United States Supreme Court
Leveling the playing field for employees.
Protecting employee rights.
Delivering justice to employees.
A Custom Team Approach.
Experience. Knowledge. Results.
Dedication. Energy. Integrity.
Reliable & results-driven support.
Diligence. Client Service.

The United States Supreme Court has reportedly declined to review a challenge to a federal law that states an employer must accommodate a worker who becomes disabled. In United Airlines v. EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued United Airlines over a company policy that allowed a disabled worker to apply to transfer to another position within the company without giving the employee any sort of preference. Instead, the policy stated that a disabled worker was required to compete with other applicants for any vacant positions. According to the EEOC, the airline violated the “reasonable accommodations” requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although a trial court dismissed the case, a Seventh Circuit panel stated the ADA required United Airlines and other employers to appoint a disabled worker to a vacant position if the employee is qualified and the accommodation does not present an excessive hardship for the employer. The appellate court also remanded the case for trial.

United Airlines appealed the appellate decision to the Supreme Court and argued the court’s holding would effectively turn the ADA into an affirmative action law. According to United Airlines, the Seventh Circuit’s decision would make it impossible for employers to select only the most qualified workers for each position. The current presidential administration allegedly urged the high court to allow the Seventh Circuit decision to stand. Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, a district court will now consider whether United Airlines could prove a sufficient level of hardship existed in the case that was brought by the EEOC.

Unfortunately, disabled employees often suffer discrimination at work. Too often, employers choose to unlawfully discriminate against or harass workers who suffer from a temporary or permanent disability due to biased thinking. Disabled persons in New York and New Jersey have a right to expect that their employers will provide them with reasonable accommodations that allow them to perform their job. If your request for reasonable accommodations at work is denied, your rights may have been violated. If you believe you suffered employment discrimination as a result of a disability, you should contact a skilled employment law attorney.
Continue reading

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against a worker who is over 40 based solely upon his or her age. According to a survey recently conducted by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), however, about two-thirds of workers over age 50 have reportedly witnessed or experienced age discrimination at work. More than half of those workers stated they believe such discrimination begins after an employee turns 50.

As part of the survey, the AARP asked more than 1,500 American workers between the ages of 45 and 74 about their workplace experiences. Almost 20 percent of the individuals surveyed stated they believe they were not hired due to their age on at least one occasion and an estimated 12 percent apparently believe they were passed over for promotion as a result. Additionally, nearly 10 percent of older workers said they felt they were denied workplace training opportunities or let go because of their age.

Still, about three-quarters of older workers surveyed said they were not treated differently as a result of their age. Jean Setzfand, Vice President of Financial Security for AARP, said many older people do not realize they are being discriminated against at work. Setzfand stated a specific discriminatory situation usually occurs before many older workers realize their age played a role in their career trajectory. At least one-third of survey respondents allegedly claimed they were not confident they would be able to find a new job quickly without agreeing to be paid a lower wage.

Aging is a simple fact of life. Despite that older workers normally bring greater experience and leadership skills to the workplace, some employers choose to discriminate against them. If an employer makes hiring, promotion, compensation, termination, or many other employment decisions based upon a worker’s age, the employer has engaged in discrimination. Although federal law protects workers over age 40 from age discrimination, both New York and New Jersey protect all adults. In fact, both states legally protect a youthful employee from the so-called reverse age discrimination that may occur when an employer deems a worker to be too young to bring valuable experience to the workplace.
Continue reading

Last week, a proposed class-action lawsuit for alleged gender discrimination that was filed last year in a New York federal court by a female former Greenberg Traurig shareholder was reportedly settled. The shareholder purportedly worked in the law firm’s Philadelphia office for about three years between 2007 and 2010. According to her complaint, the Florida-based law firm violated the federal Equal Pay Act by underpaying its female attorneys.

In a 52-page complaint, the woman claimed she was underpaid by more than $200,000 over three years. She also alleged that she was told her annual bonus was smaller than expected because the male shareholders “had families to support and that she did not need the money.” Her proposed class-action sought to represent more than 200 past and current female shareholders of the firm. Following settlement negotiations, the lawsuit was apparently dismissed with prejudice at the request of both the shareholder and Greenberg Traurig. The exact terms of the parties’ settlement were not disclosed.

The woman’s lawsuit was purportedly filed after she filed a complaint with the nation’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Following a federal investigation, the EEOC purportedly stated the organization found “reasonable cause to believe” the 1,700-attorney law firm not only underpaid its professional female employees, but also treated them less favorably than the firm’s male attorneys. According to a spokesperson for Greenberg Traurig, the EEOC’s findings were only applicable to the firm’s Philadelphia office. Still, EEOC statistics state less than four percent of complaints receive a “reasonable cause” determination following an investigation.

This case demonstrates that although women’s rights in the workplace have come a long way in recent generations, women from all walks of life are still unfairly discriminated against. Sadly, no employer is immune from engaging in illegal and unfair discrimination. It is important to keep in mind that gender discrimination is not always immediately apparent. Whenever an employer treats workers differently based solely on their gender, discrimination has taken place.

In some situations, gender discrimination may result in a so-called “glass ceiling” for female employees. This means women may find it difficult to be promoted beyond a certain level within a company. In addition, experienced and qualified female workers may be denied equal compensation despite their skills. If you suffered gender discrimination at work, a quality employment lawyer can help.
Continue reading

One of the world’s largest medical and diagnostic testing companies in the world, Quest Diagnostics, has reportedly settled with regulators from the State of New York over allegations that the company engaged in employment discrimination. According to the New York State Attorney General’s Office, Quest violated state law by automatically disqualifying job applicants based solely on their criminal history. As part of the settlement, the Fortune 500 Company apparently agreed to pay $70,000 in fines and submit periodic compliance reports to state regulators. The Madison, New Jersey-based company will also reportedly modify its hiring policies, conduct employee training regarding the changed policies, and preserve all of its hiring records. Quest purportedly employs more than 42,000 people nationwide and operates at least 200 facilities in New York.

An investigation into Quest’s hiring practices allegedly resulted after a prospective job applicant filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office. In the State of New York, potential employers must consider a number of mitigating factors in conjunction with an applicant’s criminal history. Following the investigation, Quest was accused of refusing to hire applicants with a criminal past without regard for their qualifications, the amount of time that passed since the conviction, and evidence of rehabilitation. In addition, a Quest subsidiary, ExamOne Worldwide Inc., allegedly violated New York law by summarily refusing to consider any applicant with a criminal conviction that occurred within the previous seven years.

As this case demonstrates, employment discrimination can affect job applicants as well as those who are employed. Unfortunately, such discrimination is not always immediately obvious. Under both state and federal law, workers have a right to sue for damages if they were discriminated against. In order to recover financial compensation, employees must be part of a group that is statutorily protected. Workers who were discriminated against based upon their age, gender, race, disability, religion, military status, pregnancy, and more may have a discrimination claim against an employer. Oftentimes, employers discriminate against such classes of persons by failing to hire, demoting, firing, or harassing them. If you suffered employment discrimination during the application process or after you were hired, you should contact a skilled employment lawyer to discuss your rights.
Continue reading

On May 1st, a federal jury in Iowa awarded $240 million to 32 mentally-disabled workers who were allegedly abused and controlled by their now-defunct employer. According to the nation’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the disabled workers were paid 41 cents per hour, housed in unsanitary conditions, denied basic medical care, and physically and verbally abused by individuals who were charged with overseeing their care for years. The EEOC sued their employer, Henry’s Turkey Service, on behalf of the workers after the State of Iowa closed the facility in 2009. The company was allegedly investigated and closed in Iowa after state officials received a complaint from one of the worker’s family members.

According to Sue Gant, a Developmental Psychologist who purportedly testified on behalf of the workers, the disabled individuals were “virtually enslaved” by the company. The Iowa jury allegedly found that Henry’s Turkey Service violated the workers’ civil rights and imposed discriminatory conditions of employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The jury’s award of $7.5 million per worker was reportedly the largest handed down in the 48-year history of the EEOC. Gant stated she believes the jury award was so large due to the level of discrimination suffered by the workers.

President of Henry’s Turkey Service, Kenneth Henry, stated the allegations were exaggerated and said the company has plans to appeal. Although it is unlikely the now-closed Texas-based company has the financial means to pay the award, federal officials have reportedly stated they will work to recover as much as they can for the disabled workers. In 2012, Henry’s Turkey Service was also ordered to pay the workers $1.3 million in back wages.

Although the workers in this case suffered reprehensible discrimination, not all employment discrimination is immediately obvious. Sadly, many employers choose to unlawfully discriminate against employees who suffer from a disability due to biased thinking. If a disability does not physically prevent a worker from performing his or her essential job duties, an employer has no legal basis to discriminate based on that disability.

Workers in New York and New Jersey are protected from disability discrimination no matter the severity of their disability. In addition to more severe limitations such as blindness or paralysis, depression, anxiety, and learning disabilities are protected as well. If you believe you suffered employment discrimination as a result of your disability, you should contact a quality employment law attorney.
Continue reading

Internships are often a good way for college students and others to gain experience in a field, such as film or journalism, in the hopes of getting a full-time job after graduation. Some of these internships include a salary, stipend, or course credit, but many interns essentially work for free. While some students might be willing to make such a sacrifice in order to gain experience or contacts, unpaid internships might violate state or federal labor laws. The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other laws provide guidelines to help identify when employers must pay interns at least minimum wage, and multiple pending lawsuits are seeking to enforce interns’ right to compensation for their work.

The FLSA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., has a very broad definition of “employ,” describing it as “to suffer or permit to work.” 29 U.S.C. § 203(g). It allows exceptions for individuals volunteering for charitable groups and other nonprofit organizations, but generally nearly anyone working for a for-profit company may be considered “employed.” The U.S. Department of Labor has developed a set of guidelines for determining whether an internship falls under the FLSA’s coverage regarding overtime compensation and minimum wage. An internship program that meets these six criteria is not subject to FLSA requirements:
1. The internship resembles a training program in an educational institution;
2. The purpose of the internship is to benefit the intern;
3. The employer does not benefit directly from the intern’s experience;
4. The intern works under existing employees and does not displace them;
5. The employer makes no promise or representation of a job after the internship; and 6. Both the employer and the intern understand and agree that the intern will not receive compensation for the internship.
Continue reading

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

A former fashion model has filed suit against a major designer for alleged misappropriation of his likeness, claiming that it reused photographs taken of him more than a decade ago without his consent. Hamideh v. Dolce & Gabbana S.r.L., et al, No. BC502164, complaint (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Co., Mar. 4, 2013). In addition to the intellectual property claims, the plaintiff is asserting a claim related to breach of contract, seeking restitution for commercial benefits the defendant allegedly received from the use of his pictures. The case resembles situations faced by employees who contribute intellectual property to an employer, and who may continue to have rights to that intellectual property even after their employment ends.

According to the plaintiff’s complaint, Dolce & Gabbana (D&G), an Italian company known for high-end fashion, hired the plaintiff in 2002 for an advertising campaign. He was the featured male model of the campaign, appearing alongside world-famous female model Giselle Bundchen. D&G’s rights to the plaintiff’s likeness allegedly expired at the end of 2003. The plaintiff alleges that, in May 2012, D&G published photos of him taken for the campaign in 2002 without his permission. He claims that D&G did so “for the purpose of advertising [its] products and promoting [its] brand.” Hamideh, complaint at 4.
Continue reading

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

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

Contact Information