New York Employment Attorneys Blog

Yarelyn Mena and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

On October 15, 2013, after twenty-five years of employment Dr. Farrokh Seifaee was one of fifteen employees terminated from AREVA, Inc. (AREVA) as a part of a reduction in force (“RIF”). The group of fifteen all had one thing in common: every member was over the age of fifty-five years old. On May 12, 2014, Seifaee filed a complaint alleging age discrimination in violation of the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

In 2011, AREVA lost funding on major projects, resulting in several layoffs in an initial RIF. For the next several years, Seifaee’s team and various others had little work to do as projects began to diminish. In September 2013, AREVA’s management began preparing for another RIF. Department heads, including Seifaee’s supervisor Bret Boman, created criterion to determine which employees would be laid off. The criterion considered business needs, current and past evaluations of each employee, and the employee’s critical or unique skills. Each employee was rated on a scale from one to ten, along with written documentation supporting the evaluation.

Seifaee earned a satisfactory job performance on his performance evaluations in 2011 and 2012, and his department earned internal awards that recognized his good performance in 2012 and 2013. Seifaee only received one negative review; former supervisor, Virgilio Esquillo, writes that Seifaee “did not demonstrate the necessary intellectual horsepower to solve the problem.” When electing to terminate Seifaee, Boman veered from the criterion by considering only Seifaee’s 2012 performance evaluation instead of the more recent evaluations with positive ratings and failing to gather more information about Seifaee’s performance or unique abilities.

Seifaee brings age claims based on disparate treatment and disparate impact. While both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories can be used by a plaintiff to show an employer’s discriminatory practices, they are used in different ways. Disparate treatment claims that an employer treated an employee differently than other similarly situated employees. Under disparate impact, a discriminatory motive is not required; plaintiff must show that a facially neutral employment practice disproportionally affected one group and cannot be justified by any business necessity.

AREVA maintained that the terminations were solely due to work shortages caused by loss of funding. Seifaee, relying on an expert statistician, demonstrated that it was statistically improbable that a supposedly objective system that evaluated 136 employees coincidently identified fourteen employees all over the age of fifty-five to terminate. This information was used to show that a disparate impact stemmed from AREVA’s RIF criteria to the detriment of older workers.

Seifaee moved for summary judgment on his disparate impact claims while AREVA moved for summary judgment on all counts. On November 10, 2015, the court denied summary judgment for both parties finding genuine issues of material fact. The court decided that the credibility of Seifaee’s data was a question for a jury to decide, and thus would not be decided in summary judgment.

Employees should be aware of both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims. Where disparate treatment typically is clearer to the affected employee, both may result in illegal discriminatory termination. Employees need to be aware and suspicious of policies that only affect members of one protected class.

If you believe you have been discriminated against based on your age, please contact The Harman Firm, LLP.

by Jennifer Melendez

On October 7, 2015, Two Colorado potato-packing companies, Smokin’ Spuds Inc. and Farming Technology Inc., agreed to pay $450,000 to settle an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) suit for sexual harassment and retaliation. The EEOC charged both companies with violating federal law by subjecting more than a dozen women to frequent, harassing comments and unwelcomed physical contact from their supervisor, Samuel Valdez. The suit also alleges that the companies terminated three women in retaliation for making complaints to management about the harassment.

According to the EEOC charge, Mr. Valdez made sexual comments and gestures to the women, touched the them on their buttocks and breasts, and, at least in one incident, placed a female employee on his lap. Because most of the women who made complaints were fired for doing so, the harassment continued for years. Mr. Valdez’s conduct, the companies’ failure to adress complaints and the termination of those women for making complaints, all violates Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits, among other things, sexual harassment and retaliation for making a complaint.

Along with the payment of $450,000, the EEOC directed the defendants to follow a three-year decree that forbids them from engaging in any future employment practice that discriminates on the basis of sex and to participate in extensive training on employment discrimination laws. The decree also requires that the defendants apologize to the women and terminate Valdez’s employment. EEOC Regional Attorney, Mary Jo O’Neill stated:

This type of misconduct that is allowed to go on over a period of several years – with a number of different women experiencing a gauntlet of harassment from the same supervisor – has no place in the workplace. We believe that our lawsuit and the significant relief obtained in this settlement will send the message, not only to the defendants, but to the entire produce packing industry, that EEOC will not tolerate this kind of abuse – or retaliation for complaining about it.

Women often feel reluctant to report sexual harassment they have experienced at work. They may feel that as a result of the complaint, their privacy will be invaded, the report will damage their reputation, or they ultimately will lose their job. If you feel that you have sexually harassed or have been retaliated against for making a complaint, please call The Harman Firm, LLP.

Lucie Rivière

On November 10, 2015, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo announced that he would raise the minimum wage to $15 for all employees of the State of New York, making New York the first state to enact a $15 public sector minimum wage.

In April 2015, hundreds of fast-food workers and labor allies protested in the streets, demanding wage increases, the organizers behind the fast-food strikes explicitly called for an industry wage of $15 an hour in New York City. Following these events, Governor Cuomo worked to increase the minimum wage for not only fast food workers but also for all state workers. In a New York Times op-ed published on May 6, 2015, Governor Cuomo complained “nowhere is the income gap more extreme and obnoxious than in the fast-food industry. The average fast-food C.E.O. made $23.8 million in 2013. Meanwhile, entry-level food-service workers in New York State earn, on average, $16,920 per year, which at a 40-hour a week amounts $8.50 an hour.”

Under New York State law, the governor can unilaterally appoint wage boards to investigate wage rates. Since the 1930’s, New York State frequently has used wage boards to review workers’ pay in several industries including beauty shops, summer camps, and restaurants. A wage board—composed of business, labor and public representatives—recommends increases in pay if it finds that wages are insufficient to provide for the life and health of workers. Through this process, the state labor commissioner can order a wage increase without legislative approval.

Using the wage board process, Governor Cuomo said he would gradually increase the hourly rate in the public sector. “I believe that if you work hard and work full time, you should not be condemned to live in poverty. Yet millions of families nationwide continue to be left behind by an insufficient minimum wage – and it’s time that changed,” Cuomo stated. The wage increase for state workers will be fully phased on July 1, 2021, while wages for States employees in New York City will reach $15 per hour by the end of 2018, in light of its higher cost of living. The Governor’s action will benefit approximately 10,000 state employees, including those in executive agencies, the legislature, the judiciary, and the independently elected agencies of the Department of Law and the Office of State Comptroller, affecting approximately 9,000 employees outside of New York City and 1,000 within. This wage increase has a projected cost of about $20.6 million a year, a drop in New York’s over $150 billion annual budget.

Governor Cuomo’s action has national political ambitions. “The nation is going to watch us and we’re going to raise up this state and we’re going to raise up this nation to a higher level than it’s ever been,” he said.

If you believe your employer has denied you the minimum wage or illegally withheld your wages, please contact The Harman Firm, LLP.


Lucie Rivière

On November 1, 2015, President Obama, by executive order, took a significant step against the discrimination against former convicts in the hiring process for federal jobs.

Securing work after being incarcerated is an important step in a former inmate’s reintegration into his or her community, and every year, hundred of thousands of Americans are released from state and federal prisons. Frequently, finding work is one of the most difficult obstacles for former inmates to overcome. According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in 2010, only 40% employers said they would consider hiring candidates who had a committed a crime—even if the candidate had more experience and a stronger resume than other applicants.  Unsurprisingly, a 2010 study from the National Institute of Justice (“NIJ”) found that between 60% and 75% of ex-convicts were still unemployed a year after their release.

In 2004, to protect job applicants from the mandatory disclosure of past convictions in job applications, a national civil rights movement of formerly incarcerated people and their families, “All of Us or None,” launched a “ban the box” campaign (referring to employers’ practice of making job applicants check a box on their applications if they have a criminal record). The “ban the box” campaign challenged employers to choose their best candidates based on job skills and qualifications, not past convictions. Since 2004, numerous advocates, including formerly incarcerated people, legal aid organizations, civil rights partners, and elected officials, became involved in the “ban the box” campaigns. Today, over 45 cities and counties, including New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, and San Francisco prohibit questions regarding conviction history from employment applications.

On November 1, 2015, President Obama instructed his Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), the “HR department” of the federal government, to delay inquiries about criminal history in federal job applications until after a candidate had an in-person interview. The OPM recommended that federal agencies to “wait until the end of the hiring process to consider the applicant’s criminal record.” President Obama’s executive order codifies the recommendation. However, this order does not cover federal contractors, which are statistically more likely to receive applications from ex-convicts. Additionally, this order only delays the disclosure of convictions until a “later point in the hiring process”, rather than after the government makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, which the National Employment Law Project (“NELP”), one of the main advocacy groups supporting ban-the-box policies, strongly recommends.

Nevertheless, this order is a step in the right direction. Indeed, the NIJ’s 2010 study showed that employment prospects for applicants with criminal records improved when applicants had an opportunity to interact with the hiring manager. Although individual characteristics of employers were significant, the researchers concluded that personal interaction between the applicant and prospective employer was in itself a key factor in a successful hiring.

If you think you have been discriminated against because of your criminal backgrounds, please call The Harman Firm, LLP.

Yarelyn Mena and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

Have you ever wondered if a potential employer found information about you on the Internet that cost you the job? Thomas Robins believed so, and sued Spokeo, Inc. (Spokeo), creators of, a search engine that collects and sells publicly available data about people.  Spokeo incorrectly described 20-year old Mr. Robins as a wealthy 50-year old man with children, as well as a myriad of other inaccuracies about his professional and personal life on the Spokeo website. Robins sued Spokeo pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), under which malicious statutory violations are actionable even without causing a plaintiff actual harm.

Spokeo argued that Mr. Robins had no standing to sue. Standing requires that (1) the plaintiff has suffered an ‘injury in fact,’ (2) the injury is traceable to defendant’s actions, and (3) it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Courts characterize an injury in fact as concrete and actual or imminent. The district court agreed with Spokeo, holding that Mr. Robins could not prove with concrete and actual evidence that inaccurate information about him on the Internet had any adverse effect on his employment, credit or any other prospect. As such, the district court dismissed the action.

Mr. Robins appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which overruled the district court’s decision. The Ninth Circuit noted that Congress may create a statutory right that does not require proof of actual damages; it must only be significant enough so that Congress can “elevate [it] to the status of legally cognizable injuries.” In creating such a statutory right, Congress is bound by several constitutional limitations: the plaintiff must be among those injured, and the statutory right at issue must protect against individual harm, not collective harm. The Ninth Circuit found that Mr. Robins met both prongs because his injury was sufficiently concrete to where Congress could elevate it and Mr. Robin’s personal interests were vested in Spokeo’s inaccurate information much like “an individual’s personal interest in living in a racially integrated community.” The Ninth Circuit held that Mr. Robins had standing to bring his claim.

Spokeo appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), which granted certiorari. During oral arguments before SCOTUS, several of the justices sided with Mr. Robin’s view, including Justice Sotomayor, who stated, “I will tell you I know plenty of single people who look at whether someone who’s proposed to date is married or not. So if you’re not married and there’s a report out there saying you are, that’s a potential injury.” Justice Kagan also agreed, noting that the FCRA’s purpose is to prevent people from being harmed due to the distribution of false information even if the injury is intangible.

If SCOTUS holds that Robins does not have standing, Plaintiffs will be prohibited from bringing claims to redress intangible injury under the FCRA, or many other statutes that provide for statutory damages absent actual damages.

If you believe your FCRA rights have been violated, please contact The Harman Firm, LLP.

Lucie Rivière and Edgar Rivera, Esq.

On October 22, 2015, at the Empire State Pride Agenda’s 25th Anniversary Fall Dinner, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced new regulations to protect transgender New Yorkers from discrimination in housing, credit lending, education, public accommodations, and employment. In support of the new regulations, Governor Cuomo stated, “In 2015, it is clear that the fair legal interpretation and definition of a person’s sex includes gender identity and gender expression.”

The State of New York has a long history of protecting the rights of transgender persons. In the landmark 1977 case Richards v. U.S. Tennis Association, the New York County Supreme Court first allowed a transgender individual to bring a discrimination claim based on her transgender status pursuant to the New York State Human Right Law (“NYSHRL”). In that case, a professional tennis player, Richards, who had male-to-female sex reassignment surgery brought an action to enjoin the U.S. Tennis Association from requiring her to pass a sex-chromatin test to be eligible to play.  A sex-chromatin test determines whether a second X chromosome is present; therefore, only women biologically born female will pass it.  U.S. Tennis used that test to determine whether an athlete was eligible to participate in the U.S Open tennis tournament. The Supreme Court of New York County held that requiring the plaintiff to pass the sex-chromatin test was “grossly unfair, discriminatory, and inequitable” and a violation of the NYSHRL. However, the court did not state how U.S. Tennis Association violated the NYSHRL; it only stated that the NYSHRL prohibits discrimination for an employer because of “age, race, creed, color, national origin, sex or disability, or marital status” and that that U.S. Tennis, among defendants, violated Richards’ rights. In other words, the court was not clear on how the defendant violated Richard’s rights.

New York State will now join eighteen other states—Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhoda Island, Massachusetts, Delaware, Maryland, Maine and Vermont—and several localities, including New York City, that have enacted statutes to expressly protect transgendered individuals against discrimination. The new regulations, that included transgendered individuals under the gender category of protection, likely are to be published in the state registry by next week and will be subject to a 45-day comment period before taking effect.

“The scourge of harassment and discrimination against transgender individuals has gone largely unanswered for too long,” Cuomo said. “We will not tolerate discrimination or harassment against transgender people anywhere in the state of New York.”

If you believe your employer discriminated against you because of your gender identity, please contact The Harman Firm, LLP.

Jennifer Melendez

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined Case Farms Processing (Case Farms) and Callaghan and Callaghan (Cal-Clean) for exposing workers to possible amputations, falls, electrical risks and other serious hazards. The companies’ failure to adhere to safety standards was so severe that it resulted in tragic injuries to two of its employees. OSHA’s inspections of Cal-Clean and Case Farms found that on April 7, 2015, a 17-year-old Cal-Clean worker suffered an accident resulting in the amputation of his lower-left leg while cleaning a liver-giblet chiller machine. Due to his injury, he could not return to work and Cal-Clean fired him shortly thereafter. OSHA also fined Cal-Clean for failing to report the amputation to OSHA within 24 hours after the accident. Dr. David Michaels, assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA stated:

A teenager’s life has been forever altered because of the devastating leg injury just weeks after starting his job. How many injuries will it take before Case Farms stops exposing workers to dangerous machinery parts? OSHA will continue to inspect, monitor and penalize this company until it makes necessary improvements. They need to protect their workers, and they need to do it now.

Similarly, two weeks prior, a 24-year-old Case Farms worker was cleaning a fat-sucker machine when the operating parts of a plunger severed his right middle and ring fingers. According to OSHA, Case farms failed to ensure that those machines were turned off during the cleaning process. Case Farms suspended the injured worker, firing him from his job shortly after. Consequently in August, OSHA placed Case Farms in the agency’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program, estimating $861,500 worth in penalties at Case Farm’s Ohio facility. Howard Eberts, OSHA’s area director in Cleveland stated:

In the past 25 years, Case Farms has done little to change a corporate culture where workers are endangered despite repeated OSHA inspections and commitments from the company to fix its safety and health programs.

OSHA was created to enforce the Occupational Safety and Health Act by enforcing workplace safety and health standards which protect employees from being seriously injured or killed on the job. Under the OSHA Act, workers are entitled to working conditions that do not place them under risk for serious harm. Workers have the right to request OSHA to inspect their workplace, to exercise their rights without experiencing retaliation and discrimination, review records of past work-related injuries and illnesses and request information and training about hazards.

If you feel you are working under hazardous conditions or feel you have been retaliated or discriminated against for reporting dangerous conditions in your workplace, please contact The Harman Firm, LLP.

Yarelyn Mena and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

In Three D, LLC (Triple Play), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protected employees from termination where they made disloyal social media speech while discussing the terms of their employment.  This decision gives clarity regarding how Facebook “likes” and thread comments are to be treated where the underlying post is protected by Section 7.

In this case, Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille (Triple Play) incorrectly calculated several of its employees state income tax withholdings, resulting in employees owing additional state taxes.  After employees complained, Triple Play’s owners organized a meeting to discuss the issue. Prior to the meeting, a former, though affected, employee, Jamie LaFrance, posted on her personal Facebook account, “[Triple Play] can’t even do the tax paperwork correctly!!! Now I OWE money…Wtf!!!!” This posting led to current Triple Play employees discussing a plan to address the tax issues at the meeting.

The following actions form the factual basis of the dispute: (i) Triple Play’s cook, Vincent Spinella, “Liked” the post, and (ii) Triple Play’s waitress, Jillian Sanzone, commented on the post, calling one of the owners an “asshole.”  One of the owner’s sister, who was an employee of Triple Play, showed the owners LaFrance’s Facebook post and the subsequent comments, which the owners interpreted to mean that Spinella and Sanzone no longer wanted to work at Triple Play, resulting in their termination.

Section 7 protects employees’ “right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection” by prohibiting retaliation against two or more employees engaging in such protected conduct. Triple Play did not dispute that Section 7 protected the underlying Facebook discussion of the tax issue; the question before the Board was whether Spinella’s “like” and Sanzone’s calling one of the owner’s an “asshole” were protected activities, which Triple Play argued they were not.

The Board disagreed with Triple Play, analyzing the at-issue social media exchange under two different tests which balance an employee’s right to engage in Section 7 activity against the employer’s interest in protecting its reputation.  The first test, known as the Jefferson Standard, applies to cases where an employee makes a defamatory public statement about their employer’s product or services.  The Board found that neither Spinella’s nor Sanzone’s activity on social media was a “public statement” because discussions on personal Facebook accounts are equivalent to a “conversation that could potentially be overheard by a patron or other third party.” Moreover, there were no statements concerning Triple Play’s product or services. Therefore, these comments were protected.

The second test considers whether the alleged defamatory statement was (i) knowingly false or (ii) made with reckless disregard for the truth. The Board found that Spinella’s “like” on the Facebook post expressed agreement for the initial Facebook post addressing the tax concerns and not towards the comments that followed targeting Triple Play’s owner individually and that Sanzone’s comment calling Triple Play’s owner an “asshole” was not a statement of fact but rather an opinion. As such, Triple Play failed to show that Section 7 did not protect Spinella’s and Sanzone’s actions.

It is important for employees to be able to engage freely in discussions about their employment with others even if that means airing their complaints. Employees must understand Section 7’s protection when engaging in discussion on a public medium that may be visible to employers.

If you believe your employer unlawfully terminated you, please contact The Harman Firm, LLP.

Lucie Rivière and Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.

On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the District Court erred in its evaluation of the adequacy of an EEOC investigation, in the matter of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) v. Sterling Jewelers Inc. (“Sterling”).  The Court of Appeals found that the District Court improperly reviewed the adequacy of the EEOC investigation rather than whether there was an investigation.

On September 23, 2008, the EEOC filed suit in the Western District of New York alleging that Sterling engaged in sex-based pay and promotion discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).  Between 2005 and 2007, the EEOC investigated nineteen complaints of discrimination in nine states against Sterling.

At the close of discovery, Sterling moved for summary judgment, arguing that the EEOC had not satisfied its statutory obligation to conduct a pre-suit investigation.  The magistrate judge agreed, issuing a report and recommendation in which he determined that “there was no evidence that [the EEOC] investigated a nationwide class” and recommended that Sterling’s motion be granted.  The District Court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation and granted summary judgment for Sterling.  The EEOC appealed the decision to the Second Circuit.

On appeal, the EEOC argued that the magistrate judge improperly evaluated the sufficiency of the EEOC’s investigation instead of evaluating whether there was an investigation.  Under Title VII, courts may review whether the EEOC conducted an investigation, but not the sufficiency of such an investigation.  Following the Sixth and Eighth Circuits (EEOC v. Keco Indus., Inc., 748 F.2d 1097, 1100 (6th Cir. 1984) and EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 679 F.3d 657, 674 (8th Cir. 2012), the Second Circuit held that a district court’s ability to review the EEOC’s pre-suit investigation is extremely narrow. To prove that the EEOC has fulfilled its pre-suit investigative obligation, the EEOC only must show that it took steps to determine whether there was reasonable cause to believe that the allegations in the charge are true. An affidavit from the EEOC, outlining the steps taken to investigate the charges, is sufficient.  “For a court to second guess the choices made by the EEOC in conducting an investigation is not to enforce the law Congress wrote, but to impose extra procedural requirements.  Such judicial review extends too far,” held the Second Circuit.  Circuit Judge John Walker added, “Extensive judicial review of this sort would expend scarce resources and would delay and divert EEOC enforcement actions from eliminating discrimination in the workplace.”

If you believe your employer has discriminated against you, please contact The Harman Firm, LLP.

Yarelyn Mena

In March 2014, Police Officer Akema Thompson filed a pregnancy discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the New York Police Department (NYPD) for refusing to reschedule her Civil Service exam date to accommodate her due date, the NYPD routinely allows applicants to reschedule exams to accommodate other contingencies including religious celebrations and disabilities.

Officer Thompson, an NYPD employee since 2010, was eager to advance her career, by becoming a sergeant which requires taking the civil service. In 2013 the NYPD informed its officers that the civil service exam would be offered for the first time in two years on October 19, 2013, many officers, including Officer Thompson, were eager for the opportunity. She immediately signed up for a prep course, which cost $769. After a month of preparing for the exam, Officer Thompson found out she was pregnant and due to give birth on October 19, 2013, the same date as the exam. Despite this unexpected news, Officer Thompson was not at all deterred because she knew of many officers whom the NYPD permitted to reschedule their exam dates.

In June 2013, Officer Thompson emailed New York City’s Department of Citywide Administrative Services, notifying them of the conflict and requesting a makeup date.  2 days later city officials denied Officer Thompson’s request, stating only that it was “not approvable.” Officer Thompson was troubled and confused, as she recalled the many times that she saw officers approved for a makeup exam for religious events that conflicted with exam dates. Officer Thompson asked the NYPD under what circumstances a makeup exam would be “approvable.” The city officials sent her a list of exceptions, including military duty and physical disability. That list did not include absence due to pregnancy or complications following pregnancy.

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 requires “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions” be treated the same as other employees “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Pregnancy discrimination continues to hold back women in the labor force, as evidenced by the 1,376 charges that women filed alleging pregnancy discrimination in 2013 with the EEOC.

Many male-dominated careers frequently have outdated policies that fail to account for the unique issues that confront women in the workforce. These policies, which often go unchanged until challenged, hamstring women’s employment opportunities; employers that fail to provide the same accommodation for pregnant women as other similarly situated individuals restrict women’s employment prospects and disincentives them from pursuing such careers. A Union official from Officer Thompson’s union, the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, similarly stated, “An opportunity afforded to so many others is not only unfair, it is also unlawful.”

In the end, Officer Thompson gave birth 3 days before the exam and was still in the hospital the day of the exam recovering from a cesarean section. After she filed her discrimination charge with the EEOC, the city settled the case, agreeing to pay Officer Thompson $50,000 and allowing her to take a makeup exam in January. Additionally, the NYPD altered its policy to include women with pregnancy and childbirth related conditions to the list of exceptions for makeup exams.

Officer Thompson’s win opens the doors for female officers to have an equal opportunity to advance in their careers.  If you believe your employer discriminated against you because of your pregnancy, please contact The Harman Firm, LLP.