Employment Discrimination

July 8, 2014

Plaintiff in Employment Discrimination Lawsuit Alleges that Employer Fired Him Because of Religion

A former marketing director for a wireless telecommunications company has filed suit against his former employer for religious discrimination. Mindrup v. Goodman Networks, Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00157, complaint (E.D. Tex., Mar. 20, 2014). He alleges that, after working for the company for years, he was terminated one day after he refused to comply with instructions from a superior that, he claims, violated his sincerely-held religious beliefs. Because the plaintiff alleges that the violations were intentional, he is seeking punitive damages along with lost wages and other damages.

The plaintiff worked for the defendant as Director of Marketing Communications. Part of his job was to send out a daily email message to employees entitled “The Morning Coffee,” which he states that he did for about six years. He alleges that one of the company’s co-founders, who was also a corporate director and officer, instructed him on March 14, 2012 to begin adding Bible quotes to “The Morning Coffee” the following day. The plaintiff, who is a practicing Buddhist, claims that he believed this would not only go against his own religious beliefs, but might offend other employees.

The following day, the plaintiff claims that he emailed the co-founder to decline the instruction, adding that he had “always taken great care to avoid any quotes that would offend others” or his own beliefs. Id. at 4. The co-founder allegedly responded with an email saying “I respect your beliefs.” Id. The plaintiff then claims that the co-founder fired him “in an after-hours telephone call” the next day, March 16, “without any warning or progressive discipline,” because of his refusal to put Bible verses in the daily email message. Id.
Continue reading

July 7, 2014

Teacher Sues New York School, Alleging Discrimination and Firing Based on Age, Marital Status, Sex, and Sexual Orientation

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A former coach and physical education teacher has filed suit against his former employer, alleging that he faced unlawful discrimination and was fired in retaliation for speaking out. Kenney v. Trinity School, et al, No. 161600/2013, complaint (NY Sup. Ct., NY Co., Dec. 17, 2013). This case might seem unusual because the plaintiff is a married, heterosexual male with children who alleges that his supervisor, an unmarried homosexual female, discriminated against him based on sexual orientation and marital status. He is asserting causes of action under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), NY Exec. L. § 296, and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), NYC Admin. Code § 8-107.

According to his complaint, the plaintiff was hired in 1997 to work on a contract basis at the Trinity School in Manhattan. His contract was renewed annually for sixteen years. He claims that he had a good employment record and generally got along with administrators, teachers, and staff at the school. This changed, he claims, when “a homosexual, single, female administrator with no children” became his supervisor. Kenney, complaint at 3. The supervisor allegedly discriminated against him because he is a fifty year-old married man with children.

While the plaintiff had previously received positive reviews on his work, he claims that the new supervisor routinely “berated and reprimanded” him. Id. She also allegedly gave preferential treatment to a younger, unmarried female teacher who did not have children, as well as other similarly-situated employees. The plaintiff claims that the supervisor assigned him work duties that exceeded the requirements of his contract, and refused to take his family responsibilities into account in planning for school activities. He claims that younger, unmarried teachers were not required to perform additional duties.
Continue reading

May 21, 2014

Investigating Employees’ Work Eligibility May Violate Anti-Discrimination Laws, Warns Justice Department

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

Federal immigration law requires employers to verify the employment eligibility of their workers. It also, however, prohibits them from discriminating on the basis of national origin or citizenship status, provided that the employee is not an undocumented immigrant. The Department of Justice (DOJ), through its Office of the Special Counsel (OSC) for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, recently offered guidance for employers regarding internal audits or other inquiries into employees’ work eligibility beyond that required by law. Any sort of employment eligibility verification policies applied unevenly or inconsistently could lead to liability under federal immigration law.

Employers are prohibited from employing unauthorized workers, and are required to verify that all employees and new hires are authorized to work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Knowingly hiring or employing an unauthorized worker, which could be an undocumented immigrant or someone with a visa that does not allow employment, could result in civil or criminal penalties. Immigration authorities have created Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification form, to enable employers to verify work authorization. An employee or new hire must present certain documents establishing their identity and their employment authorization. The employer is only required to examine the employee’s document and attest that it “reasonably appears on its face to be genuine.” Id. at § 1324a(b)(1)(A).

Federal immigration law also prohibits most employers from discriminating based on national origin or citizenship status. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. It is not considered unlawful discrimination under this statute for an employer to prefer equally-qualified U.S. citizens over noncitizens with regard to hiring or recruiting. It is, however, considered unlawful discrimination for an employer to require a noncitizen to provide more or different documents than a citizen to complete Form I-9, or to refuse to accept certain documents that reasonably appear valid solely because the person is not a U.S. citizen. Id. at § 1324b(a)(6).
Continue reading

May 15, 2014

Federal Judge Holds that Employment Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Is Already Prohibited by Title VII

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A U.S. district court judge has ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in employment based on certain protected classes, may also apply to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Terveer v. Billington, No. 1:12-cv-01290, mem. op. (D.D.C., Mar. 31, 2014). While many state anti-discrimination statutes expressly include sexual orientation as a protected class, the federal Title VII does not. The judge allowed the case to proceed on the basis of sex discrimination, religious discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII.

The plaintiff was hired in February 2008 to work for the Office of the Inspector General of the Library of Congress. His direct supervisor was, according to the court, “a religious man who was accustomed to making his faith known in the workplace.” Id. at 2. The plaintiff became friends with the supervisor and his family. The supervisor’s daughter learned that the plaintiff is homosexual in August 2009, after which the supervisor’s treatment of the plaintiff changed considerably.

The supervisor allegedly began to give the plaintiff ambiguous instructions for work assignments, assigned him as the sole employee on projects that needed multiple people, and lectured him on the sinful nature of homosexuality. The plaintiff reported his concerns to the next-level supervisor, who allegedly told him the employees have no rights in his opinion. No remedial action was taken. In June 2011, the plaintiff was denied his within-grade pay increase, and the supervisor allegedly subjected him to “hostile and abusive interrogation” when he learned of his intent to appeal the denial. Id. at 6. After taking medical leave twice, the plaintiff alleges that he was constructively discharged in April 2012 because of ongoing discrimination by the two supervisors.
Continue reading

April 18, 2014

New Ordinance Closes Loophole Preventing New York City Unpaid Interns from Asserting Rights Against Workplace Harassment

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The New York City Council unanimously passed a bill in late March 2014 amending the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) to extend the anti-discrimination provisions of the law to unpaid interns. A 2013 federal court case, in which an unpaid intern filed suit for sexual harassment and hostile work environment, inspired the bill. The court dismissed the intern’s claims because city and state law, it found, do not apply to interns. Wang v. Phoenix Satellite Television US, No. 1:13-cv-00218, mem. order (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 3, 2013).

The plaintiff in Wang was a graduate student in journalism at Syracuse University in December 2009 when she began working as an unpaid intern for the American subsidiary of Phoenix Media Group, a television news company based in Hong Kong. She viewed the internship as a training opportunity, with the possibility of a full-time job after she graduated. She reported to the Washington DC bureau chief, who also oversaw operations in New York.

While the bureau chief was in New York one night in January 2010, she and several employees met him at a restaurant. She alleged in her lawsuit that he asked her to stay after the meal to discuss job prospects, then invited her back to his hotel. He allegedly made sexual comments that made her uncomfortable, but she felt that she could not refuse his invitation to go to his room because he was her boss. Once they were alone, he allegedly threw his arms around her, groped her, and attempted to kiss her. She broke free of him and left the hotel. After that, she claims, he ceased to express any interest in hiring her.
Continue reading

March 31, 2014

New Jersey Law Against Discrimination Now Protects Workers from “Salary Secrecy” by Prohibiting Retaliation for Inquiring About Wage Discrimination

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

An amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) that took effect in January 2014 protects employees from retaliation by employers for asking about co-workers’ salaries as part of an investigation into wage discrimination. Prior to this amendment, New Jersey labor law already protected workers, commonly known as whistleblowers, who investigated or reported various unlawful practices by their employers, but did not protect workers who investigated certain practices. Many companies employment have “salary secrecy” policies that prevent employees from inquiring about other employees’ wages, making wage discrimination claims difficult.

Despite laws at the state and federal level prohibiting overt wage discrimination based on gender, the gap in wages between men and women is alive and well in New Jersey and around the country. Salary secrecy is among the biggest reasons for this continued disparity. Companies discourage employees from discussing pay with one another, and in some cases, even terminate employees for asking about other employees’ wages. A 2012 Forbes article found that companies with salary secrecy policies often had little justification for the policies aside from management’s unwillingness to explain their salary decisions to others. Such policies may also increase employee dissatisfaction and reduce overall efficiency, while more transparent policies have had positive results. The new amendment to the NJLAD effectively bans salary secrecy in New Jersey.

New Jersey law prohibits sex discrimination “in the rate or method of payment of wages.” N.J. Rev. Stat. § 34:11-56.2. It also prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who complain to the employer or the New Jersey Civil Rights Commission about alleged wage discrimination. N.J. Rev. Stat. § 34:11-56.6. The statute does not specifically mention investigations of possible wage discrimination, and this is where salary secrecy policies can prevent employees from asserting their rights.
Continue reading

March 28, 2014

Lawsuit Claims Employer Fired Plaintiff for Reporting Racial Discrimination, Sexual Harassment Within Company

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal lawsuit accuses a New York business of firing the plaintiff in retaliation for his report of unlawful employment practices. Giraldo v. The Change Group New York, Inc., et al, No. 1:14-cv-00375, complaint (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2014). The plaintiff, who is a gay man, also alleges that he was subjected to ongoing sexual harassment, discrimination, and a hostile work environment based on sexual orientation. The lawsuit asserts causes of action for retaliation, discrimination, and harassment in violation of federal, state, and city law.

The plaintiff was employed as a sales consultant by a currency exchange group in Manhattan from December 2012 until November 2013. He alleges multiple instances of harassment by two managers in the office, including inappropriate comments about his sexual orientation. One of the managers allegedly displayed similar behavior towards female employees and customers on a regular basis. The plaintiff claimed that he also frequently made “ethnically and racially discriminatory comments towards African American employees,” Muslim employees, and the plaintiff, who is Hispanic of Colombian descent.

In a seemingly-anonymous email sent to company executives just after midnight on October 8, 2013, the plaintiff complained about the two managers’ allegedly widespread discrimination and harassment. He identified multiple specific instances of inappropriate sexual and racial comments directed to the plaintiff, and inappropriate comments and behavior directed at others. He also noted his concern that speaking out publicly would cost him his job, as people who expressed dissenting opinions were often “squashed or treated as heretics” by the managers. He specifically stated that if he attached his name to the email, he believed he would be fired.
Continue reading

March 20, 2014

Lawsuit in New Jersey State Court Accuses Police Department of Sexual Harassment, Race Discrimination, and Harassment

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A lawsuit filed in a New Jersey Superior Court against a police department and several police officials seeks over $1 million in damages for alleged race discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. The plaintiff in Cruz v. Old Bridge Police Department, et al alleges that the department ignored her repeated complaints of sexual harassment because of her race, and then subjected her to retaliation and a hostile work environment that prevented her from returning to work. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) protects workers from employment discrimination based on factors like race and sex, and includes sexual harassment as a form of gender discrimination.

The plaintiff, according to local news coverage, was hired in May 2004 as an auxiliary police officer for the Old Bridge Police Department. This is a part-time position that works certain events, assisting the police department by providing crowd and traffic control. She alleges that a lieutenant began sexually harassing her shortly after she was divorced by asking her questions and making comments of an inappropriate sexual nature, and with direct sexual advances. She asserts that she asked him to stop and reported the matter to the department’s Internal Affairs unit, but the harassment continued.

When the lieutenant was promoted to captain, he became the plaintiff’s direct supervisor. She claims that he created a hostile work environment by “ostraciz[ing] here” and behaving in a “disrespectful and…demeaning manner.” The department ignored her complaints, she claims, because she is a black Hispanic woman. She received a charge of “conduct unbecoming” that she claims was false, and in September 2011 she was suspended without pay for allegedly submitting false time records in order to increase her pay. She also denies this charge. The department did not fire her, but reportedly also did not set an end date for her suspension. The township listed her employment status as “did not return,” according to the Home News Tribune. She either quit or was terminated by the department in December 2011.
Continue reading

March 14, 2014

New Jersey Employers Required by State Law to Provide Employees with Notice of Gender Equity Rights

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A 2012 law amending the New Jersey Equal Pay Act requires employers with at least fifty employees to provide official notice to workers of their rights regarding gender equity under state and federal anti-discrimination and pay equity statutes. The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (NJDOL) published final notice forms on January 6, 2014. Under the thirty-day deadline established by the 2012 law, employers had until February 5 to provide the notice to all current employees. The 2012 law does not identify a penalty for failing to meet this deadline, and the NJDOL has not stated how it will handle noncompliance. Penalties for similar regulatory infractions might offer some idea of what employers might face.

The New Jersey Assembly passed A2647, which “[r]equires employers [to] post notice of worker rights under certain State and federal laws,” on June 25, 2012, and the governor signed it into law on September 19, 2012. It did not provide a specific date for employers to comply with its requirements, but rather set a deadline of thirty days after publication of final notice forms by the NJDOL. This took place on January 6, 2014, making the initial deadline February 5. For employees hired after that date, employers must provide the notice by the end of the calendar year in which an employee was hired.

The official notice form published by the NJDOL, entitled “Right to be Free of Gender Inequity or Bias in Pay, Compensation, Benefits or Other Terms and Conditions of Employment,” outlines workers’ rights under two federal statutes and two New Jersey statutes:
Continue reading

February 26, 2014

New Jersey Appellate Division Upholds State Law Prohibiting Hiring Discrimination Based on Unemployment

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The Appellate Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that a state law prohibiting discrimination based on unemployment did not violate employers’ First Amendment rights of free speech. New Jersey Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development v. Crest Ultrasonics, No. A-0417-12T4, slip op. (N.J. App. Div., Jan. 7, 2014). The plaintiffs alleged that the statute, N.J.S.A. §§ 34:8B-1 et seq., infringed on their free speech rights by improperly regulating the content of public job listings. The court held that the statute meets the requirements set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court for content-based restrictions on commercial speech. The ruling is excellent news for New Jersey’s workers and job seekers, many of whom have experienced lengthy periods of time without work.

Unemployment can become a catch-22 for some job seekers, as employers might be unwilling to hire someone who has been out of work for six months or more. The longer one goes without work, the harder it can be to find a job. The law, enacted by the New Jersey Legislature in 2011, seeks to address this problem by placing restrictions on advertisements in print media or on the internet for job openings within the state. Advertisements may not state that current employment is a requirement for a job, that an employer will not consider applicants who are currently unemployed, or that an employer will only consider applicants who are currently employed. The law does not, however, prevent employers from using unemployment as a criterion in their actual decision-making.

Shortly after the law took effect, the plaintiff placed a classified advertisement in the Burlington Times for a service manager position. The ad appeared on August 31, 2011 and stated that applicants for the position “[m]ust currently be employed.” The Department of Labor and Workforce Development (LWD) determined that the company had violated N.J.S.A. § 34:8B-1 and assessed a fine of $1,000. The Commissioner of the LWD affirmed the penalty in an administrative decision issued on August 17, 2012, and the company appealed the decision to the Superior Court.
Continue reading