Discrimination

January 29, 2013

Former Manager Sues Hotel for Firing her After She Gave Birth in Guest Room

A former manager at a “swanky” New York City hotel has filed a lawsuit accusing hotel management of discriminating against her because of her pregnancy. She alleges that her superiors told her repeatedly that she, possibly because of her age and race, was not a good fit in the hotel’s environment. She nevertheless worked eighty- to one-hundred-hour weeks, even well into her pregnancy. She was working when she went into labor, and ended up giving birth in a guest room at the hotel. After that, she alleges that management began eliminating her job duties, and then fired her on what she claims was a pretext.

Tara Tan claims that she helped build the Standard Hotel’s business in the four years that she worked there. Despite putting in long hours, even while pregnant, she alleges that her superiors told her she did not “fit the culture” of the hotel, a prominent nightlife spot in Manhattan’s Meatpacking District. Tan took this as a criticism of her Chinese heritage and her age, as compared to the young, mostly white, “model-like…beautiful people” she says the management preferred to have around. She had reportedly gained weight during an earlier difficult pregnancy, and endured harassment regarding her appearance before the pregnancy that immediately preceded her termination.

Tan was working a late shift on April 30, 2011 when she went into labor at around midnight. She claims that her superiors did not offer any assistance, allegedly because they did not want to disturb the hotel’s party scene. She was sent into a guest room on the fifteenth floor and waited for her husband, who came two hours later from their home in New Jersey. Tan also alleges that when she called the front desk to ask for help, the person on the phone asked if she was joking. The child was born soon after her husband arrived, at around 2:30 a.m. Tan’s husband assisted in the delivery, with Tan’s doctor offering guidance over the phone. They called for an ambulance, and hotel staff made them leave through a side exit so they would not disrupt hotel guests.
Continue reading

January 22, 2013

New York Pharmacy Law Unlawfully Discriminates Based on National Origin and Alienage, According to Second Circuit

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A group of pharmacists with nonimmigrant visas sued a number of New York state officials over a law limiting pharmacy licenses to U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. The plaintiffs in Dandamundi, et al v. Tisch, et al, 686 F.3d 6 (2nd Cir. 2012) alleged that the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection and Supremacy Clauses by discriminating based on “alienage.” The Second Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor, finding that immigration status, other than a lack of documented status, is a “suspect class” and that the law failed strict scrutiny review. While this case did not directly involve allegations of discrimination by an employer, it may have an important benefit for nonimmigrant employees who face discrimination based on their immigration status or national origin.

The plaintiffs have H-1B worker visas or TN temporary worker status, giving them the right to work in the United States for a limited time in a specified job. Each plaintiff had legally worked in the United States for six or more years. The court stated that twenty-two of the thirty-two plaintiffs had applied to obtain green cards. The six-year maximum H-1B period had expired for sixteen of the plaintiffs, so they had obtained Employment Authorization Documents from immigration officials to allow them to remain in the U.S. and continue working during review of their applications.

All of the plaintiffs had New York pharmacy licenses issued through a waiver program in New York Education Law § 6805(1)(6). The law states that pharmacy licenses are only available to citizens and permanent residents, but the waiver extended the availability of licenses to people with certain nonimmigrant visas. The plaintiffs’ pharmacy licenses became void when the waiver expired in 2009.
Continue reading

January 15, 2013

Former Game Show Model Receives $8 Million Verdict in Pregnancy Discrimination Suit

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A former model on the long-running daytime game show “The Price is Right” received a verdict totalling over $8 million in a suit against the show’s producers. The plaintiff alleged that the producers unlawfully discriminated against her because of her pregnancy by firing her after she took leave to give birth. Federal law prohibits discrimination in employment based on a worker’s gender, and includes pregnancy discrimination as a form of gender bias. Laws in most states, including New Jersey, include similar prohibitions.

Brandi Cochran worked as a model on the show for several years before becoming pregnant. She alleged in her complaint that she witnessed discrimination by the show’s producers against other models who became pregnant, and so decided not to reveal her pregnancy for some time in order, she believed, to protect her job. When Cochran informed one of the producers, the producer told her she knew, citing Cochran’s weight gain. Cochran alleged that another producer, upon learning of the pregnancy, began to avoid interacting with her and suggested that he would have fired her had he known of the pregnancy.

Cochran claimed that the producers made her announce that she was pregnant with twins on the air. After the announcement, she alleged, the producers reduced her work load. She also allegedly received ridicule regarding her weight gain from co-workers. Cochran miscarried one of the twins, and she gave birth to the other three months premature. The child had severe health problems, and Cochran said she had to balance caring for the child and attempting to lose weight so she could return to the show. She claimed that the producers would not commit to a return date, and she eventually learned that she had been fired after she was removed from the show’s website.
Continue reading

November 15, 2012

New Jersey Court Backs Alcoholic Employee’s Disability Discrimination Claim

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Superior Court recently overturned a lower court’s summary decision dismissing the plaintiff’s claims of disability discrimination on the basis of her voluntary admission of alcoholism.Our New Jersey employment lawyers know it is a little-known fact that alcoholism is considered a disability, both under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. What this means is that you cannot be discriminated or retaliated against by your employer for seeking substance abuse treatment or for simply admitting you are an alcoholic or a drug addict.

This may not summarily protect your position if you show up for work intoxicated, if your job performance is poor or if you are putting others at risk. But in this case, the long-term employee was performing well and had no disciplinary issues. What’s more, the company’s internal policy on which her termination was based was found by the state’s Superior Court to be “facially discriminatory,” though the company vehemently defended it.

The case, A.D.P. v. Exxonmobil Research and Engineering Company, originated with a voluntary admission from the employee to her employer that she was an alcoholic and was in an inpatient rehabilitation center receiving treatment. This admission was not the result of an inquiry or pressure from the employer based on poor job performance. In fact, she was performing quite well. Regardless, the company, by its own policy, subsequently required the employee to undergo regular alcohol testing in the form of breathalyzer tests and mandated that she sign an agreement pledging to abstain from alcohol.

When the employee in turn failed a random breathalyzer test, she was fired.

The Superior Court found that because the employee’s required breathalyzer test was based not on job performance or imposed on every employee regardless of disability, the employer in fact was engaging in discrimination.

The court underscored the fact that the employer had not made her sign this agreement as part of a “last chance agreement,” which might have been extended to an employee on shaky ground stemming from poor performance due to alcoholism. The employee was not the subject of any pending disciplinary action or internal investigation. In fact, managers for the defendant testified that the employee’s work was exemplary, and that the tests were mandated on factors other than her job performance.

Therefore, the court ruled, it was discriminatory.

N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 outlines that employers may not terminate a defendant on the basis of a disability. As alcoholism is a disability, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for alcoholics.

Because substance abuse is not widely accepted as a legitimate illness, many employers may not understand their responsibilities under the reasonable accommodations requirement. It doesn’t mean, for example, that an employer has to tolerate it if you come in late to work on a Monday or leave early on a Friday in order to binge. It does, however, mean the employer can’t target you for discipline because you sought substance abuse treatment or you had to leave a little early to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Reasonable accommodation means an employer has to be willing to work with you on these matters, so long as it does not create an undue hardship.
Continue reading

November 2, 2012

New Jersey Passes Law Against Gender Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

By signing into law new posting requirements aimed at combating pay and gender discrimination, Gov. Chris Christie advanced the fight for equal pay in the workforce.

Under the new law, companies that employ more than 50 people must post gender equality information in the workplace. This information must also be provided to employees at the time of hire, annually thereafter, and upon an employee’s request.The law is scheduled to take effect Nov. 21 and employers will have 30 days to comply once the New Jersey Department of Labor issues notice.

However, our NJ employment lawyers understand there is much work left to be done. Employees, particularly women, must remain vigilant in making sure they are fairly compensated, particularly in relation to men holding similar positions within the company.

Christie vetoed a measure that would have increased the reporting requirements for public contractors in an effort to better determine and enforce compliance. Those doing business within New Jersey would have been required to report gender, job title, occupational category, race and total compensation to the New Jersey Department of Labor.

“When Gov. Chris Christie had a chance to sign legislation I authored to prevent gender wage discrimination in public contracts, he vetoed the bill, calling it ‘senseless bureaucracy,'” wrote Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt (D-Camden/Burlington), in the Star-Ledger. Lampitt is also chairwoman of the Assembly’s Women and Children Committee.

Christie said it would have been burdensome and would have ultimately driven up the cost of public contracts paid for by tax dollars.

However, fact remain that women continue to fight for the equal pay owed them for equal work; this remains particularly true for jobs traditionally held by men. Lampitt notes a nationwide annual gender wage gap of $15.8 billion. In New Jersey, women earn just 79 cents for every dollar a man earns in the workforce.

Christie returned two New Jersey employment discrimination bills to the legislature for significant amendments.

The first would have eliminated the statute of limitations for bringing compensation discrimination claims. The Christie Administration contends that asserting into the bill limitations on the amount of backpay that can be recover would bring it into better agreement with the holdings of the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The governor proposed a two-year limit.

The next measure would have prohibited retaliation against employees requesting pay information. The governor recommended the provisions be included in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination rather than being made part of NJ’s whistleblower law.

Establishing whistleblower protections is a key component that must be part of any real solution. The secrecy around pay in the workforce is one one the primary reasons why this form of silent discrimination is allowed to continue. Until employees who have reason to believe they are being paid unfairly are given access to compensation information, such discrepancies in pay will remain commonplace.
Continue reading

October 18, 2012

National Boss Day Gift – A Look at 25 Largest Employment Lawsuit Settlements

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

They say knowledge is power. We, as experienced NJ employment attorneys, certainly agree.

To that end, eBossWatch, an organization that allows employees to monitor bosses, used Boss’ Day this year to release a study on workplace harassment and discrimination, and the common charges that are costing employers millions. During the last 12 months, such suits have resulted in more than $356 million in payouts and judgments, according to the Insurance Journal.The most common violation leading to sizable settlement or jury award: Sexual Harassment. Passaic County, New Jersey had the 12th largest payout: $3.7 million in an age discrimination judgment. A $25 million race discrimination lawsuit in Buffalo placed second on the list.

Mercy Hospital took the dubious honors of paying the highest award: $168 million in Sacramento for a sexual harassment lawsuit judgment. Companies in Chicago reported 3 of the 7 highest payouts. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) prevents discrimination based on the protected statuses of race, creed, color, national origin, nationality, ancestry, age, sex (including pregnancy and sexual harassment), marital status, domestic partnership or civil union status, affectional or sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, atypical hereditary cellular or blood trait, genetic information liability for military service, or mental or physical disability, including AIDS and HIV related illnesses.

But the vast majority of employment lawsuits in New Jersey involve sexual harassment or discrimination based on age, sex or race. The same holds true when looking at statistics nationwide: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported 1,841 cases in New Jersey last year.

-624 sex-based employment lawsuits in New Jersey
-457 race-based cases
-306 national origin
-89 religion
Of course, as the law states above, there are many other protections that may result in an unemployment lawsuit. Last year, New Jersey passed a law banning discrimination against the unemployed. However, sexual harassment remains the most commonly filed.

As we reported recently, New Jersey has paid millions to settle sexual harassment claims against state employers, including many supervisors who remain on the job. In fact, nearly $4 million has been paid to settle 27 sexual-harassment lawsuits in recent years.

New Jersey also just passed the Equal Pay Act, which is meant to address some of the gender inequality remaining in the workplace. Signed Sept. 21, the law requires employers to provide workers with a written copy of such rights. Simply posting those rights will no longer be considered sufficient.

What this means, for women in the workforce in particular, is that vigilance can ensure that you are being paid and treated fairly in the workforce. While we’ve come a long way in promoting equal pay for equal work, there is much work yet to be done. And those who are treated unfairly in the workforce based on gender should seek an experienced employment law attorney in Roseland or elsewhere to help protect their rights.
Continue reading

October 17, 2012

New Jersey Gender Discrimination Target of New Pay Parity Law

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

As New Jersey employment attorneys, we were pleased to learn that late last month, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie signed a gender pay parity bill into law, which aims to address gender inequality in pay, benefits and other conditions of employment.

Gender discrimination in New Jersey is illegal under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The new law requires employers of more than 50 to provide employees written notice of their workplace rights.Written notice must be provided within 30 days of the issuance of the forms by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (expected after the law’s effective date November 21, 2012); upon hiring; annually each year; and upon an employee’s first request. Employees must also sign acknowledgement of receipt within 30 days.

The number of gender discrimination complaints filed has remained fairly constant over the last 15 years, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A total of 24,728 federal complaints were filed in 1997, compared to 28,534 complaints filed last year. Still, gender complaints are second only to race discrimination complaints in the numbers filed annually. The EEOC reports 457 gender complaints were filed with the State of New Jersey last year.

While women’s rights in the workplace have come a long way in a generation, there is still much work left to be done. With the hiring of former Google executive Marissa Mayer as the CEO of Yahoo! this summer, women now hold 20 CEO positions among Fortune 500 companies.

IBM, Pepsi-Co, Campbell Soup, Kraft Food and Xerox are other major U.S. corporations headed by women, according to Forbes Magazine.

In 1947, women accounted for just over 31 percent of the workforce. By 1979, it was just over half and has stayed there ever since. However, the pay gap has not reached parity nearly as quickly. In fact, an article in The Washington Post estimates it will take another half century to close at its current pace.

Today, white men make $2.09 an hour more than white women, on average. Black men make about $1 more an hour than their female counterparts. In New Jersey, the National Partnership for Women & Families found women make 11 to 44 percent less than men – or an average of about $12,000 a year less.

“Women and their families are losing critical income for food, gas, rent, health insurance and more due to a punishing gender-based wage gap that has plagued this country for decades,” said Debra Ness, president of the National Partnership.

As Businessweek reports, gender pay inequality is particularly troubling because it’s a silent offense. Women know when they are being subjected to harassment or abuse, and it’s often possible to determine whether discrimination is occurring in hiring and promotions.

But the confidential nature of most company’s compensation policies often forbids employees from talking about pay. As a result, pay inequality more frequently goes unchecked. Professions in which such inequality is most likely to occur include financial advisers, physicians, lawyers and police officers.
Continue reading

September 26, 2012

Sexual Harassment at New York’s Columbia University Led to Victim’s Firing, Employment Lawsuit Claims

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A former Ph.D student and staff associate at Columbia University filed a lawsuit claiming the school mishandled his complaint of sexual harassment by the student’s lab supervisor, and then wrongfully terminated the victim.

Unfortunately, firing a victim is not an uncommon result when an employee alleges a violation of workplace rights. New York City employment attorneys also know that sexual harassment is common in the university environment and may involve professors, staff or students.The plaintiff arrived from Chile last March to pursue his Ph.D. while working at the University. But, over the course of about three months, he contends he was sexually harassed by his supervisor, ignored by a university human resources officer, and ultimately fired from his dream job.

Typically, a supervisor-employee relationship is exploited in cases of sexual harassment. The university setting, as well as internship positions, can be ripe for such abuse because students want to please superiors and to excel. In this case the 25-year-old victim, who worked at the University while pursuing his Ph.D., contends in his lawsuit that he suffered retaliation after he complained of being sexually harassed by his supervisor, a professor of medicine, nephrology and hypertension at the Columbia University Medical Center.

According to the lawsuit, the victim had been at the university just a few days when he received a cell phone solicitation about dating older gay or bisexual men. The complaint charges that the supervisor sent the plaintiff messages via a social network, with the supervisor’s picture attached, asking the plaintiff “if he would like to date an older man.” After rejecting his supervisor’s online sexual advance, the lawsuit maintains, the plaintiff’s supervisor allegedly “came out of his office, approached Plaintiff….and screamed at him, ‘You are out!'”

The victim reported the harassment to another supervisor, who allegedly promised to talk with Columbia’s Chair of the Department of Medicine, and directed the plaintiff to human resources, according to the lawsuit. The victim contends that the university’s human resources representative offered to help file a formal complaint with Columbia’s Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action, which is charged with investigating allegations of harassment or discrimination against university faculty and staff. He said the supervisor later apologized for the ongoing behavior, gave him an expensive computer, and allegedly told him to “pretend that nothing happened.”

In June, the lawsuit maintains, the Ph.D student was subsequently fired without notice or explanation, according to the allegations contained in the lawsuit. The university has declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

These cases are often a victim’s word against a superior’s. Any evidence or documentation of such behavior can go a long way toward proving a victim’s claim. In this case, the Columbia Spectator (the university’s student newspaper) reports that it reviewed detailed evidence gathered by the victim, including e-mails and text messages.

A law firm experienced in workplace harassment litigation will also review an employer or university’s track record of past allegations and its response to employment discrimination and workplace harassment complaints.

While still relatively rare, an increasing number of cases involving male-on-male sexual harassment are being reported. In fact, more than 16 percent of sexual harassment cases were filed by men in 2011, compared to 11.6 percent in 1997, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Both state and federal employment laws prohibit an employer from retaliating against an employee for making a complaint. In 2007, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided in Carmona v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc. that in order to be protected under the law a victim must have an underlying complaint of discrimination that is reasonable and made in good faith.

In this case, the victim will apparently be forced to return to Chile because of a lack of funds because Columbia terminated his employment after he complainted about being sexually harassed. In general, it is a good idea for those who believe they are being harassed or discriminated against at work to seek the advice of an experienced employment law firm in New York or New Jersey at the earliest stages of such cases. Very frequently the culture in institutions where this behavior is allowed to thrive is such that significant legal protection — either before or after lodging a complaint — is not likely without the help of an experienced law firm.
Continue reading

July 24, 2012

New Jersey Public School District Pays to Settle Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) recently announced that a Bergen County school district has agreed to pay $90,000 to settle claims that it failed to reasonably accommodate a former employee’s disability and then retaliated against her for her complaint of disability discrimination.

Maria Osnowitz was a teacher’s aide for the West New York Board of Education. She suffers from knee injuries that impair her mobility. For the most part, she utilizes a motorized wheelchair or scooter to get around. When walking is necessary, she utilizes two canes.

In her first DCR Complaint, Ms. Osnowitz alleged that West New York Board of Education failed to reasonably accommodate her disability. Specifically, she alleged that, because of her disability, she requested to park her car in a covered parking area close to the entrance of the school where she worked, but that the school principal refused to allow her to do so. In addition, she alleged that the school repeatedly held meetings — and required her attendance — at locations that were not wheelchair-accessible. She further alleged that she requested that the meeting locations be changed, but that the school refused to do so.
Continue reading

July 9, 2012

Too Sexy for this Job?… Gender Discrimination in the Workplace

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

As New York employment lawyers, we know first-hand that employment discrimination comes in many shapes and sizes. But, is the hourglass one of them?

That question has recently been raised by Lauren Odes, a woman who filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charging gender discrimination and religious discrimination against her employer, Native Intimates, in New York. Native Intimates is a lingerie wholesaler that allegedly fired Lauren Odes because she was “just too hot for this office.”
Continue reading