Articles Posted in Discrimination

by

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman recently announced that his office has settled a sexual harassment and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed against a Syracuse mortuary school and its president in 2011. As part of the settlement, the Simmons Institute of Funeral Services and Maurice Wightman agreed to pay restitution to a number of former instructors and students who filed complaints against the school and to implement reforms designed to ensure future harassment and discrimination do not occur. Additionally, both the school and Wightman agreed to refrain from engaging in any sort of retaliation against the women who filed complaints against the institution and to immediately report any future harassment or discrimination allegations to the Office of the Attorney General.

According to the lawsuit, Wightman made sexual comments and inappropriately touched female students. He also allegedly refused to allow both pregnant students and faculty to engage in certain activities despite doctor approval. Ironically, Wightman is reportedly the private for-profit school’s designated contact for all discrimination and harassment complaints.

In New York, discrimination on the basis of a woman’s pregnancy constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. Title IX of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any educational institution that receives federal funds from engaging in sex discrimination in education. Additionally, both New York and federal law require employers and educators to refrain from engaging in pregnancy discrimination.
Continue reading

by

A bill that was recently introduced in the New York Legislature would provide unpaid interns with many of the same statutory protections that employees across the state currently enjoy. S05951 would make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against interns who are members of a protected class. If the proposed measure is approved, interns would be legally protected from discrimination based upon race, creed, age, national origin, color, sexual orientation, disability, marital status, and other factors. It would also provide unpaid employees with both sexual harassment and whistleblower protections.

The bill was introduced by democratic lawmaker Liz Krueger of Manhattan. She stated a recent New York federal court ruling in which an intern’s sexual harassment lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing under the New York Human Rights Law demonstrates the need for the proposed legislation. In the past, some courts have also held that interns are not afforded the same protections as employees under federal civil rights laws. If the proposed measure is passed, New York will become the second state to provide unpaid interns with substantially similar legal protections as paid employees. Oregon enacted a so-called intern rights law in June.

Employers in New York, New Jersey, and throughout the nation are not legally required to treat each worker fairly. For example, in some situations an employer may engage in nepotism, favoritism, or simple “office politics.” An employee who is treated poorly may only seek legal action where the discrimination was based on a legally protected status. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating against a worker based on race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Both the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law prohibit employment discrimination based on gender and other factors. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination also makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate in any job-related action on the basis of one or more of the statute’s protected categories.
Continue reading

by

In September, Exxon Mobil Corporation announced that the company would begin offering benefits to the legally married same-sex spouses of employees in the United States. According to a spokesperson for the company, Alan Jeffers, the change was made in response to official guidance that was issued by the nation’s Department of Labor after the Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in June. Jeffers stated that Exxon has not changed its criteria for benefits eligibility. He added that the oil and gas company offers same-sex spousal benefits in at least 30 nations consistent with local legal requirements.

Despite the change, Exxon has been accused of failing to adequately protect gay workers and applicants in the past. This year, the Human Rights Campaign ranked the company dead last when compared with other corporate gay, lesbian, and transgender employee anti-discrimination policies. In addition, a lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination against a gay job applicant was recently filed against Exxon in the State of Illinois.

All current or potential employees in New Jersey who are members of a protected class are protected from workplace discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating based on race, religion, color, sex, or national origin. Additionally, New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate in any job-related action on the basis of any of the statute’s protected categories. LAD protected categories include sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, race, sex, pregnancy status, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, marital status, mental or physical disability, and others.
Continue reading

by

A federal jury has ruled in favor of a 25-year-old mentally disabled man who was discriminated against by his employer in Texas. According to a lawsuit filed against the Kroger chain of grocery stores, the mentally challenged former employee worked at one of the company’s stores without incident for four years before he was transferred to a grocery store in Plano. The man claims a store manager began verbally abusing him and calling him names about one-week after the transfer. The 25-year-old also alleges that he was regularly asked to perform duties by himself that normally required at least two people. Approximately one year after he was transferred, the disabled man filed a discrimination and harassment lawsuit against the company. The young man also claims he was fired as a direct result of filing the legal complaint.

After four days of testimony regarding the alleged harassment endured by the mentally challenged 25-year-old, a jury issued an award of $450,000 in damages. His father stated he was happy with the verdict because it sends a message to employers that discrimination against the disabled will not be tolerated. A representative for Dallas-based Kroger said the company is currently considering whether to appeal the jury’s verdict.

Unfortunately, not all disability discrimination is immediately so obvious. Sadly, many employers in New Jersey and elsewhere choose to unlawfully discriminate against or harass workers who suffer from a disability due to biased thinking. Disabled persons in New York and New Jersey have a right to expect that their employers will provide them with reasonable accommodations that allow them to perform their essential job duties. If a disability does not physically prevent a worker from performing his or her job requirements, an employer has no legal basis on which to discriminate. If your request for reasonable accommodations at work due to a disability was denied, your rights may have been violated.
Continue reading

by

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has signed into law a bill designed to assist women in the fight for equal pay. The new law prohibits employers from punishing workers who disclose their rate of pay or other compensation information to co-workers who seek to investigate whether a company or employer is engaging in compensation discrimination.

In 2009, data compiled by the United States Census Bureau found that women earn about three-fourths the pay rate of their male counterparts. In high paying professions, the pay gap is reportedly even wider. Census data also found that minority women tend to suffer the highest pay disparity when compared with white men.

The new law was sponsored in the New Jersey Assembly by legislators Angel Fuentes, Pam Lampitt, and Celeste Riley. According to Fuentes, the law will make it more difficult for employers to continue “discriminatory compensation practices” based on gender because workers will be protected from retaliation over sharing their compensation information. Lampitt, who also serves as Assembly Women and Children Committee Chair, stated she hopes the law will help to chip away at the remaining glass ceiling. Riley added that it only makes sense for women with equal education and experience to receive equal pay for the same job.
Continue reading

by

A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch engaged in religious discrimination against a former employee. According to a lawsuit filed by the nation’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 2011, the company fired a female Muslim worker for refusing to remove her hijab during work hours. The former worker claims she wore a hijab to the job interview and to work after initially employed by a San Mateo Hollister store. Months later, the company allegedly told the woman the head scarf violated the company’s policy regarding how an employee should look and terminated her. In June, the federal judge who heard the case reportedly criticized Abercrombie & Fitch for failing to provide evidence that the worker’s hijab caused the company to lose revenue. A damages award has not yet been determined.

This is not the first time Abercrombie & Fitch has been accused of illegal discrimination. In 2011, the company lost a wrongful termination lawsuit that was filed against it by another Muslim employee who was apparently fired for refusing to remove her hijab. Earlier this year, Abercrombie & Fitch also lost a disability discrimination lawsuit related to lack of wheelchair access at the company’s Hollister stores. A federal judge gave the company until 2017 to build handicapped accessible store fronts.

Although this situation occurred in California, New Jersey employers are also required to make reasonable accommodations for workers with regard to religious needs. In general, discrimination has occurred if an employer fails to make religious accommodations that do not have a major impact on business operations. Workers who were discriminated against in New Jersey have a right under both state and federal law to sue for damages. Before an employee may recover damages for discrimination, however, he or she must be part of a group that is protected by statute. Workers who suffered discrimination based upon their religion, gender, age, pregnancy status, military status, disability, race, and more may have a discrimination claim against an employer.
Continue reading

by

An Indiana-based power grid company recently agreed to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit for more than $90,000. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reportedly filed the lawsuit against Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) in response to a complaint filed by a former employee who was allegedly terminated as a result of a medical leave request related to postpartum depression treatment. MISO reportedly fired the employee for lack of attendance despite that the leave she requested was allowed by company policy. MISO also apparently told the employee that she could not be absent due to the critical nature of her job duties. Still, the company purportedly waited nearly two months after her requested return date to fill the former worker’s position.

According to the EEOC, the former worker’s postpartum depression severely limited more than one of her major life activities for a substantial period of time. Because of this, the agency charged that it was a protected disability pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under the ADA, U.S. employers must provide reasonable accommodations to disabled workers unless the accommodation would cause undue hardship for the employer.

As part of a consent decree, the federal court ordered MISO to pay the former employee $90,500, provide ADA training to company workers, provide annual disability request and compliance reports to the EEOC, and notify other workers about the lawsuit and settlement. The EEOC is also tasked with monitoring company compliance with the ADA over the course of the next three years.
Continue reading

by

Major League Baseball (MLB) recently issued new harassment and discrimination policies to every major and minor league baseball player employed by a member of the league. According to a new agreement, the organization will provide training sessions for employees and a central complaint system that was created to prevent and combat sexual orientation discrimination and harassment. Despite that the MLB already has an anti-discrimination policy in place, Chicago White Sox manager Robin Ventura stated the new code of conduct was designed to ensure that all players fully understand any harassment or discrimination based on a player’s sexual orientation is unacceptable. MLB Commissioner Bud Selig added that the league will not tolerate sexual orientation harassment on or off of the playing field.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman reportedly assisted in drafting the new harassment and discrimination policy. Earlier this year, Schneiderman also assisted the National Football League with drafting a similar code of conduct after questions purportedly arose at the NFL combine. According to Schneiderman, both policies constitute a “clear stand against discrimination.” The Major League Baseball Players Association has also expressed its support for the new policy.

Although the new MLB policy only affects professional baseball players, all employers in New Jersey are prohibited from discriminating against current or potential workers who are members of a protected class. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) also prohibits discrimination in any job-related action on the basis of any of the law’s protected categories. LAD protected categories include race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex, pregnancy status, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, mental or physical disability, and more. In addition, employers in New Jersey may not engage in retaliation after a worker makes a good faith complaint about alleged discrimination or harassment. Individuals who suffered workplace discrimination in New Jersey may choose to file a formal complaint with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights within 180 days of the incident or file a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court. A quality New Jersey employment attorney can explain the process in greater detail.
Continue reading

by

The Fire Department of New York (FDNY) has reportedly settled a sex discrimination lawsuit that was filed against the organization by five former and current female emergency medical service (EMS) workers in 2006. According to the women, systemic gender discrimination prevented them from being promoted to higher levels within the EMS despite positive work evaluations. As part of the settlement, the City of New York agreed to pay the women a combined total of $1.06 million in back pay and $261,000 in damages. Additional financial adjustments will also be made to the women’s individual pension plans.

Currently, FDNY promotions up to the lieutenant level are determined using a Civil Service Examination. All higher level appointments, however, are apparently discretionary. According to the lawsuit, only 16 percent of the 400 captains and lieutenants employed in the EMS are women despite that 947 of the 2,500 FDNY EMS workers are female. As part of the settlement agreement, the FDNY agreed to change its hiring practices and work to encourage more women to apply for high level positions within the organization. In addition, the women who suffered gender discrimination also agreed to retire from EMS.

Employers in New York, New Jersey, and the rest of the nation are not legally required to treat all of their employees fairly. For example, it is not always unlawful if an employer engages in favoritism, nepotism, or “office politics.” A worker who is unfairly treated may only seek legal action where the discrimination was a result of his or her age, gender, race, pregnancy status, mental or physical disability, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, veteran or military status, or another legally protected status.

As this situation proves, some women experience difficulty with being promoted at work due to gender discrimination. This type of unlawful discrimination often results in decreased responsibility, influence, and pay regardless of a female worker’s qualifications or experience. Although either sex is capable of engaging in gender discrimination, most cases occur when someone in power expresses a preference for members of his or her own gender. Still, individuals may choose to discriminate against co-workers who are the same gender. Regardless of who is being discriminated against, all sex discrimination is illegal.
Continue reading

by

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) issued an anti-bias message alert that warned sergeants and lieutenants about harassment or discrimination against red-haired officers. The story, reported in the New York Post, has met with mostly bemused responses from people who do not feel that redheads are a particularly disadvantaged group in the United States right now. It raises the question of exactly where hair color falls within the law of employment discrimination. To the extent that hair color is seen as an indication of race, ethnicity, or national origin, it could give rise to a claim for unlawful employment discrimination. The U.S. Supreme has never addressed the question directly, but lower courts have considered the role of hair color and other physical attributes.

According to the New York Post, no lawsuits against the city have alleged employment discrimination based on red hair. Officers quoted in the Post‘s story say they have “endured years of ridicule,” but none seemed to think that it rose to the level of actionable discrimination or harassment. From a legal standpoint, however, red hair could be a protected category if an employment practice had a significantly disparate impact on redheads. The Post article also quoted red-haired British model Lily Cole, who suggested that bias against redheads may be a bigger problem in the United Kingdom.
Continue reading

Contact Information
New Jersey Office
5 Becker Farm Rd, Suite 410
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: (973) 781-1204
New York Office
535 5th Ave 4th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel: (646) 867-7997
This website constitutes an ADVERTISEMENT. Before making your choice of attorney, you should give this matter careful thought. The selection of an attorney is an important decision. If you believe this advertisement is inaccurate or misleading, you may report same to the Committee on Attorney Advertising, Hughes Justice Complex, CN 037, Trenton, New Jersey 08625. For the comparison standards employed by Super Lawyers, please visit superlawyers.com. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Resnick Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design