Articles Posted in Employment Discrimination

by

The New Jersey Legislature passed a bill in March 2013 that, if signed by the Governor, will be one of the strongest laws in the country protecting employees against online snooping by employers. Some employers have taken to requesting passwords or other access to social media accounts like Facebook from their employees, or as part of the job application process. At least five other states already have laws prohibiting employers from requiring employees to provide their passwords to their social media accounts. More than half of all U.S. states are reportedly considering such legislation.

The bill, A2878, was introduced in the New Jersey General Assembly on May 10, 2012, and first passed the Assembly on June 25. The New Jersey Senate passed an amended version of the bill, by a vote of 28-0, in October. The Assembly then passed the amended bill, with seventy-five voting in favor and two voting against, on March 21, 2013. The final bill applies to all employers in the state except for state and local law enforcement agencies. Earlier drafts also governed educational institutions.

Employers, the bill states, may not “require or request” any passwords or other form of access to an employee’s or job applicant’s personal social media or email accounts. It further prohibits employers from requiring employees or job applicants to disclose whether or not they have personal accounts on social media sites. An earlier version of the bill would have barred employers from even asking if an employee or applicant has such an account. Employers may not require a person to waive any of the protections of this bill as a condition of hiring, and they may not retaliate against an employee for exercising any rights guaranteed by the bill.
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

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in January 2013 that it settled a claim of citizenship and national origin discrimination against Houston Community College (HCC), in lieu of filing suit. The DOJ’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) investigated a complaint of hiring discrimination, in the form of requests for specific documentation from non-citizens not requested of U.S. citizens. The OSC concluded that the practice violated the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin or lawful immigration status. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, HCC will pay a civil penalty, adopt a new process of verifying employment eligibility, and create a fund to compensate prior victims for lost wages.

According to the settlement agreement between the DOJ and HCC, the OSC received a complaint on March 12, 2012 alleging national origin discrimination and other violations of the INA’s anti-discrimination provisions. The OSC’s investigation concluded that HCC had engaged in a practice, for a period of at least two years, that required non-citizens to produce documents during the hiring process demonstrating work authorization. Job applicants that HCC believed to be United States citizens were not required to produce such documentation during the hiring process. Proof of employment eligibility is normally required after hiring, when the employer must complete Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification document. Although it found HCC’s practices to be discriminatory, it did not find that the complainant was a victim of discrimination.
Continue reading

by

A former employee of a Secaucus, New Jersey furniture store chain has alleging that management discriminated against her based on her sexual orientation and retaliated against her for complaining of a manager’s discriminatory conduct. Perez v. Factory Direct of Secaucus, LLC, et al, No. 2:13-cv-00327, complaint (D.N.J., Jan. 17, 2013). The lawsuit currently claims violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. An investigation of employment discrimination claims is still underway by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the plaintiff has stated an intent to amend her complaint should the EEOC authorize her to do so.

The plaintiff, Isabel Perez, began working for the defendant, Factory Direct of Secaucus, which operates several Ashley Furniture HomeStore locations, on September 25, 2012. In her position as human resources director, she reported to the defendant Kathy Martin, the Director of People Services and Development, and defendant Eugene Chrinian, the CEO. Perez alleges that, during the interview process for the position with both Martin and Chrinian, both defendants questioned her extensively about her marital status and her religious beliefs. Perez, who is homosexual, preferred to keep such issues private, although she did discuss her religious beliefs briefly.

Perez alleges that Martin made frequent derogatory remarks in her presence about homosexuals, as well as discriminatory remarks about other employees based on their race, ethnicity, gender, or appearance. Perez claims that she brought up her concerns with Martin about Martin’s derogatory comments to employees, as well as Martin’s invocation of her religious beliefs in routine workplace issues. On at least one occasion, Martin allegedly told Perez “to be more understanding of the Company’s ‘culture.'” Complaint at 6. Martin began most meetings with prayers, Perez claims, including “unsolicited ‘laying of the hands’ on [Perez].” Id.
Continue reading

by

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

by

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

by

In a decision that has already created a firestorm of controversy, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a dentist did not unlawfully discriminate against an employee based on her gender when he fired her because of his attraction to her. The court acknowledged in Nelson v. James H. Knight, DDS, P.C., No. 11-1857 (Iowa, Dec. 21, 2012), that the employer’s actions were unfair, but concluded that they were not motivated by the employee’s gender. Concerns over the employer’s marriage, the court found, was the primary reason for the firing. The court held that this was lawful even though the employee had done nothing wrong, but it also noted the potential for this decision to enable future employers to make similar claims in an attempt to justify otherwise unlawful firings.

The plaintiff, Melissa Nelson, began working for Dr. James Knight’s dental practice in 1999, when she was twenty years old and just out of school. She worked for him for ten-and-a-half years as a dental assistant. Both were married and had children by 2009, and Nelson testified that she viewed Knight as a “friend and father figure.” Slip op. at 3. Knight reportedly began to complain to Nelson during the last year and a half of her employment that her attire was inappropriate for the workplace, although Nelson denied wearing clothing that was too tight or otherwise inappropriate.

During the last six months of her employment, the two began communicating via text message. Some of the texts discussed matters of a sexual nature, but none indicated a sexual relationship between the two. Nelson said that she was not uncomfortable with the correspondence, although some of Knight’s texts could be described as explicit, such as a reference to bulging pants caused by her revealing clothing. Knight’s wife, who also worked for his practice, discovered their text correspondence in late 2009, and complained to him about it, calling it a “big threat to [their] marriage.” Id. at 4. In consultation with the couple’s pastor, Knight decided it was best to fire Nelson. He informed her of her termination on January 4, 2010, by reading a prepared statement with another pastor present. Knight acknowledged that Nelson had done nothing wrong, and that she was his best dental assistant. He later hired another woman to replace Nelson, and has always employed female dental assistants.
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