.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
It was slash. And then when they slash it, they
slash it to something so small. I've seen seven figure
awards go down to a couple a couple of tens
of thousands.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
That's wild and that's discouraging. Can you imagine how that
feels to somebody?
Speaker 2 (40:44):
Right exactly? And this is where, like you know, our
continued conversation regarding the EI is important. Who those judges
are important, The fact that you know, is it an
elected judge or is it an appointed judge for life?
Pointed judges for life. They come from a particular pedigree, right,
the best schools, the best, this the best best, best best.
(41:05):
And they may be a little bit removed, I don't
want to say out of touch, right, but they may
be a little bit more removed from the average workers,
the average workers plight versus somebody who may be elected.
They got to grind for their Yeah, you know, they
have to grind for there. They have to choose exactly.
They're they're more in sync with the people, So it's
you know, it's different, but you don't get to pick
(41:26):
and choose.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
This feels like a TV show, you know what I'm saying,
We have reasonable doubt, what's the what's the Marjorie mezzidors,
just because I do feel like I could see all
of these different scenarios playing out and then see somebody
getting a verdict, and you know, I just I just
see it in my head.
Speaker 3 (41:44):
Right yeah.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
But I also think watching shows like that is what
helps people feel like they have more information and knowledge too.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Right, absolutely. And the other thing that people don't talk
about is what does it mean to be representing a
marginalized population? Why you yourself are a marginal population and
the secondary trauma that comes from that.
Speaker 3 (42:06):
Oh my gosh, I can't even imagine.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Because then you're fighting multiple battles, right, I'm not only
fighting for you and your and your situation in the
justice system. I'm fighting my adversary to be taken seriously.
I may be fighting the judge to be taken seriously.
I may be doing all of these things simultaneously. So
this is why, again, gate keeping benefits no one.
Speaker 3 (42:27):
Absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
It benefits no one.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
I know you have had to have had some heartbreaking
moments as absolutely there are.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
There are cases that I still have nightmares about.
Speaker 3 (42:37):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
There are people who are on the opposite side of
this work, who are management side, who make it their
business to punish those who bring up cases of discrimination
and sexual harassment. So they punish them by using the process.
They make sure that the litigation process is the most invasive, uncomfortable,
(42:59):
like raw, gut wrenching thing. And that's how they make
a name for themselves, and that's how they make a
name for their companies, right, And this is why companies
will hire them, because they'll know that somebody will think
twice about bringing a sexual harassment claim because they know
that their attorney is gonna gut is gonna try to
gut them at the root, regardless of whether or not
it's true. And that to me is so disgusting because
(43:22):
I you know, you work with somebody, When you go
through something with somebody, like there's an affinity there. Sometimes
the client comes to me and they're telling me things
that they don't even tell their spouse exactly exactly. They
tell you things that they don't tell their spouses, their friends,
their mothers. Sometimes none of those people even know it's
coming out until you're getting ready to file a public case.
(43:44):
And that's why deciding to file a public case is
such a big, big, big decision.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
Yeah, people act like it's not just to even understand.
And like you said earlier when we were discussing why
people may wait, it is also at a time when
you may feel safe enough to wrong enough, you know,
just in a space where you're like okay, because it's
a big deal. It is like it can be life changing,
and I there.
Speaker 4 (44:08):
Are a lot of survivors saying they don't want to
relive that, Like once they're out of the situation, they
want to move for where they want to move forward.
They definitely don't want to go to trial and talk
about it, like we saw what happened with Cassie, even
she was like eight nine months pregnant and had to
relive all of that. So there are a lot of
different reasons why people don't you know, speak up at
that time.
Speaker 2 (44:28):
Right, Not only that, it's just like we don't even
need to take it that far. You could be a
regular person and you saw you filed the lawsuit, you're
out on a date and the person googled you and
they find your lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (44:40):
Oh that's a good point, you know.
Speaker 2 (44:43):
And now friends go on days.
Speaker 3 (44:44):
I'd be looking up all I said, what's his name?
Speaker 2 (44:45):
Exactly exactly, And now they have like information and like this.
A lot of this stuff can be damning. Yeah, it
can be damning.
Speaker 4 (44:56):
It can be right.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
And the law is evolving every requiring you to put
more detailed, more facts in these pleadings, in these lawsuits.
It used to be you could do a short and
simple statement of the facts. So and so it's working here.
Blah blah blah. They were asked out, they declined, they
were retaliate against that. You could use the very bare minimum.
(45:18):
Now they're asking you, no, we need more detail, we
need specificity. So then now attorneys are throwing everything in there.
And a lot of this stuff is intimate. Yeah, it
is intimate. And even if it's something as small, and
I'm saying small on a relative scale, right, as a
forced kiss, Right, who wants the first introduction that you
(45:42):
have with the person is to know that they were
their boss forcibly kissed them.
Speaker 3 (45:47):
Right?
Speaker 2 (45:49):
Shouldn't you get to decide when that comes out and
how that comes out.
Speaker 4 (45:53):
Why are there's so many requirements for those extra intimate details.
Speaker 2 (45:57):
Because the law is saying that the defendant needs to
be reasonably unnotice on what it is that they're being
accused about. They really need to know. They have to
have an understanding. If I'm being sued for sexual harassment,
what did I do that was sexually harassing? They want
a full list, and they want everything. And when your
complaint is not detailed, the presumption is it's made up.
Speaker 3 (46:22):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (46:22):
But when your complaint is more detailed time days. You guys,
remember that Cassie complaint, Yeah that she filed again? Well,
how many pages was that that.
Speaker 3 (46:30):
She was telling all kind of stuff that I felt
so oh right.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
Yeah, because.
Speaker 4 (46:34):
I felt bad she had to disclose all of those details.
But you're saying she had to in order to make
her case.
Speaker 2 (46:39):
What I'm saying to you is the fact that her
pleadings were so detailed it becomes very hard to ignore. Yeah, right,
So the remember, the other side is always going to
be like, oh, she's just looking for money. You know,
she had a failed career and that's why she's coming out.
And you know, they're always throwing these things when you're like,
but page seventy five says and this, and then what
(47:01):
what happens? People start fact checking. They're like, she was
at that party, and he was there too, and I
do remember when his car blew up, and I do remember.
And then because of all those details, then her word
gets starts to get a little bit more exactly, it
gets a little heavier. This is why attorneys, This is
(47:23):
why attorneys do it. Did she have to go to
those to that's painstaking detail in order for it not
to be dismissed because there wasn't enough detail? Maybe not,
you know, I'm not gonna you know, Monday night quarterback?
Speaker 4 (47:36):
Right?
Speaker 2 (47:36):
Maybe not? But did it help? Absolutely? Absolutely. Somebody's like,
even if she was lying, she was lying about all
whatever to her her own exactly exactly.
Speaker 4 (47:50):
She put herself in a light that was not too
flattering herself.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
And and what do we always say, authenticity translates, truth translate.
You won't know what them. American public will accepts being
okay and not being okay, but just be you, because
one thing that we won't tolerate is that hypocrisy or
lying or whatever. But if you're like, yeah, I did that,
and I did that too, but he definitely did this.
And when this has happened, that gives more credibility. It
(48:16):
gives more credibility to say that it was X, Y
and Z.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
What about the Adult Survivors Act when when that? I
want to know what your thoughts were on that and
what kind of workloads you had during that time.
Speaker 2 (48:29):
So during the time of the Adult Survivors Act, workloads
for all plaintive side attorneys definitely went up because what
it did is it reopened the statute of limitations on
old claims and revived them for a short window of time.
So anything from basically the beginning of time all the
way through, so long as it was filed within this
(48:51):
window and met this specific criteria. And I'm not going
to bore you with all the with all the details,
then you could at least bring the claim right. Something
like the ASA is so invaluable because it recognizes that
people don't come forward because they're afraid, because they're afraid
(49:11):
of retaliation, they're afraid of not being believed, and because
they're afraid that the people who did this to them
have a way of hurting them again. But since me too,
in particular, and me too. Wasn't the only time there
was like this reckoning, right, but me too in maybe
like our most recent history in particular, started happening. We
(49:33):
realized for those of us who didn't already know how
commonplace it is having conversations. I do this work, and
I found out things about aunts and cousins, and I
was like, but you know, why wouldn't you ever? People
don't talk about it because they are afraid of not
being believed. So what this is doing is says, listen,
(49:56):
we understand that it's difficult. We are reopening it for
this period of time so that you can hold individuals
accountable that perhaps you couldn't have. We I remember having
clients come to me with letters from there from people
who assaulted them, apologizing waiting after the statute of limitations
because they knew they were safe, that they were safe,
(50:18):
and they're just walking around with the with the person
who assault them's letter like and it would be like
in their in their purse pocket. It goes everywhere they
go and they're like, what can I do about this? Well,
during the ASA, you could do something about it, right, Unfortunately,
now it's closed, it's sunseted, it doesn't you know it,
(50:39):
you know, and it doesn't look like they're around. They're
going to do around too.
Speaker 3 (50:45):
But that was a crazy time, but it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (50:49):
It was a crazy time. But the thing is is
that people, Yeah, people should be afraid and yeah, I
think twice.
Speaker 3 (50:55):
You never know exactly that you got away with something.
Speaker 1 (50:58):
Don't do it because I always hear people saying, oh,
it was the time period, Oh everybody was like that. Oh,
And I hate that when people say it's just what
people did, it's just how we acted.
Speaker 3 (51:09):
It was just what the workplace was like during that time.
Speaker 1 (51:11):
And certain things are if you're a stand up individual
or never appropriate.
Speaker 4 (51:16):
And you know, another thing I really don't like is
when you hear people saying, well, you can't believe women.
A lot of them are lying and they're going after
the money.
Speaker 2 (51:26):
Believe.
Speaker 4 (51:27):
Do you have statistics that that tell how many cases
are actually not true or proven not true versus you know,
is there like because that's not true.
Speaker 1 (51:39):
I don't mean it's not true sometimes exactly, but people
coming forward and saying I lied, right, Yeah, But.
Speaker 4 (51:44):
Isn't it just like the mass majority are true, are.
Speaker 2 (51:49):
Legitimate overwhelmingly we're talking about less than ten percent, So
less than ten percent ten percent. I don't like to
throw out numbers out there that I'm not like sure on,
so I can't be like it's eight or it's two.
But I know that it's less than ten percent.
Speaker 1 (52:05):
And I tell you what, there's way more people that
will never come forward than people who have come forward
or people who you.
Speaker 3 (52:11):
Know it's not true.
Speaker 1 (52:12):
I guarantee you that number is multitudes exponentially more than
people who have actually even come forward to tell their story.
Speaker 2 (52:19):
They say that seventy five percent of individuals do not
come forward about sexual harassment in the workplace, specifically sexual
five percent. So that means so that means no matter
how much sexual harassment that HR departments know about, just
know that there's actually three times more.
Speaker 4 (52:36):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (52:37):
All right, well, I appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (52:39):
This was a whole power for us, But it does
feel like we got some amazing valuable information. Hopefully people
who are listening. If there's something that you've been contemplating,
or some first steps you know you need to take,
this is your sign to go ahead and make those
first steps. And you know, I appreciate you for sharing
all of this invaluable information with us.
Speaker 2 (53:00):
Thank you, Thank you for having me. Thank you ladies
for shredding a light on this.
Speaker 3 (53:03):
And you're going to continue to be a resource for
us on way up.
Speaker 2 (53:06):
Absolutely so we think that you need.
Speaker 3 (53:08):
We are grateful for this. Thank you so much, Thank you,
What's up his way up at Angela yee and my
girl Selena Hill is hanging out with me.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Yep, yep.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
I'm a journalist extraordinaire and we're really excited. We have
so many questions for you.
Speaker 3 (00:09):
Today. We have Marjorie Mezzador here.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
She is the harassment slayer, but you're also the founder
and chief visionary officer of Mezzador PLLC, which is a
workplace discrimination law firm employment and workplace discrimination law firm
dedicated to advancing justice, equity, and accountability in the workplace.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Thank you for joining us today.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
Man.
Speaker 1 (00:32):
We have so many things going on and so many
people call up for ask ye with questions when it
comes to you know, things that happen in the workplace
and how to go about it. And we know it's
something that's difficult for people to navigate.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
No, absolutely, I mean you would be surprised even when
people know they're being discriminated against. Just how uncomfortable that
people are even using the word discrimination. Right most of
the time when things are going on, they're like, oh,
this person has a personal problem with me. I don't
know what the issue is, I don't know why being
treated so differently. They'll run through the gamut of questions
(01:05):
all through their head and the very last thing that
they come up with this with is I think it's
because I'm a woman. I think it's because I'm black.
I think it's because I am not a Nate, I
am a foreign born national or something like that.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
Yeah, And a lot of times we can feel powerless
to do anything about it. And it's interesting in this
dnage that we're in right now, Selena, you were just
covering a situation with Coca was this.
Speaker 4 (01:32):
Yeah, So, the EEOC recently filed a lawsuit against a
Coca Cola distributor for hosting a women only networking event.
The federal government is literally saying or claiming that this
company discriminated against men because they were not invited on
this retreat right, which was for you know, women's empowerment purposes.
(01:54):
So you know, my question is I want, as an
attorney who is working to protect underrepresented groups and historic,
historically marginalized groups, what are your thoughts on this? How
can both companies and these marginalized groups protect themselves when
in Trump's era, the federal government can actually sue for
(02:15):
something like.
Speaker 2 (02:15):
This, right, So a couple of different things. Right, First
and foremost, if a private company is putting forth programs
to push forth an agenda that helps their bottom line
that happens to align with gender or race or anything
like that, that is never going to be discriminatory in
(02:36):
and of itself. Right. So, if you if you are
tampaks and you are running you know, an empowerment group
for that, it's because you have you sell a product
that is directly geared toward women, right, that is going
to be otherwise helpful and beneficial to them. Where they
can run into tricky waters is because this particular administration
(03:00):
is putting this particular administration has taken a stance on DEI. Right,
that is that makes it like a four letter word,
a very very like de I is naughty. D I
is bad for this administration. They they see DEI and
putting forth and pushing for the agenda of one race
(03:22):
or one gender or one of them to be the same.
M So, because they just take a very cooker cutter
view of that, and they have the purse strings of
the federal government, they can weaponize. Right an agency like
the EEOC, and the EEOC only exists to investigate and
research any discrimination that takes places in places that have
(03:45):
fifteen or more employees. Okay, so because they have that
that that ability, they have that authority and that they
have that a power. If you have fifteen or more employees,
the EEOC can take a look at your policies, your procedures,
your DEI policies and say that, you know what, but
this doesn't align with what we think is appropriate or legal,
or any one of those things. So we're going to
(04:06):
investigate it. But what the EEOC does not have the
ability to do is declare it illegal just because they're investigating.
So none of the laws have changed. None of the
way that we look at the law that says that
when marginalized populations come together in order to create affinity
groups and to otherwise elevate agendas and the stuff that
(04:28):
in and of itself is not discriminatory, that has not changed.
But the government's ability to direct the EOC and say,
you know what, we're gonna we're not going to look
at these transgender issues anymore. We're going to focus on
just the DEI policies that are focused just for women
or just for people of color. Because we're calling that illegal, indiscriminatory,
(04:51):
even though they are saying that they can and they
can do that. They can go in and investigate and
they can make life very uncomfortable for Coco Cola. They
cannot declare it illegal though that only the law can do,
only the court can do. But they'll just make it uncomfortable.
And nobody wants the EOC in their backyard.
Speaker 1 (05:11):
And it's kind of like a warning for other companies too,
exactly when that happens, do you want to have to
deal with.
Speaker 3 (05:17):
All of this?
Speaker 2 (05:18):
Exactly? And this administration has been very effective by saying
by saying, we are going to throw our entire weight
and authority behind what we can do to make it
as uncomfortable for you as possible so that you can
do what we want you to do.
Speaker 4 (05:35):
And to Angela's point, like it's definitely setting our precedence
so that because we see a lot of companies are
no longer in acting DEI policies. But with the lawsuit,
they're saying the company violated Title seven of the Civil
Rights Act because men supposedly were not invited to this
women's retreat during work hours, during work hours, so they're
(05:58):
saying that's the case and I'm saying, like the pendulum
has definitely shifted because instead of protecting women, minorities, immigrants,
now it's like they're attacking them, and they're using the
same laws that were created to protect these groups now
to attack workers while they are on the job. Like,
(06:19):
how do we navigate that?
Speaker 2 (06:21):
So a few different things with this particular case, I
don't know like all the ins and outs of like
what kind of program it was under, what like how
they were able to otherwise nagle it, you know, before
or anything like that. But if the only criteria for
you to go to this retreat is your gender, then
that is discriminatory. If the only criteria only right, you're women,
(06:47):
you're a woman, you're in, your guy, you're out, that
on its face absolutely is discriminatory. However, right, a lot
of the programs that we're talking about, like the DEI programs,
the Infinity programs, a lot of them have to do
and invite anyone who is in support of anything that
(07:08):
is going to otherwise elevate support the cause of and
the issues of the affinity group so it doesn't become
a situation where it's only men versus women. This is
a woman's retreat for issues that are particularly important to women.
If you are a man and issues and issues are
of women are important to you, you are welcome to come. Right.
(07:31):
This is what makes it okay because it's not about
the setting up to who's invited and who's not based
on gender, but what is the platform, what is the
agenda here?
Speaker 1 (07:41):
We have International Women's Day here right now, and we
are doing all these different panels, and it specifically says
men are invited, right. They have to highlight that now
specifically says that right.
Speaker 2 (07:55):
Yeah. And then and then you have people who have
different philosophies about it. You'll have men who's like, you
know what, I'm a feminist too, I want to be
in the room and I want to help. And then
you'll have other men who will say, you know what,
this is a private space for women for them to
share and maybe in an intimate setting with only things
that they believe that other women would share. I'm going
to respect it, and I'm just going to refrain. But
(08:17):
you're invited, right. But you're invited right exactly, as long
as it's not a prohibition saying that you cannot come
because you are a male.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
Yeah, man, this is just so much going on.
Speaker 1 (08:28):
I do want to know in this era right now
of what's going on. It's a lot of things have
been unprecedented, a lot of things have been rolled back.
How has your job and what you do for people?
What are the shifts that you've seen?
Speaker 2 (08:42):
Right? So, unfortunately, I'm busier than ever right And I
say that unfortunately because I would prefer not to be
doing this work. I would love if there was no discrimination,
no sexual harassment, and I was completely obsolete. That's actually
very much how our firm runs. We want to work
ourselves out of existence. But we are busier than ever
because now what people are doing is they're taking this
(09:07):
new anti DEI stance and they're using that to bolster
they're already existing prejudice and discrimination. So now they just
think that it's okay. They think that they're protected or
exactly they feel protected. And then on the other side,
those who are doing this work don't feel protected, right,
and they feel like they have to work on eggshells.
(09:30):
So that changes the level of aggression with which they
seek change. It changes with the type of programs that
they're putting forth and the kind of communities are that
they are supporting because everybody is running scared. So what
we're seeing is things like six hundred thousand black women
have been completely disenfranchised out of the workplace last year.
Speaker 3 (09:51):
Absolutely, we're talking about that before you, right.
Speaker 2 (09:54):
So they're like, why is that? Why is that? Why
is that? You know, why is that the case? They're well,
let's look at it. Statistics say that black women are
the most educated demographic in the United States, So we're
if this is all truly based on a meritocracy, you
would find that the qualifications are there, the education and there.
Why is it in matching up? Because what people are
(10:17):
doing is because they are rolling back the support, the resources,
the financing, the head counts on these DEI programs. They're
doing that to a lot of the time. You'll find
that black women are the one and onlies right, they're
the one and only females in this, or they're the
one and only black person in this So as not
(10:37):
to rival the iriy of the administration, people are pulling
back those things too. So then what one after the other,
one after the other, Each one of these individuals are
ending up without a job under the excuse of the
temperature has changed the political climate has shifted. I cannot
tell you how many women who I have counseled who
have received letters that have literally said, the political climate
(11:00):
has shifted in regards to your blah blah blah, and
therefore we are going to be expending resources and X,
y and z on other things, on other things.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
Yeah, you know, the most unqualified people work in our government.
It's crazy at that part, right, It's like because I
think they make it seem like DEI means it's unqualified
people in positions, when the two to the matter is
that for the bottom line, diversity with qualified people in
those positions is great for any company, and numbers reflect that, right,
(11:30):
And so that's what's really wild to me because it
doesn't mean that you're not qualified to.
Speaker 2 (11:34):
Be there, absolutely all of that. The only thing that
d I really means is that you're going to be
taking a look at Yeah, that's all. You still have
to meet all the criteria for the job. It just
means that you're otherwise going to take a look at
you know what It's like, It's let's consider it like this.
The three of us are friends and we have a company,
and I say, Angela, who does your marketing? And you're like, oh,
(11:57):
I know so and so so and so does my marketing,
who does your whatever? And you're like, oh, so and so,
so and so does my security. These are people who
you have relationships with. It is not it wouldn't be
uncommon for the person who does your marketing to be
a person of color, or for the person who does
your security to be a female. And now we continue
to work and expand on our own, you know, based
(12:19):
on our own networks. This is what naturally happens. What
the I is forcing companies to say is like, you
know what, Angela, I can't just rely on your recommendation
for a marketing person or your recommendation for a security person.
We are three women of color already in this in
this in in in this company. We think there would
(12:39):
be value to have other voices, maybe different religions, maybe
different genders, maybe different raises, dispectives, with different perspectives that
we think that would be a value. So instead of
us just you know, kicking it to you know, the
one anybody who we have on our rollodecks, We're gonna
make a deliberate effort and reach out to as many
qualified marketing people, as many qualified security people as we can,
(13:02):
so that we can get a robust, you know, like
roster of individuals to look at so we can do
it the best way for you know, at the table,
that's all that DEI is saying. There is literally nothing
more than that. The only thing that inclusion does that's
a little bit more is it makes us always think
of other case in point, is this studio open on
(13:23):
Christmas Day on December twenty fifth?
Speaker 1 (13:26):
I think it is, Yeah, okay, bad example, And I'm
just like, but it wouldn't surprise.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Me if it was closed on Christmas Day, right, because
we live in the US and predominantly we are very
like Christian focused, like you know, around that focus. For
somebody who's Jewish, for somebody who's who's Muslim, for somebody
who's Buddhist, they have other holidays that they that they
don't get a day off. Yeah. So then you say,
you know, as inclusion, you know, as part of our
(13:57):
commitment to inclusion, we know bodhis you know, Buddhist holidays
exists and Jewish holidays exists. Instead of everybody just getting
off on Christmas, everybody has a floating holiday and whatever
religion or whatever they want to use it for. They
use it. If you know, if it's for Hanukkah, it's
for if it's for Duwali, whatever it is you use
it for. That's inclusion. That's just taking into considerate, into consideration.
(14:21):
You know what, there are other people besides.
Speaker 3 (14:23):
Everybody is exactly right and this may.
Speaker 2 (14:26):
Be important to them. Let me take a look at.
Speaker 3 (14:27):
That, Marjorie. What got you into this particular specialty.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
I mean it kind of fell into my lap a
little bit. I when I was in law school, I
loved con law, constitutional law. I thought like all about
the civil rights movements and religious freedoms and all those
types of cases. I love those because I felt like
they touched everybody's like life in a way that was
(14:53):
really impactful and fundamental, and I could always get like,
really impassioned about it. But what really drives me in
this particular work is that I hate bullies. Yea, I
hate bullies. And because money makes the world go round,
(15:13):
and because money is what we use to feed our families,
to run our lifestyles, to pursue our dreams, our employers
are in a very unique position in our lives. They
hold a lot of power over us and don't get
me wrong. Not every employer is bad, right. There are
great employers who they work with their employees. They're like,
(15:35):
you know what, you bring something to us, we bring
something to you, and they make it balanced and fair.
But the overwhelming majority is that people are disproportionately you know,
imbalanced with their employers. And a lot of people abuse that,
and they abuse it by making people do things that
they know that they should not be they should not
be doing. They abuse it by taking credit for other
(15:58):
people's work, by diminishing other people's work. You know. Again,
if we went back to the you know, the company,
the fake company that we were starting, maybe Angela's like,
you know what, my marketing person is also my cousin,
so we got to hire her or him or whomever,
and we're going to bring them in. And I said,
but maybe your cousin doesn't know what they're doing, so.
Speaker 3 (16:17):
We're probably not right.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
So now we're going to use this other marketing company,
make them do all the work, pay them half the money,
and my cousin and then and there is the one
who's going to be reaping all the benefits. Right right,
This is just normal human dynamic.
Speaker 1 (16:33):
And sometimes people feel like it just is what it is.
This is corporate America.
Speaker 3 (16:38):
Deal with it.
Speaker 1 (16:39):
And so the question is, how do people know when
it's an issue? Because I have to imagine that it is.
And I'm sure we've all been in situations that we
felt like there's something wrong here. When is it when
people come to you and sometimes people don't know is
this even a discrimination case?
Speaker 4 (16:56):
And I just I got a personal just to piggyback
off of that an employ there was a speaking of
that power dynamic an employer of mine. This isn't a past.
There was a person in power who hit on me right,
who made it very clear that they wanted to date me.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
Right.
Speaker 4 (17:14):
I dismissed it, laughed it off, kept it moving. A colleague.
He did the same thing to a colleague. She reported
it because she felt unsafe and harassed. When is it
actual harassment? Because for me, I kind of felt like,
you know, let me just you know, brush his joker off.
So he's trying to shoot his shot. He isn't a
(17:35):
position of power, and I don't want to jeopardize anything.
So I was like, for in my mind, I was
just like, you know, it is what it is. But
she reported it and then did face some retaliation.
Speaker 2 (17:45):
So the answer to both of your questions, Number one
is you really have to trust your instincts and intuition.
There is something that I feel that everybody feels when
something's going on that just doesn't feel right. They may
not know what it is right. They may not be
able to call it. They may not be able to
say it's discrimination, it's sexual harassment or whatever. But the
(18:08):
moment that you feel that something is not right, you
should trust your instinct and watch it. That doesn't mean
as soon as you think something's wrong that you go
running too hr And here's the difference. You have the
autonomy right to decide what you are comfortable with and
what you are not okay. So when it comes to
discrimination and harassment, there are two parts that the law
(18:30):
looks at. It looks at objectively if it's harassing, and
then they look at subjectively if it's harassing. Right, let's
look at the subjective part. As women, we get hit
on a lot. And if you are comfortable standing your
(18:51):
ground and standing your nose and saying no and leaving
it at that, it may not offend you that somebody
even tried. Right, there are others who think this is
the workplace, and it's completely inappropriate because of this power
dynamic for you to ever even approach me, right and
that person and that person has the right in the
(19:12):
autonomy to do that too.
Speaker 4 (19:13):
M M.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
What makes it actually harassment is the lack of consent.
The fact that she was hit on and complained that
wouldn't have made it harassment, because if he asked the
question and she said no, and he accepted her no,
then it's then it's not harassment, right. But it's the
retaliation that came after she told them the no that
(19:37):
made this a wrong issue because she should not be
penalized right for saying her no.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
But it wasn't for saying no, is for reporting it right.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Yes, once it got reported and escalated, she felt like
there was retaliation when it came to just opportunities and
just like the tone, the way she.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Was treated, absolutely, absolutely, and all of that is one
hundred percent illegal. She can she cannot be punished for
reporting it. She was, she cannot be she cannot even
be punished for reporting it legitimately. But getting it wrong.
Let's say he wasn't even really hitting on her, and
she got it wrong completely complained to Hr they did
(20:17):
an investigation and he said, oh, I wasn't hitting on her,
and they found out whatever, he really wasn't hitting on her.
But then he's like, but oh, you're gonna complain to
me to HR, I got your number. That's still retaliation
so long as the person had a good faith belief
that what they were complaining about was legitimate, that it
was legitimately sexual harassment, legitimately discriminatory. Going back to your
(20:41):
question now, when you were talking about like, how do
I know, how do I know when it's the right
time to complain when it starts taking away things like
from your your money, your package, the kind of projects
you're being assigned to. You know, you're in your case,
like the slot that you get. You go from being
(21:03):
you know, right in the middle of the day, did
something at four o'clock in the morning. You're like, wait
a second. You know, as soon as it starts to
feel like the way that you're being treated is not
only along the lines of race, gender or something like that,
but it also begins to impact the way you do
(21:23):
your job, how you show up for your job, how
it impacts your money you're paid, time off, your overall
treatment and everything like that, that's when it's time to
really complain. And I always encourage people take note, take note.
You don't have to go to HR for each and
every single things. And there's so many things, even from
a technology perspective, that are really great. Like there's this
(21:44):
app called work Receipts right. So it's a free download
app that I recommend all of my clients and perspective clients.
You download it on your phone, it's free, you use
it and you can log in everything that's going on
at work. So maybe you just think that something's going on,
but you're not really sure. You're like, oh, today they
didn't give me a lunch break. Oh today they took
(22:04):
a d they put me on suspension. Oh today they
did X, Y and Z.
Speaker 4 (22:08):
So.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
But now by the time that you go to HR,
you have a list of things with date and time
stamp of everything that happened. Then it's up to HR
to investigate to find out if it is what you
think that it.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
Is, because you know, sometimes people also feel like, well
HR works for the company.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Yes, but HR. You could go to HR. You can
go to a supervisor. But if you don't go to
somebody right and document that and document it some way,
then there's no possible way that it's going to stop. Right,
And not in New York City, but but in many
other places. If the if the company is not on notice,
specifically on notice that what's happening to you, then they're
(22:44):
not liable.
Speaker 3 (22:45):
Right because people are very hesitant, correct.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
But in New York City, like if the if the
person who's doing the harassment is a supervisor, then the
company's automatically liable.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Now, Marjorie, I do want to switch gears a little
bit here because it's been so much going on in
the news and I just want to get from you.
You've dealt with so many different people and even us
thinking about everything, like with Diddy, because I know that
was something that you have a lot of information about.
But when we think about women who have been in
situations and men too, right and then people wait years
(23:18):
decades to come forward, and I always see people say,
why didn't they say something when this happened? Why didn't
this person say something right away? Why are all these
people coming out of the woodworks now? And they think
it's just like this person was trying to buy a network,
or you know.
Speaker 3 (23:34):
They always have a reason.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
Why I just want to get from you, from people
that you've spoken to. Why is it that people wait
sometimes so long before they even come forward with something
that might have happened a long time ago, And then
a lot of times it's a snowball effect.
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Fear of retaliation, fear of not being believed, which is
actually a bigger fear than retaliation. You know how many
women have sat cross from me and say, who's gonna
believe me? I'm a single mom, And I was like,
wait a second, Like let's roll this back. Your word
is enough. But not everybody gets treated like their word
(24:12):
is enough. There are people who believe that unless they
can get two or three to back up what they're saying,
that their word is not enough. This is where I
feel like the Me Too movement really did help. It
showed us that our word is enough. And when you
speak out, then you get courage to speak out, and
you get courage to speak out because if I'm the
(24:34):
only one who's suffering and I say nothing, all three
of us could be suffering from the same person. But
when we start to talk about it, there's a shared
strength that comes into it, and now we can advance
forward because they may be able to ignore me. But
if it's three or four or fifty, yeah, then it's
harder to ignore. So the fear of not being believed
(24:55):
is so strong it's palpable.
Speaker 3 (24:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (24:58):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (24:59):
And sometimes legally it's also say somebody say you sue
for harassment and you don't win, then people think that
means you were lying and it didn't happen, when a
lot of times it just means you couldn't necessarily prove
that legally.
Speaker 2 (25:13):
Right. And the thing is, and that's another thing too,
is that in most often in cases where there's sexual harassment,
it is always almost always a he said, she said,
She said, she said, right. It's always going to be
one person's word against the other. But that's what juries
are for, right, And the jury can decide. I believe
you and I don't believe you. The idea that you
(25:36):
need that you need additional proof than your word is
not true. It's helpful, Don't get me wrong. I cannot
understate that if you have a recording, a text, or
anything that supports you in any way, it's gonna be helpful.
But I tell clients who sit across me all the time,
your word is enough evidence. You're going to be sworn
(26:00):
under oath, just like they're gonna be sworn under oath.
They're gonna say what happened in that room. You're gonna
say what's gonna happen in what happened in that room?
And the jury's gonna believe somebody.
Speaker 4 (26:10):
You know, I'm so glad you said that that your
word is enough, because in my mind I was like,
if it's not documented, I have a witness, I would
never want to come forward because it's like you said
your word against another. But in the flip right on
another scenario, I have I know somebody who felt retaliated
against they were they had a workplace romance that ended
(26:31):
poorly and then he felt like the woman retaliated by
claiming that she was forced to do certain things because
he was in a position of power and it really
hurt him. And again it was his word against hers,
and there was context, right, there's nuance, It wasn't they
were in relationship. So in those type of circumstances, you know,
(26:51):
how do I don't want to say, how does how
can that the person in power be protected?
Speaker 2 (26:57):
But what happens, as as with anything, if you want
to protect your perspective. You always want to document it
in some way if you want to if you want
to protect your no document your no, if you want
to protect their yes document. There, Yes, it cuts both ways,
like that work receed app that you know it's you
(27:19):
know it cuts both ways. I say that because what's
good for the goose is good for the gander. Right,
Overwhelmingly people do not make up, you know, sexual harassments
and discriminatory claims, and overwhelming that is not the norm.
But we cannot ignore that that exists. Right, So that's
why there has to be a legal process. That's why
there has to be a proof, and that's why a
(27:41):
jury gets to decide who's telling the truth and who
is not. There are attorneys who will not take cases
that is only blased on their client's word, no matter
how good they think that it is. They just simply
will not do it. And that's where people get the
messaging that their word is not enough. Because the more
I'm able to establish what you said with something other
(28:02):
than your word, my risk goes down. If you told
me he said this and he said that, and you
show me a text, I don't even have to believe you.
The jury doesn't even need to like you. It's in
a text. Yeah, right, exactly, you know, exactly, that's all
really the proof they need. But now if I go
through this entire process and we get to the jury,
and now the jury doesn't like you, and all I
have is your word.
Speaker 3 (28:22):
That's a whole.
Speaker 2 (28:23):
That's a high risk. That's high risk, high reward. It
could go either way. It could go either way.
Speaker 1 (28:28):
I want to ask you this too, because here's another
thing in the work that I do and seeing what
people have to say.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Civil cases where people.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Are, you know, trying to get a settlement for a
cent amount of money or get paid people also tend
to look at that as this person's just trying to
get a paiday, right, And so I want you to
break that down to because I feel like there's a
misconception about why people file civil cases.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
First, right, So not everything that is discriminatory or harassing
is criminal. Not everything that's discriminatory or harassing is criminal.
So criminal has one standard above a reasonable doubt, right
beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the standard for criminals. So
(29:13):
that's high right beyond a reasonable doubt. Is if we're
gonna do in percentages let's say reason beyond a reasonable
doubt is probably like eighty five percent sure, right, civil
where you know, what you get is money, not not
jail or anything like that. That standard, that standard is
(29:38):
more likely than not forty nine fifty one.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (29:42):
So if I'm like, so, if you have to prove
your case seventy five eighty five versus forty forty nine
to fifty one, which one you're gonna go for? You're
gonna go for the forty nine to fifty one because
it's easier, particularly if it's a he said, she said
type of thing. So many times even that acts that
are harassing and criminal, prosecutors will decline to prosecute, or
(30:05):
they won't charge them at the top charge. They'll do
it at a lower charge, for all sorts of reasons.
These these positions are politically elected, They have their own
stat you know, stats and stuff that they have to do.
There's all sorts of reasons why they don't they decide
not to prosecute. And if at every time that somebody,
you know, you know, somebody's ego was hurt and they
(30:27):
were turned down and they did something, you know, and
they did something and it was prosecuted each and every time,
then the courts would be overrun with that that sort
of thing. Right, So on the civil side, it gives
you an opportunity for there to be accountability, but instead
of somebody else deciding for you whether or not that
person is going to be prosecuted, you are the one
(30:47):
who gets to decide how much money is enough money,
and if neither one of you can decide that, then
the jury decides if any money is worth it at all.
So that's why civil is an attractive is an attractive
alternative because you are the one who makes the decision,
not a prosecutor, and you're the one who gets to
say how much is enough, not enough, not not a
(31:08):
third party. Now a lot of people will at the
other part of it with with the civil prosecution is
you have an opportunity to resolve it and nobody even
know about it. That's that's good for the person who's
been attacked and the person who who's allegedly did the attacking,
because the last thing the same way that the that
a lot of people that the same way that Diddy
(31:31):
is getting dragged to the mud for all of the
allegations there are Diddy accusers who are equally being dragged
through the money. Yes for even being bringing you know,
bringing up the accusation. So a lot of people decide said,
you know what, I don't want to deal with that.
This is this is something that impacted me. I'm in therapy,
I can't work anymore. I need money for my medical bills.
I need money to live. I'm gonna suit for this.
(31:53):
It's gonna be quiet and then it's all done. And
there's nothing wrong with that.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
I feel like people tend to look down on you
if you get a payment like a settlement, yeah, and
have something.
Speaker 3 (32:02):
To say about that. And you know, I want to
bring this back to our.
Speaker 1 (32:05):
Theme for International Women's Day, Give to gain and mentorship,
and I want to talk about women giving their knowledge
and support to one another and how that is. How
can we do that more right in the workplace and
things you've seen.
Speaker 2 (32:21):
No, absolutely, I think that we're doing it right now,
just actively and earnestly participating in these conversations and saying,
you know what the resources I have are available to you.
I don't get keep I don't get keep with what
I know. I don't get keep with the information that's
available to me if you tell me so and so
has a problem of I'm like, okay, let's do it.
(32:43):
Let's let's I'm going to roll up my sleeves and
get in. That's the level, that's the level of collaboration
effort that that women are really you know, leaning into
all the way and it's and the momentum on this
is incredibly significant. The same way that I can say
the stat of six hundred thousand black women have been
forced out of the workplace is that the other millions
(33:06):
of black women in that same workplace are ushering their
sisters in and using all of their power, dynamics, information
connections to help them come right back into the market
marketplace again, because what we've realized is that collaboration is
better than competition, right.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
And you know, along those lines, even being able to
discuss salaries, because I know that's another conversation in the
workplace when it comes to discrimination, and so I think
that's important too for us to be able to discuss
with each other what.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
We're getting paid for things.
Speaker 2 (33:38):
So what we're getting paid, what kind of packages that
are you know, that are available, what worked for us,
what didn't work for us, Because at the same time.
It The mentality I think before used to be I
have to keep this close to the vest, because if
I don't, then what I have is going to be attacked.
What we've realized, what we have is going to be
(33:59):
a tacked regardless, right, there is no protection of that.
So the only way we're gonna protect ourselves is if
we're all on one accord and we know that this
is the standard, and we're not accepting any less, then
we force the hand. We forced the hand on the
other side to say, now you can't mess with either
you know, either three of us because now we're all
exchanging information.
Speaker 4 (34:20):
Wasn't there laws or policies that prevented employees from talking
about salaries? And wasn't that lifted a few years ago?
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Actually it's actually quite it's actually quite the opposite. Under
the NLRB, your your ability to talk about your salary
and workplace conditions is a right that you cannot that
can you cannot be terminated for, you cannot be disciplined for,
or anything of like. You have that right in any
(34:49):
workplace to discuss both the conditions of your workplace. And
that's not just like discrimination and harassment. I'm talking about safety.
You know I'm talking about like and salary are all
completely protected if you are being if you are being
terminated or disciplined for these for these types of for
(35:12):
these types of discussions, you should definitely speak to an
attorney about possible retaliation because that is a right that
every every employee has in the workplace.
Speaker 3 (35:20):
Well, I appreciate this guy.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
I felt like this was a great empowering conversation for
people who are listening. We've had so many people call
in just to talk about things that have happened in
the workplace.
Speaker 3 (35:30):
What should I do?
Speaker 1 (35:32):
And felt like there's nothing that they could do, but
to know that these are the steps you could take.
And one thing I want to say that I got
from all of this is document, document, document.
Speaker 3 (35:40):
What is that app again? Work receipts, Work receipts, Yeah, periods.
You know they bring the receipts.
Speaker 2 (35:46):
Exactly that I think that I might inspiration, but no,
but exactly document document. Listen. Seventy percent of seventy percent
of Americans with paycheck to paycheck. Seventy percent means most people.
Seventy percent of people are one paycheck away from missing
their rents, not being able to put food on the table,
(36:07):
just so people are desperate to keep their jobs, which
is another reason why I always tell my clients there
are no friends at work, and it's like no, I mean,
it is fact because at the end of the day,
we could all be we could all be cool, we
can kick key it up as much as we want,
but it's like, uh, you know, somebody's getting fired or
somebody's like everybody's protecting their own because at the end
of the day, my check is not going to pay
(36:28):
for yours, right, and my check is not going to
pay for yours. So there is this idea of like
protecting you know, protecting themselves and protecting their own. Documenting
is one of those ways.
Speaker 4 (36:38):
Yeah, one of my biggest takeaways is your word is enough.
So hopefully that will encourage people if anything is happening,
speak up, you know how you know, how can they
get in contact with you or maybe somebody a local
lawyer or attorney, Like what type of help of resources
are out there for people who only have their word right?
Speaker 2 (37:00):
A majority of employment discrimination attorneys are contingency based, which
means they will take your case without you having to
paying money upfront, and most of the time consultations are free.
It costs you nothing to call an attorney for a
free consultation to figure out say is this a thing
or or is it not enough? If you get an
(37:21):
attorney that cares. Because for us, particularly at Mesodor PLC,
we are big with decline with dignity. I may not
take your case because I have six attorneys at my firm.
We can't take every case, right, we have to pick
and choose. But I'm not going to just decline you
and leave you high and dry. You're gonna walk away
with resources. You're gonna walk away with more information on
(37:44):
how to how to pursue this yourself. You may even
walk away with information on how to speak to the
next attorney about what it is that you have going on.
And if all attorneys do the same thing, then a
people would be a lot would be a lot better
off it because most of the time when they're like,
oh you don't have a text, Oh sorry, it can't
help you. I said, really, this person just open up
to you and said that their body was touched, right,
(38:06):
and you just said you don't have any proof. We're
just gonna leave them high and dard. Then what's the
point what's the point of being an attorney? Right? This
is why I don't gate keep because then then then
our positions mean nothing. What's the point of being a
black woman attorney if I.
Speaker 3 (38:21):
Gate keep right?
Speaker 2 (38:22):
Absolutely all my information, everything that's in here is available
to all of you and then some all our sisters, brothers,
you know, on all sides. When you think about policy too,
are there things that you would like to see happen?
Speaker 4 (38:34):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (38:34):
Yeah, there's so many things I would love to see happen.
One thing that I would sure love to see happen
is after you do all the hard work and you
actually win the case and you get a jury verdict.
I would love it if they couldn't send it back
to the judge and say, Judge, we think the jury
gave them too much. And the judge says, I think
you're right. We're just gonna slash it down remitted her.
(38:56):
So that's another thing that makes it very discouraging. You
can go through all of that. Yes, your word is enough,
you win. They believe you, they're on your side. They
give you exactly how much you need for you to
get your therapy and for you to be out of
work for some time for you to get yourself together
and then for the other side to say, you know what,
we're gonna prolong it even more. You know, everyone does
(39:16):
that exactly in addition to the two years that it
took you to even get to a jury verdict. Now
we're gonna go to the judge and we're gonna do
a post trial motion and we're gonna say the judge,
we think that they gave them too much. And the
judge may say one person can undo what a jury
just did. And I don't think that when you have
a jury of twelve people who sit down and look
(39:39):
at your client in their eye, they see the tears
in their face, they hear the breath when they testify,
that their assessment of how much that person should should
get is gonna be diminished by another judge that's just
looking at a transcript. They don't know when she said yes,
if she was bawling cry yes. They don't know whether
(40:02):
she could barely contain herself. They don't know. So that
is one thing that I would love to see changed,
is that remitted or would not be would not be
a pathway that defendants can use all the time, all
the time. But you don't really hear about it. You
always hear about the big verdict. People will tell you, oh,
(40:23):
didn't Tesla get one hundred million something verdict for race discrimination.
Most people don't know that that was slash.
Speaker 3 (40:28):
Yeah, they didn't have to pay it.
Speaker 2 (40:29):
It was slash. And then when they slash it, they
slash it to something so small. I've seen seven figure
awards go down to a couple a couple of tens
of thousands.
Speaker 1 (40:40):
That's wild and that's discouraging. Can you imagine how that
feels to somebody?
Speaker 2 (40:44):
Right exactly? And this is where, like you know, our
continued conversation regarding the EI is important. Who those judges
are important, The fact that you know, is it an
elected judge or is it an appointed judge for life?
Pointed judges for life. They come from a particular pedigree, right,
the best schools, the best, this the best best, best best.
(41:05):
And they may be a little bit removed, I don't
want to say out of touch, right, but they may
be a little bit more removed from the average workers,
the average workers plight versus somebody who may be elected.
They got to grind for their Yeah, you know, they
have to grind for there. They have to choose exactly.
They're they're more in sync with the people, So it's
you know, it's different, but you don't get to pick
(41:26):
and choose.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
This feels like a TV show, you know what I'm saying,
We have reasonable doubt, what's the what's the Marjorie mezzidors,
just because I do feel like I could see all
of these different scenarios playing out and then see somebody
getting a verdict, and you know, I just I just
see it in my head.
Speaker 3 (41:44):
Right yeah.
Speaker 1 (41:46):
But I also think watching shows like that is what
helps people feel like they have more information and knowledge too.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Right, absolutely. And the other thing that people don't talk
about is what does it mean to be representing a
marginalized population? Why you yourself are a marginal population and
the secondary trauma that comes from that.
Speaker 3 (42:06):
Oh my gosh, I can't even imagine.
Speaker 2 (42:07):
Because then you're fighting multiple battles, right, I'm not only
fighting for you and your and your situation in the
justice system. I'm fighting my adversary to be taken seriously.
I may be fighting the judge to be taken seriously.
I may be doing all of these things simultaneously. So
this is why, again, gate keeping benefits no one.
Speaker 3 (42:27):
Absolutely not.
Speaker 2 (42:29):
It benefits no one.
Speaker 1 (42:30):
I know you have had to have had some heartbreaking
moments as absolutely there are.
Speaker 2 (42:35):
There are cases that I still have nightmares about.
Speaker 3 (42:37):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (42:39):
There are people who are on the opposite side of
this work, who are management side, who make it their
business to punish those who bring up cases of discrimination
and sexual harassment. So they punish them by using the process.
They make sure that the litigation process is the most invasive, uncomfortable,
(42:59):
like raw, gut wrenching thing. And that's how they make
a name for themselves, and that's how they make a
name for their companies, right, And this is why companies
will hire them, because they'll know that somebody will think
twice about bringing a sexual harassment claim because they know
that their attorney is gonna gut is gonna try to
gut them at the root, regardless of whether or not
it's true. And that to me is so disgusting because
(43:22):
I you know, you work with somebody, When you go
through something with somebody, like there's an affinity there. Sometimes
the client comes to me and they're telling me things
that they don't even tell their spouse exactly exactly. They
tell you things that they don't tell their spouses, their friends,
their mothers. Sometimes none of those people even know it's
coming out until you're getting ready to file a public case.
(43:44):
And that's why deciding to file a public case is
such a big, big, big decision.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
Yeah, people act like it's not just to even understand.
And like you said earlier when we were discussing why
people may wait, it is also at a time when
you may feel safe enough to wrong enough, you know,
just in a space where you're like okay, because it's
a big deal. It is like it can be life changing,
and I there.
Speaker 4 (44:08):
Are a lot of survivors saying they don't want to
relive that, Like once they're out of the situation, they
want to move for where they want to move forward.
They definitely don't want to go to trial and talk
about it, like we saw what happened with Cassie, even
she was like eight nine months pregnant and had to
relive all of that. So there are a lot of
different reasons why people don't you know, speak up at
that time.
Speaker 2 (44:28):
Right, Not only that, it's just like we don't even
need to take it that far. You could be a
regular person and you saw you filed the lawsuit, you're
out on a date and the person googled you and
they find your lawsuit.
Speaker 4 (44:40):
Oh that's a good point, you know.
Speaker 2 (44:43):
And now friends go on days.
Speaker 3 (44:44):
I'd be looking up all I said, what's his name?
Speaker 2 (44:45):
Exactly exactly, And now they have like information and like this.
A lot of this stuff can be damning. Yeah, it
can be damning.
Speaker 4 (44:56):
It can be right.
Speaker 2 (44:58):
And the law is evolving every requiring you to put
more detailed, more facts in these pleadings, in these lawsuits.
It used to be you could do a short and
simple statement of the facts. So and so it's working here.
Blah blah blah. They were asked out, they declined, they
were retaliate against that. You could use the very bare minimum.
(45:18):
Now they're asking you, no, we need more detail, we
need specificity. So then now attorneys are throwing everything in there.
And a lot of this stuff is intimate. Yeah, it
is intimate. And even if it's something as small, and
I'm saying small on a relative scale, right, as a
forced kiss, Right, who wants the first introduction that you
(45:42):
have with the person is to know that they were
their boss forcibly kissed them.
Speaker 3 (45:47):
Right?
Speaker 2 (45:49):
Shouldn't you get to decide when that comes out and
how that comes out.
Speaker 4 (45:53):
Why are there's so many requirements for those extra intimate details.
Speaker 2 (45:57):
Because the law is saying that the defendant needs to
be reasonably unnotice on what it is that they're being
accused about. They really need to know. They have to
have an understanding. If I'm being sued for sexual harassment,
what did I do that was sexually harassing? They want
a full list, and they want everything. And when your
complaint is not detailed, the presumption is it's made up.
Speaker 3 (46:22):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (46:22):
But when your complaint is more detailed time days. You guys,
remember that Cassie complaint, Yeah that she filed again? Well,
how many pages was that that.
Speaker 3 (46:30):
She was telling all kind of stuff that I felt
so oh right.
Speaker 2 (46:32):
Yeah, because.
Speaker 4 (46:34):
I felt bad she had to disclose all of those details.
But you're saying she had to in order to make
her case.
Speaker 2 (46:39):
What I'm saying to you is the fact that her
pleadings were so detailed it becomes very hard to ignore. Yeah, right,
So the remember, the other side is always going to
be like, oh, she's just looking for money. You know,
she had a failed career and that's why she's coming out.
And you know, they're always throwing these things when you're like,
but page seventy five says and this, and then what
(47:01):
what happens? People start fact checking. They're like, she was
at that party, and he was there too, and I
do remember when his car blew up, and I do remember.
And then because of all those details, then her word
gets starts to get a little bit more exactly, it
gets a little heavier. This is why attorneys, This is
(47:23):
why attorneys do it. Did she have to go to
those to that's painstaking detail in order for it not
to be dismissed because there wasn't enough detail? Maybe not,
you know, I'm not gonna you know, Monday night quarterback?
Speaker 4 (47:36):
Right?
Speaker 2 (47:36):
Maybe not? But did it help? Absolutely? Absolutely. Somebody's like,
even if she was lying, she was lying about all
whatever to her her own exactly exactly.
Speaker 4 (47:50):
She put herself in a light that was not too
flattering herself.
Speaker 2 (47:54):
And and what do we always say, authenticity translates, truth translate.
You won't know what them. American public will accepts being
okay and not being okay, but just be you, because
one thing that we won't tolerate is that hypocrisy or
lying or whatever. But if you're like, yeah, I did that,
and I did that too, but he definitely did this.
And when this has happened, that gives more credibility. It
(48:16):
gives more credibility to say that it was X, Y
and Z.
Speaker 1 (48:20):
What about the Adult Survivors Act when when that? I
want to know what your thoughts were on that and
what kind of workloads you had during that time.
Speaker 2 (48:29):
So during the time of the Adult Survivors Act, workloads
for all plaintive side attorneys definitely went up because what
it did is it reopened the statute of limitations on
old claims and revived them for a short window of time.
So anything from basically the beginning of time all the
way through, so long as it was filed within this
(48:51):
window and met this specific criteria. And I'm not going
to bore you with all the with all the details,
then you could at least bring the claim right. Something
like the ASA is so invaluable because it recognizes that
people don't come forward because they're afraid, because they're afraid
(49:11):
of retaliation, they're afraid of not being believed, and because
they're afraid that the people who did this to them
have a way of hurting them again. But since me too,
in particular, and me too. Wasn't the only time there
was like this reckoning, right, but me too in maybe
like our most recent history in particular, started happening. We
(49:33):
realized for those of us who didn't already know how
commonplace it is having conversations. I do this work, and
I found out things about aunts and cousins, and I
was like, but you know, why wouldn't you ever? People
don't talk about it because they are afraid of not
being believed. So what this is doing is says, listen,
(49:56):
we understand that it's difficult. We are reopening it for
this period of time so that you can hold individuals
accountable that perhaps you couldn't have. We I remember having
clients come to me with letters from there from people
who assaulted them, apologizing waiting after the statute of limitations
because they knew they were safe, that they were safe,
(50:18):
and they're just walking around with the with the person
who assault them's letter like and it would be like
in their in their purse pocket. It goes everywhere they
go and they're like, what can I do about this? Well,
during the ASA, you could do something about it, right, Unfortunately,
now it's closed, it's sunseted, it doesn't you know it,
(50:39):
you know, and it doesn't look like they're around. They're
going to do around too.
Speaker 3 (50:45):
But that was a crazy time, but it wasn't.
Speaker 2 (50:49):
It was a crazy time. But the thing is is
that people, Yeah, people should be afraid and yeah, I
think twice.
Speaker 3 (50:55):
You never know exactly that you got away with something.
Speaker 1 (50:58):
Don't do it because I always hear people saying, oh,
it was the time period, Oh everybody was like that. Oh,
And I hate that when people say it's just what
people did, it's just how we acted.
Speaker 3 (51:09):
It was just what the workplace was like during that time.
Speaker 1 (51:11):
And certain things are if you're a stand up individual
or never appropriate.
Speaker 4 (51:16):
And you know, another thing I really don't like is
when you hear people saying, well, you can't believe women.
A lot of them are lying and they're going after
the money.
Speaker 2 (51:26):
Believe.
Speaker 4 (51:27):
Do you have statistics that that tell how many cases
are actually not true or proven not true versus you know,
is there like because that's not true.
Speaker 1 (51:39):
I don't mean it's not true sometimes exactly, but people
coming forward and saying I lied, right, Yeah, But.
Speaker 4 (51:44):
Isn't it just like the mass majority are true, are.
Speaker 2 (51:49):
Legitimate overwhelmingly we're talking about less than ten percent, So
less than ten percent ten percent. I don't like to
throw out numbers out there that I'm not like sure on,
so I can't be like it's eight or it's two.
But I know that it's less than ten percent.
Speaker 1 (52:05):
And I tell you what, there's way more people that
will never come forward than people who have come forward
or people who you.
Speaker 3 (52:11):
Know it's not true.
Speaker 1 (52:12):
I guarantee you that number is multitudes exponentially more than
people who have actually even come forward to tell their story.
Speaker 2 (52:19):
They say that seventy five percent of individuals do not
come forward about sexual harassment in the workplace, specifically sexual
five percent. So that means so that means no matter
how much sexual harassment that HR departments know about, just
know that there's actually three times more.
Speaker 4 (52:36):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (52:37):
All right, well, I appreciate you.
Speaker 1 (52:39):
This was a whole power for us, But it does
feel like we got some amazing valuable information. Hopefully people
who are listening. If there's something that you've been contemplating,
or some first steps you know you need to take,
this is your sign to go ahead and make those
first steps. And you know, I appreciate you for sharing
all of this invaluable information with us.
Speaker 2 (53:00):
Thank you, Thank you for having me. Thank you ladies
for shredding a light on this.
Speaker 3 (53:03):
And you're going to continue to be a resource for
us on way up.
Speaker 2 (53:06):
Absolutely so we think that you need.
Speaker 3 (53:08):
We are grateful for this. Thank you so much, Thank you,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!