Login

$4 Million for Racial Slurs, Chicago Sun Times, Oct. 19, 2000,

Mr. Asonye’s client, who was subjected to a daily barrage of racial slurs from his boss, said he was ecstatic after securing a $4 million verdict against his employer.

The Plaintiff claims that his boss repeatedly ridiculed him in Spanish by calling him a “f-----g n----r.” The Plaintiff, 45, a dark skinned man from the Dominican Republic, won the judgment when a federal jury found he had endured five years of harassment at GCC Drum, an industrial drum maker in west suburban Franklin Park. After a four-day trial, a federal court jury in Chicago awarded Mr. Asonye’s client $4,000,000, which included $3 million in punitive damages.

The jury, composed of one African American, three Hispanics and two Caucasians, found in favor of Mr. Asonye’s client after deliberating for 3 ½ hours. The verdict included $900,000 for the mental anguish caused by the slurs and $100,000 for lost wages. Mr. Asonye tried this case in federal court with attorney Jack Epstein of Chicago, Illinois. 

Firm's Client Obtains Judgment Against a Chicago Hospital in Sex Harassment Lawsuit

In June of 2007-Our client, a former employee of an agency serving the a Chicago Hospital, brought a sexual harassment charge against the Hospital. She claimed that she was subjected to unwanted sexual advances by her supervisor, a Hospital employee. When she resisted, her supervisor became hostile, gave her a poor evaluation and the Hospital made her life miserable in other ways. She filed a charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigation, the EEOC concluded that she was sexually harassed and that when she protested, the Hospital and her supervisor tried to transfer her to a distant location, unfavorably altered her working conditions, and gave her a poor evaluation. 

Our law firm then filed her case in federal court in September 2006. While the case was in process and to avoid a trial, the Hospital made our client an offer of judgment. According to the offer of judgment, defendent agreed that judgment would be entered against it, and in favor of our client for an amount compensating our client for injuries and her attorneys’ fees.  
 
Satisfied with defendent's  concessions, our client agreed to ask the judge to enter judgment in her favor, and against the Hospital. The case concluded successfully on June  2007 when the Honorable Judge entered judgment against the Defendent, and in favor of our victorious client compensating her for injuries and her attorneys’ fees.

2009-Firm Wins Disability/Handicap Discrimination Federal Court Appeal Victory For The Deaf

September 2008,  7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion

Our law firm won a major court victory for deaf job applicants and workers in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Our deaf client is an attorney who obtained a J.D. Degree from Quinnpiac University School of Law and an LLM degree in taxation from Georgetown University Law Center. He applied to work with Defendent as a tax consultant. He claimed that in a subsequent telephone conversation conducted through a Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS), Defendent offered him a job interview which they later retracted after learning that he was deaf during that TRS conversation.

Defendent asked that the case be dismissed, arguing that the TRS discussion was inadmissible hearsay and could not be considered in the case. The district judge dismissed the case on the grounds that our client could not testify to the contents of the conversation with the employer. According to the district judge, testimony regarding communications through TRS is inadmissible hearsay because a third person is involved who translates between the hearing person and the deaf person.

Our law firm appealed that decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals with the assistance of attorneys from the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) as well as the EEOC and U.S. Department of Justice. On appeal, we argued that a TRS conversation involving deaf persons should be treated the same way as telephone conversations between two hearing people which are admissible in evidence.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with us. It overturned the decision of district judge and ruled that testimony of TRS conversations involving deaf persons are admissible just like telephone conversations between hearing people. This ground-breaking decision bears major significance for the deaf as it ensures that they can conduct day-to-day business activities through TRS without fear that their testimony regarding the transactions would not stand up in court. The decision is further remarkable as it is the first case in the Seventh Circuit jurisdiction that has ruled on the issue. In fact, no Court of Appeals had addressed the admissibility of the statements made in a TRS conversation prior to this opinion.

Needless to say that our victorious client, law firm, as well as attorneys from NAD are ecstatic about the outcome of the appeal. The case has now been assigned to a new district court judge who will set a trial date in January 2009.

2009 Court Ruling on Prego Comments Paves Way For Client's Pregnancy Harassment Case

United States District Court, Northern Division of Illinois, Eastern District  January  2009

The Honorable Judge issued an opinion in a pregnancy discrimination case brought by one of our clients in federal court. In that case, our client claimed to have been subjected to a barrage of harassing comments from coworkers while she was pregnant, including that "pregos are sexy" and such. In the lawsuit, we claimed pregnancy harassment which we believed should be recognized just like sexual and racial harassment cases. Defendent attorneys resisted this somewhat novel claim and asked the court to dismiss our client’s case on several grounds, including jurisdiction. The Court refused to dismiss the case. Instead, it sustained our client’s case and her entire complaint.

In handing this motion to dismiss victory to our client, the Honorable Judge  rejected Defendent attorneys’ arguments. In doing so, the court stated that since Plaintiff claims that she was subjected to offensive comments due to her pregnancy such as "sexy prego" and "pregos are sexy", she may proceed with her sexual and pregnancy harassment case in federal court under Title VII. With this motion denied, the court paved the way for the case to progress to discovery and depositions.

-->