Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

by

Three airlines are facing allegations of unfair labor practices and sex discrimination in several proceedings. A coalition of U.S.-based airlines and labor unions issued a report earlier this year claiming that the three airlines, which are based in the Persian Gulf region and fly out of airports in New York and New Jersey, engage in unfair competition and unlawful employment practices. The federal government is investigating similar claims. An agency of the United Nations (UN) recently ruled that one of the airlines engaged in ongoing sex discrimination against female employees. While these proceedings generally involve international law and treaties, they could still have an impact on workers who deal with these airlines in New Jersey and New York.

The U.S. began entering into agreements with other countries known as “Open Skies Partnerships” (OSPs) in 1992. It currently has agreements with more than 100 countries. These agreements, according to the U.S. Department of State, allow airlines to expand international service by “eliminating government interference” in various air transportation matters. Since different countries provide different levels of protection for business and labor interests, however, OSPs can result in unfair advantages for some airlines.

A coalition of three U.S. airlines and labor unions, known as the Partnership for Open & Fair Skies (POFS), issued a report in early 2015 criticizing three airlines: Qatar Airways, based in Doha, Qatar; Etihad Airways, based in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; and Emirates Airlines, based in Dubai, UAE. All three airlines fly out of JFK International Airport in New York City, and Etihad Airways reportedly sometimes flies out of New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport.
Continue reading

by

Laws regarding medical–or even recreational–marijuana use are undergoing significant changes. Nearly half of the states in the U.S., including New Jersey, now allow marijuana use for at least some purposes. How this affects employees’ rights in New Jersey, however, remains unclear. The issue, which is far from resolved, pits individuals’ right to use marijuana against employers’ right to enforce anti-drug policies. A lawsuit filed last year in New Jersey, Davis v. New Jersey Transit Corp., No. L-001778-14, complaint (N.J. Super. Ct., Essex Co., Mar. 14, 2014), claims disability discrimination against a railroad employee with a valid medical marijuana prescription.

Marijuana remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1), and it is still generally illegal under New Jersey law, N.J. Rev. Stat. §§ 2C:35-10a(3)-(4). The New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act, N.J. Rev. Stat. § 6I-1 et seq., which took effect in 2010, allows the medical use of marijuana under very strict limits. Rather than “legalizing” marijuana, the law creates an exception to state criminal law. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 2C:35-18. It provides that the lawful use of marijuana may not result in “civil or administrative penalt[ies],” N.J. Rev. Stat. § 24:6I-6b, but it does not specifically mention employment or disability protections.

The plaintiff in Davis worked as a procurement clerk for NJ Transit. His doctor gave him a prescription for medical marijuana to alleviate some of the symptoms of end-stage renal failure. He states that he notified his employer of the prescription, but was told that he had to submit to a drug test in December 2013. When the test was positive for marijuana, he was sent to a drug treatment program and lost his job. He filed suit for disability discrimination under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12a. In August 2014, the court denied a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant. The case is still pending.
Continue reading

by

A former program manager for the internet company Facebook has filed a lawsuit against the company in state court in California, alleging sexual harassment and discrimination based on race and gender. Hong v. Facebook, Inc., et al, No. CIV-532943, complaint (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo Co., Mar. 16, 2015). The case alleges numerous acts of conduct towards the plaintiff that, when taken in isolation, might seem minor, but that add up over time to constitute significant disparate treatment based on her gender and her national origin. The laws at the state and federal level are clear that employers may not discriminate in promotions, job duties, and other features of employment based on these categories. These types of claims, unfortunately, can be difficult to prove. Another recent lawsuit against a Silicon Valley venture capital firm made similar allegations but resulted in a jury verdict for the defendant. The current case makes a wide range of allegations, however, that indicate overtly discriminatory treatment towards the plaintiff.

According to her complaint, the defendant hired the plaintiff in June 2010 for the position of program manager. It transferred her to “technology partner” in October 2012. She claims that she performed her job duties well throughout her time with the company, pointing to “satisfactory performance evaluations” and regular raises as evidence. Hong, complaint at 2. Prior to the events immediately preceding her termination, she states that she “received no significant criticism of her work.” Id. She was allegedly terminated on October 17, 2013.

The plaintiff alleges that multiple employees of the defendant, including her supervisor, who is named individually as a defendant, and others identified in the complaint as “Does One through Thirty,” discriminated against her based on gender. This allegedly included comments belittling her work and admonishment for “exercis[ing] her right under company policy to take time off to visit her child at school.” Id. at 3. She also claims that she was given assignments that no male co-workers were expected to do, such as organizing office parties and serving drinks. She makes a direct allegation that the company hired a “less qualified, less experienced male” to replace her. Id.
Continue reading

by

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA, or “Obamacare” to some) creates a variety of incentives to encourage employers to create and sponsor “wellness programs” for their employees. Several federal agencies, including the Department of Labor (DOL), have issued rules implementing these incentives within the requirements of federal statutes like the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which enforces employment nondiscrimination statutes, was not involved in those rulemaking processes. It issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in March 2015, stating that it will review how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., affects the wellness program provisions of the ACA. It issued a proposed rule in April.

The Public Health Service Act (PHSA), as amended by HIPAA and the ACA, defines a “wellness program” as “a program offered by an employer that is designed to promote health or prevent disease.” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-4(j)(1)(A). HIPAA prohibits discrimination in group health plans, in terms of eligibility, benefits, and other factors, based on a participant’s health. It makes one exception, however, by allowing discounts, rebates, or other benefits for participants who follow an employer-sponsored wellness program.

The DOL, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) jointly issued a final rule implementing the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions for wellness programs. 71 Fed. Reg. 75014 (Dec. 13, 2006). The rule established two types of wellness programs: participatory programs, which should be made available to all similarly-situated employees regardless of their health status; and health-contingent programs, which may be tailored to employees’ particular health needs, such as a program to help employees quit smoking.

Continue reading

by

Many well-known businesses, particularly restaurant chains, use the franchise model to operate national, or even international, chains of locations. Under this model, the franchise owner enters into agreements with other businesses to operate locations using the franchise’s brand name. These businesses, known as franchisees, must abide by a wide range of requirements under the franchise agreement. Employees of individual franchise locations are considered employees of the franchisee, but multiple complaints and lawsuits in recent years have sought to hold a franchisor liable for acts of a franchisee, based on the theory that the franchise agreement gives the franchisor substantial control over the franchisee’s business. A recent lawsuit against the McDonald’s franchisor asserts that it is liable for race discrimination by a franchisee. Betts, et al v. McDonald’s Corp., et al., No. 4:15-cv-00002, complaint (W.D. Va., Jan. 22, 2015).

The plaintiffs are African-American former employees of a company that operates three McDonald’s restaurants in Clarkesville and South Boston, Virginia. They describe a lengthy sequence of events involving alleged racial and sexual harassment and discrimination by managers employed by the franchisee, culminating in an allegedly overt decision to “reduce the number of African-American employees.” Betts, complaint at 28. All but one of the plaintiffs state that they were terminated on May 12, 2014. The other plaintiff alleges that the company constructively discharged her on July 5, 2014, after “months of racial abuse.” Id. at 32.

The plaintiffs filed suit against the franchisee, several individual managers, and the franchisors. They are asserting seven causes of action, including claims for wrongful termination, constructive discharge, and racial harassment under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and sexual harassment under Title VII.
Continue reading

by

A delivery driver for United Parcel Service (UPS) filed suit against her employer after it allegedly refused to assign her to light duty due to pregnancy-related lifting restrictions. She claimed that the company violated her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) of 1978, which defines discrimination on the basis of pregnancy as a form of unlawful sex discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a U.S. district judge’s order dismissing the lawsuit. Young v. United Parcel Service (“Young I“), 707 F.3d 437 (4th Cir. 2013). The Supreme Court vacated this ruling and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the plaintiff was entitled to trial on the question of whether she suffered unlawful discrimination. Young v. United Parcel Service (“Young II“), 575 U.S. ___ (2015). While the case was pending, UPS announced a reversal of its policy on light duty for pregnant employees.

The plaintiff worked as a part-time delivery driver. The job description required the ability to lift packages weighing up to 70 pounds. When the plaintiff became pregnant, her doctor told her that she should not lift more than 20 pounds during the first 20 weeks, and no more than 10 pounds after that. The defendant refused to put her on light duty, despite, according to the plaintiff, accommodating other employees with similar lifting restrictions. The plaintiff went on unpaid leave, which resulted in the loss of her employee health insurance.

The defendant’s policy was to provide light duty for employees who were injured on the job, were entitled to an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or had lost their certification from the Department of Transportation. Pregnancy did not fit into any of these categories, according to the defendant. The Fourth Circuit held that this policy did not violate the PDA because the plaintiff’s pregnancy was unrelated to her job, the policy only applied to job-related conditions, and it treated “pregnant workers and nonpregnant workers alike.” Young I, 707 F.3d at 449.
Continue reading

by

A federal lawsuit filed by a former cosmetics company employee, which has since been settled and dismissed, raised claims of race, ethnicity, and national origin discrimination, retaliation, and other claims. Meyers v. Revlon, Inc., et al, No. 1:14-cv-10213, complaint (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2014). The plaintiff accused the chief executive officer (CEO) of numerous derogatory statements, and of retaliation for noting and reporting safety and regulatory concerns. The lawsuit asserted causes of action under federal, state, and city law, including New Jersey’s whistleblower protection statute.

According to his complaint, the plaintiff worked in the cosmetics industry for 35 years, rising from an entry-level position to the defendant’s Chief Science Officer. He took that position in 2010, and he stated that “his career progressed without impediment until November 2013.” Id. at 1. The defendant acquired Colomer, a beauty care company based in Spain, in August 2013. In November 2013, it named Colomer’s CEO as its new CEO and President.

The plaintiff claimed that he played a key role in integrating the two companies, which included reviewing Colomer’s regulatory compliance. He reported concerns about Colomer’s facility in Barcelona to the new CEO. He claimed that the CEO became angry and told him not to discuss regulatory or safety matters with him in order to maintain “plausible deniability.” Id. at 15. From then on, the CEO allegedly harassed and belittled the plaintiff, often in front of colleagues.
Continue reading

by

A transgender woman’s sex discrimination lawsuit examined the extent of protection, if any, offered for gender identity by federal anti-discrimination law. Jamal v. Saks & Company, No. 4:14-cv-02782, complaint (S.D. Tex., Sep. 30, 2014). Issues relating to transgender persons, generally defined as someone who identifies with a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth, have gained considerable prominence in recent years, particularly with regard to their rights against workplace and public discrimination. New Jersey and other states prohibit employment discrimination based on “gender identity or expression” N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12(a), but federal anti-discrimination laws do not expressly mention gender identity.

The defendant operates the Saks Fifth Avenue chain of department stores. The plaintiff, a transgender woman, first worked at an outlet store in suburban Houston, Texas until she was transferred to its “full-line store” in Houston. Jamal, complaint at 3. She alleges that the defendant routinely “misgendered” her by referring to her with male pronouns and other indicators, and denying permission to use the women’s restroom. The store manager allegedly requested that she “change her appearance to a more masculine one.” Id. at 5. Managers and fellow employees, the plaintiff claims, routinely harassed and belittled her on the basis of her gender identity. She complained to the EEOC, and was fired ten days later.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful termination, hostile work environment, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The defendant filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in December 2014 that referred to the plaintiff as “he,” and used the term “[sic]” when quoting portions of the plaintiff’s complaint that used female pronouns. This term is used to indicate that quoted text includes errors or inaccuracies found in the original. The defendant later withdrew its motion, and the parties stipulated a dismissal of the lawsuit in March 2015. The questions it raised still remain, though.
Continue reading

by

In 2007, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg spoke to a group of aspiring entrepreneurs at a startup workshop at Stanford University about “the importance of being young and technical.” Zuckerberg, who was 22 years old at the time, went on to say that “young people are just smarter.” He cited attributes like “simpler lives,” which would allow younger employees to devote more time to their jobs. Age discrimination has long been a serious issue in the technology industry. The question of whether maintaining a young, energetic workforce–at the cost of losing older, more experienced employees–is ultimately to a company’s benefit is something that tech industry analysts can discuss. Refusing to hire someone solely on the basis of his or her age is often against both state and federal law. This problem is not limited to the tech industry but occurs in many industries all over the country. As the tech industry expands into places like New Jersey, however, the way in which some tech companies proudly tout their “youth” bears scrutiny.

Under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), employers may not discriminate against employees in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment based on the person’s age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). This includes limiting job openings to a particular age group, either expressly or by using terms like “new or recent graduates preferred.” The ADEA, however, only applies to workers who are at least 40 years old. 29 U.S.C. § 631. It therefore might not prohibit age discrimination based on a determination that a person is too young. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD) also prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 10:5-12(a).

The tech industry, in California’s Silicon Valley and elsewhere, appears to value youth as much as, if not more than, the movie industry in Hollywood or the fashion industry in New York City. This has manifested itself in a variety of ways, from a general lack of “graybeards” to awkward work environments for the older tech workers who do manage to find jobs. It also includes multiple instances of overt age discrimination, such as the sort of job listings mentioned earlier that discourage older job seekers, either by directly stating an age limit or using phrases like “Class of 2007 or 2008 preferred.” A job advertisement using that phrase led to a settlement, which did not include any monetary penalties, between Facebook and California employment regulators in 2013.
Continue reading

by

A group of sociologists has recently published two studies on the effect of religious identifiers on hiring decisions. One study focused on employers in New England, and the other on employers in the American South. Both studies found that résumés and job applications referencing a specific religious affiliation are less likely to receive follow-up action from employers than those that do not mention religion at all. This highlights a difficult aspect of employment anti-discrimination law, which requires proof that an adverse employment action, like refusal to hire, was based on a protected class, like religion. The discrimination uncovered by these studies may not be intentional, and in fact the individuals making these decisions may not even be aware of the disparate treatment, but it still violates state and federal anti-discrimination law.

The researchers sent about 3,000 résumés to employers from “fictitious job applicants” who had recently graduated from college. They randomly modified the résumés “to indicate affiliation in one of seven religious groups or a control group,” typically by mentioning membership in a campus religious organization. The seven religious identifiers were atheist, Catholic, evangelical Christian, Jewish, pagan, Muslim, and a fictitious religious identity called “Wallonian.” Each employer received four résumés with comparable qualifications, which only differed in religious affiliation and minor details. The researchers set up email accounts and telephone numbers for the fictitious job applicants in order to track the responses from the employers.

In the New England study, resumes that mentioned religion received about 25 percent fewer responses from employers. Those that indicated affiliation with Muslim organizations had the lowest response rate, at one-third less than the control group. Applicants identified as atheist, Catholic, or pagan also received a significantly lower response rate. The Southern study had similar results, with evangelical Christians and Wallonians also receiving significantly fewer responses. Jewish applicants were the only ones who showed no significant disadvantage compared to the control group.
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