Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts
Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts
Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts
Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts
Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts
Even though the federal holiday of Hispanic Heritage Month only spans from September 15 to October 15, the fight for Hispanic civil and labor rights in America has persisted for the past century. As a lawyer that advocates for workers who have been discriminated against, I’ve seen firsthand how the fight for civil rights continues to shape the lives of Latinos in the workplace.
Hispanics make up 40.2% of Texas’s population, the largest group in the state, according to the 2022 census. They are also 30% more likely to die from a work injury than other workers.
Hispanic workers are overrepresented in high-risk but essential industries like construction, agriculture, transportation, and manufacturing. These jobs often involve hazardous conditions that greatly increase the risk of serious injuries and fatalities. Oftentimes, employers will also neglect to make sure their employees, especially those who don’t speak English fluently, know their rights and proper safety protocol.
Despite these alarming numbers, the state of Hispanic workers’ rights has come so far from where they began. Hispanic Heritage Month seems like the perfect time to reflect on the groundbreaking civil rights cases and events that have paved the way for equality, especially for Latino workers. These cases, including both wins and losses for the Latino community, are a reminder that the legal battles fought for justice still impact the rights of Latinos in the workforce today.
Pecan Shellers Strike: Wages and Working Conditions
In 1938, about 12,000 pecan shellers, mostly Mexican American women, decided to walk out of their jobs in San Antonio, citing drastic pay and grueling working conditions. Spanning three months, the strike attracted nationwide attention and incited confrontations between the government, pecan companies and workers.
Eventually, the strike led to a victory as wages were raised and working conditions improved. It also led to the passing of The Fair Labor Relations Act which effectively raised the minimum wage to 25 cents per hour, which would not be worth much today, even after conversion, but was a significant step forward for workers’ rights in history.
Mendez v. Westminster: The Fight Against Segregation
Before Brown v. Board of Education challenged school segregation for African Americans, Mendez v. Westminster (1947) fought against segregated schools for Mexican Americans. This case centered around Sylvia Mendez, a young girl who was denied entry into a white school in California because of her Mexican heritage.
The Mendez family, along with other Latino families, sued the school district, arguing that segregating Mexican American students was unconstitutional. The federal court ruled in their favor, marking one of the first successful desegregation cases in U.S. history.
While Mendez v. Westminster was about education, its impact stretches far beyond the classroom. As a discrimination lawyer, I often see the echoes of this fight in the workplace. Segregation and exclusion, whether in schools or jobs, have lasting effects on the opportunities available to Latino workers.
National Farm Workers Association (NFWA): Advocating for Workers’ Rights
The NFWA, founded in 1962 by César Chávez and Dolores Huerta, was a game-changer for Hispanic workers’ rights, especially in the agricultural sector. Before the NFWA, farm workers, many of whom were Mexican American or Mexican immigrants, endured grueling working conditions, long hours, and meager pay without any legal protections or the ability to collectively bargain. The NFWA aimed to change that by organizing farm workers and advocating for better wages, improved working conditions, and the right to unionize.
The group organized a particularly successful grape strike from 1966 to 1977, spreading awareness about the Chicano movement across the nation and around the world. Their actions set the precedent for collective bargaining and union representation in industries where Hispanic workers are often overrepresented and vulnerable to exploitation. The NFWA’s activism laid the groundwork for labor rights that many farm workers now benefit from, such as mandated rest breaks, access to clean drinking water, and the right to a safe working environment.
Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co.: Immigration Status and Employment
In Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co. (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the question of whether an employer could refuse to hire a legal resident of Mexican descent because they were not a U.S. citizen. The Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on national origin but does not prevent employers from requiring U.S. citizenship as a condition for employment. So, an employer can refuse to hire someone that is not a U.S. citizen but cannot refuse someone just for being Latino.
While this case was not a win for the plaintiff, it was an important moment in the ongoing fight to clarify the relationship between immigration status and employment rights. Today, immigrant workers—many of whom are Latino—continue to face discrimination not just because of their race or national origin, but because of their perceived or actual immigration status.
Employers often use immigration status to exploit or discriminate against Latino workers, particularly in industries like agriculture, construction, and hospitality, where immigrant labor is common. In a society where the subject of immigration is a constant hot spot, cases like Espinoza remind us that while there have been important victories, the struggle for equal treatment of immigrant workers continues.
EEOC v. Premier Operator Services, Inc.: Language Discrimination in the Workplace
Fast-forward to the year 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a claim against Premier Operator Services, a telecommunications company in Dallas, on behalf of 13 Hispanic employees. The workers filed suit after the company required all conversations be held in English, even during lunch and other breaks, even though, ironically, the employees were hired for their abilities to speak Spanish to clients. The workers who refused to sign the language-restriction document and filed discriminatory charges were promptly fired without notice.
The EEOC argued that this was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The court ruled in favor of the EEOC, awarding the workers $700,000 in damages. Many Latino workers face hostile environments or discriminatory policies simply because they speak Spanish or have accents. This case was a huge win for Hispanic workers and underscores the importance of enforcing anti-discrimination laws and ensuring that all workers, regardless of their background, can work in an environment free from hostility and prejudice.
Continuing the Fight for Workplace Equality
Hispanic Heritage Month is a time to celebrate the rich cultural contributions of the Latino community, but it’s also a time to reflect on the legal battles that have been fought—and continue to be fought—to secure equal rights. Each of these cases serves as a reminder that the law plays a vital role in dismantling discrimination and ensuring that all workers, regardless of their background, are treated fairly.
Our law firm understands the unique challenges that Hispanic employees face, from language barriers to unfair treatment, and we are dedicated to protecting your rights. If you’ve been a victim of work discrimination, our experienced team will advocate for you. Call us today or submit a questionnaire to begin your consultation.
Read more like this:
In September this year, Texas, that is, Ken Paxton, sued the Federal Health and Human Services (HHS) Department over a new bill that shields medical records of women who go out of state for abortion procedures from state investigators. Speaking as a mother and a legal defender of women, families and children, this lawsuit converges on the rights of women and has dangerous implications for the privacy and freedom of the general public.
What is the Privacy Rule?
The lawsuit filed by Paxton challenges two rules set by HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996): the 2000 Privacy Rule and the updated 2024 Privacy Rule.
This rule, which became effective in 2001, should be familiar to anyone who’s been to the doctor and needed to fill out a bunch of forms. The law sets the national standards for the protection of individuals’ medical records and other personal health information. In other words, this is why, after the age of 18, other members of your family or close confidants need written permission from you to view your medical records.
Other medical entities like healthcare providers and health plans may access the minimal necessary information about you as a patient to allow for convenient and high-quality treatment but its main goal is to safeguard patient privacy. Paxton’s lawsuit challenges the section that prevents disclosure of this information to state investigators/law enforcement without the individual’s authorization.
The 2024 Privacy Rule, also called “the Final Rule”, makes an amendment to the original 2000 rule and was set as a response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned the federal right to abortion and led to state abortion bans and investigations across the country. The rule, made effective in June this year, prohibits state investigators from viewing the records of women who travel out of state to receive abortions in states where they are legal. The rule essentially protects the information of women in states where abortion is illegal, like Texas.
In the lawsuit, Paxton claims that this is a violation of the original law that allows information to be revealed to states for law enforcement purposes. The lawsuit goes on to include “gender dysphoria” procedures in the term “Reproductive Health Care”, targeting transgender surgeries along with abortions.
Abortion in Texas is considered illegal except in extreme cases where the mother is at risk of losing her life or is at great health risk because of the pregnancy. Women who seek or receive care will not suffer from criminal charges. Providers, on the other hand, could face losing their license and up to a life sentence in prison.
Paxton asserts that the HHS has acted unlawfully, and that the federal government is “attempting to undermine Texas’s law enforcement capabilities”.
What would it mean if Texas won?
If Texas wins the lawsuit against the 2024 Privacy Rule, a few big things could happen:
At the base level, a victory for Texas would allow them access to medical records related to reproductive health, like abortion services and gender-transitions, for the purpose of potentially prosecuting individuals. That means less privacy and less protection for Texas patients.
It would also mean a significant shift in state power in general. Since the inception of America, the fight over states’ rights versus federal rights has divided the country on who has the power. This lawsuit could affirm Texas’s ability to enact and enforce its own laws, especially regarding abortion and reproductive health. It might raise questions as to the validity of federal rules, like HIPAA.
A ruling in favor of Texas would roll back the 2024 rule but it could also put the original HIPAA rules at risk as well. This could allow law enforcement and other state agencies to more easily access sensitive health information without the same safeguards required by the federal rule. As of now, an attestation must be signed by healthcare entities to ensure that medical records are not being used for prohibited purposes. It’s possible, though, that after the ruling, these things could be undermined.
Like many policies in Texas, the ambiguity of the language and regulations leave those they are affecting in tough and confusing spots. Doctors and clinics may feel conflicted in having to follow federal rules that protect patient privacy and also state laws that might demand access to that same information. They could face legal consequences no matter which law they choose to follow.
Additionally, patients who need an abortion but live in states where it is illegal, without the option of leaving the state to do it, might look for options that are unsafe and unregulated.
In short, a win for Texas on this lawsuit would mean a loss for reproductive rights and for the American people.
At Carter Law Group, we care about your rights. As defenders of women and sexual assault victims, as mothers, this subject hits close to our hearts. That’s why you can trust us to fight for your rights. If you’re in need of a lawyer, call us today.
Read similar articles below:
Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts
Source: Food and Drugs Administration--Recalls/Safety Alerts
Source: FDA Food Safety Recalls RSS Feed
