The New Jersey Employment Law Firm Blog

April 30, 2013

NYPD Takes a Stand on Hair Color Discrimination, but What Does the Law Say?

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

April 26, 2013

Fashion Models Sue Former Employer for Likeness Rights, Unjust Enrichment

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

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

April 19, 2013

New Jersey Legislature Passes Bill Protecting Employees’ Social Media Accounts from Employer Scrutiny

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

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

April 11, 2013

Professor Sues College for Gender and Race Discrimination, Saying It Promoted Less-Qualified Professors Ahead of Her

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

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

April 5, 2013

Non-Solicitation Agreement Not Violated by Former Employee’s Facebook Posts, Court Rules

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

A federal court ruled in favor of a former employee in a key portion of the former employer’s request for a preliminary injunction. Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. v. Cahill, No. 12-cv-346, order affirming magistrate’s report (D. Okla., Feb. 12, 2013). The decision is one of the first to address employees’ use of social media versus their contractual obligations to a former employer. The employer alleged that social media activity by the former employee, such as posts to his Facebook page, breached a non-solicitation agreement. The court disagreed, finding that his activities on Facebook and Twitter were not expressly targeted to employees of the former employer, and as such did not violate the specific terms of his non-solicitation agreement.

The defendant, Todd Cahill, worked for Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (PPLSI) in San Diego from 2004 until August 2012. PPLSI sells legal service plans, using a multi-level marketing model that allows sales associates to recruit additional sales associates to work “downline” from them. A sales associate receives commissions for their own sales and those of downline associates. Cahill began as a sales associate, and received a promotion to regional manager in 2008. He signed an “Associate Agreement” when he began working for PPLSI, which included a clause prohibiting him from “proselytiz[ing], recruit[ing], or solicit[ing]” other associates while employed by PPLSI and for two years after termination or departure. Cahill, magistrate’s report at 3 (Jan. 22, 2013).
Continue reading

April 3, 2013

Restaurant Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit with EEOC

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

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

March 20, 2013

New York City Court Dismisses Lawsuit Alleging Height Discrimination, Holding that Adult Height is Not a Protected Genetic Characteristic

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

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

March 13, 2013

FMLA Claim Dismissed Based on Plaintiff’s Vacation During Leave

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) allows employees to take unpaid leave for medical conditions or to care for a family member. It also prohibits retaliation by employers for taking leave. A federal court recently dismissed a claim for violation of FMLA rights based on evidence that the plaintiff made false statements to her employer regarding her condition during her leave. Lineberry v. Detroit Medical Center, et al, No. 11-13752, slip op. (E.D. Mich., Feb. 5, 2013). The court held that the employer’s termination of the plaintiff was justified based on the plaintiff’s conduct, which violated the employer’s policy and was not consistent with her stated reasons for needing FMLA leave. Before bringing a case for FMLA violations, or any other employment law claim, employment attorneys should carefully review the case that the employer could make against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Carol Lineberry, worked as a registered nurse at Detroit Medical Center (DMC), receiving positive performance reviews. She suffered an injury while moving stretchers on January 27, 2011. A doctor employed by DMC recommended that she not return to work. DMC approved her for FMLA from January 27 to April 27, 2011, and paid her $3,636.57 for short-term disability benefits for the period from March 5 to April 16.

The plaintiff had already planned and paid for a vacation to Mexico before her injury. The doctor approved the vacation, scheduled for February 26 to March 2, saying that the trip would not impede her recovery. During and shortly after her vacation, co-workers reported seeing pictures posted to the plaintiff’s Facebook page of her laying on the beach and riding in a boat, as well as pictures of her holding her grandchildren. She also allegedly described various activities on Facebook that seemed inconsistent with her injured state.
Continue reading

March 5, 2013

Nurse Sues Hospital for Allegedly Reassigning Her Because of Her Race

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

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

February 27, 2013

Department of Justice Settles Immigration-Related Employment Discrimination Claims Against College

by Resnick Law Group, P.C.

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