Articles Posted in Discrimination

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

by

A college professor is suing the college where she teaches for gender and race discrimination, alleging that the administration prevented her from advancing on the tenure track at the same rate as her colleagues. Wang v. Macalester College, No. 62-CV-12-9750 (Minn. Civ. Ct. – Ramsey Co., Dec. 21, 2012). She further claims that, after denying her requests for promotion, the college retaliated against her for speaking out about it.

Wang Ping, the plaintiff, is a professor of English at Macalester College in St. Paul, Minnesota. A native of China, she began working at Macalester in 1999 after getting a doctorate from New York University. She became an assistant professor in the English department in 2001. According to her complaint, she requested promotion to associate professor in 2003, but was denied. She finally made associate professor in 2005. A committee denied her request for promotion to full professor in 2009, allegedly stating that her academic record “did not meet the high standard for promotion to full professor.” After she reported the matter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Wang alleges, the college retaliated against her by “refusing to facilitate her projects.” She received a promotion to full professor in 2012.
Continue reading

by

A restaurant has agreed to pay $20,000 to a former employee, along with other relief, to settle a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). EEOC v. Reed Pierce’s, No. 3:10-cv-00541, consent decree (S.D. Miss., Feb. 5, 2013). The lawsuit alleged that the restaurant unlawfully terminated the employee because she was pregnant. The restaurant continues to deny the EEOC’s allegations, but agreed via a consent decree to pay damages, allow injunctive relief, modify its employment policies, and mandate training for its employees.

The complainant worked for Reed Pierce’s, a restaurant in Byram, Mississippi, as a waitress. According to the amended complaint filed by the EEOC, the complainant notified supervisors that she was pregnant in November 2008. She reportedly had an allergic reaction to prenatal vitamins in February 2009, and asked to leave work as a result. The employer had allegedly granted similar requests by non-pregnant employees to leave work because of illness, but it denied her request. She made a similar request to take off from work for a doctor’s appointment in March 2009, but was denied. The employer had allegedly granted requests to leave work for medical appointments for other employees. The complainant received notice of her termination from the employer on March 7, 2009, allegedly because “her pregnancy was interfering with her ability to do her job.” Reed Pierce’s, am. complaint at 3-4 (Oct. 18, 2010). She maintains that she was still able to perform her job duties, but received disparate treatment from her employer because of her pregnancy.
Continue reading

by

An employer did not violate New York state or city human rights laws by firing an employee because of her height, according to a Supreme Court judge in Queens County. The court ruled in Peterson v. City of New York, et al, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 51472(U) (Sup. Ct., Queens Co., Aug. 7, 2012), that the plaintiff’s height was not a “genetic characteristic” protected by state law, as she presented no evidence of a genetic condition creating a risk of future illness or disability. It further found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for relief under New York City’s civil rights law, which does not include protections for genetic conditions.

The plaintiff was employed by the New York City Parks Department from June 2010 until February 2011. Her job involved cleaning bathrooms and taking out trash at the Lost Battalion Hall in Queens. Of the five people employed at Lost Battalion Hall, the plaintiff claimed she was the shortest. Her supervisor allegedly told her that she was “too short” to do her job and that “there was something medically wrong with her.” Slip op. at *1. She alleges that the supervisor required her to see a doctor, and that he was verbally abusive towards her. The plaintiff claims that she rejected a different job offer from the supervisor on February 9, 2011, after which he fired her. She filed suit against the city and the supervisor, alleging violations of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
Continue reading

by

A nurse at a hospital in Flint, Michigan is suing her employer for alleged racial discrimination and civil rights violations. Battle v. Board of Hospital Managers of Hurley Medical Center, et al, No. 13-99763, complaint and jury demand (Mich. Cir. – Genesee Co., Jan. 21, 2013). She claims that the hospital reassigned an infant under her care to a different nurse after the infant’s father demanded a nurse who was not African American. The lawsuit, which names the hospital and a supervisor as defendants, asserts causes of action for equal protection violations, violations of state anti-discrimination law, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

According to her complaint, the plaintiff, Tonya Battle, began working at Hurley Medical Center in June 1988 as a registered nurse (RN) in the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). She alleges that she was caring for an infant in the NICU on October 31, 2012, when the infant’s father asked to speak to her supervisor. The charge nurse then spoke to the father, and Battle allegedly heard him tell the charge nurse that “he did not want any African Americans taking care of his baby.” Complaint at 3. Battle also alleges that the man pulled up his sleeve to display a tattoo that she believed was a swastika. The charge nurse relayed the father’s request to the nurse manager, Mary Osika, who allegedly told the charge nurse to reassign the infant.
Continue reading

by

A former Ph.D. candidate at a San Francisco university is suing the school for gender discrimination, alleging that faculty and staff began to mistreat him once he revealed that he had undergone sex-reassignment surgery. The cause of action is a rare one, as only a handful of states, including New Jersey and California, allow claims for employment discrimination based on gender identity. New York state law currently does not allow such a claim, but New York City does. A lawsuit filed in New Jersey in 2011 was the first to test this state’s transgender discrimination law. Federal authorities allowed a claim to proceed in 2012.

Kellen Bennett was a candidate for a Ph.D. in clinical psychology at Alliant International University’s California School of Professional Psychology in San Francisco. He says that he received good grades and good recommendations from August 2006, when he started the program, until October 2011, when he revealed his transgender status to a faculty member and several students. Bennett underwent sex-reassignment surgery thirteen years ago, and he has lived as a man ever since. He claims that his reviews suddenly all turned bad, and that a postdoctoral internship he had been promised was no longer available to him. At least one supervisor frequently used anti-transgender slurs in his presence. Bennett also alleges that someone altered his academic records in a way that affected his job search. He completed his degree, but was unable to continue in the program as he had planned. Bennett filed suit against the university for gender discrimination and retaliation last year.
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 © 2025, Resnick Law Group
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design