New York Employment Attorneys Blog

The EEOC has moved ahead and sued the Target Corporation for discriminating against a disabled employee. The employee had applied for a job at one of Target's stores in California. While applying for the job, the individual made it known that he suffers from cerebral palsy and limited intellectual functioning.

Once employed by the store, the employee was given little to no accommodation for his disability, the suit alleges. The company had allegedly ignored requests from the employee's job coach, as well as requests from the employee's parents to be present for in store meetings with managers and other supervisors.

The suit also alleges that the employee had his hours reduced upon returning from an unpaid medical leave.

If these allegations are true, the store is at fault for failing to accommodate an individual's disability in the work place when they were aware of the disability at the time of hiring the individual. No employee should be denied a moderate request to carry out the job duties that they have been assigned, nor should they be retaliated against when jobs fail to provide accommodations.

Last week, an age discrimination lawsuit was brought against the telecommunications giant. The suit alleges that a controversial hiring policy has disproportionately affected the ability of older workers to find jobs at AT&T. The company has a policy of not re-hiring any workers that have taken a retirement or severance plan from the company.

The EEOC is leading the case against this practice, claiming that this policy of refusing to rehire workers once they were retired unfairly affects older workers, preventing them from ever seeking employment with AT&T in the future. They claim it is unlikely that many younger workers under 40 years old, will be affected by this policy, and instead will work to keep mostly older workers from being employed.

The company, when pressed for comment, has no rationale or reasoning for this program. The company also made no comment pending litigation in the matter, making many wonder what exactly was AT&T trying to accomplish with this policy.

The lawsuit states that over 50,000 employees have retired or separated from the company under this plan, and it is likely a large number of these individuals were older workers.

We'll keep you updated as this possibly huge lawsuit progresses further.

Michael Vick has recently been picked up by the Philadelphia Eagles after serving an 18-month sentence stemming from charges of animal abuse and dog fighting. Having made headlines for his actions, and the cruelty and severity of those actions, Vick had been made into a monster- in part rightfully so, and in some cases not so fairly.

With Vick signing with the Eagles last week, the star raised some important issues regarding employment. Can a team reasonably take into account Vick's criminal history when looking at trying to employ him? While most individuals must disclose such information to employers, Vick had no such luck in his status as a celebrity, and the high profile surrounding his case.

Many states have laws against restricting, discriminating or denying employment to individuals based on their criminal records. These laws restrict an employers rights to make judgments based on their record, and to help rehabilitate individuals convicted of crimes back into society.

Being a celebrity of course complicates matters, and eradicates much of ones own personal privacy. But what should a football club, whose reputation and more importantly money could be on the line, do when dealing with these decisions.

Would a football team be wrong to hire back Vick after serving out his sentence? Or should the Eagles and the NFL give Vick a chance to continue his career after serving the time a jury handed down to him.

There is no easy answer in a case such as this, especially given the specifics of Vicks trial. What's your take on the matter- were the Eagles right to hire Vick back?

A group of women have brought allegations of sex discrimination against a string of supermarkets. The complaint alleges that women were routinely discriminated against in the hiring procedures of the store, only being allowed to serve as cashiers. Nearly 90 percent of the cashier's employed by the company were women, while there were no women working as stockers, in the meat department, or elsewhere in the store.

The complaint was initiated when an individual sought employment with one of the stores named, incorporated under the Dynasty VI name, and was told that there were no more cashier positions available. However, the individual had found out that there had been an opening for a stockperson, and inquired about the job. When pressed, the manager said that they do not hire women as stock-people.

The suit alleges that this is a rampant practice at these New York area stores. It also alleges that women when hired were also pushed into newer divisions of the supermarket, which would not have the same promotion procedures and pay as positions occupied by men.

We here at the Harman Firm believe that it is good that individuals are coming forward to stand up against this illegal behavior which has been unlawfully keeping women out of positions that they are perfectly qualified to do. Only when you individuals are aware of the many facets and types of discrimination in the workplace can they truly take action against this behavior.

A number of residents in a Kew Gardens, Queens Co-op building are fuming over their treatment by other residents and management of the building. A number of gay couples have come forward with allegations of discrimination and anger directed at them based on their sexual orientation.

Among the complaints is that the management, who refused to make required repairs to their apartments, including refusing to repair an apartment after a water pipe had burst in an apartment. As well, notes were left on the gay couple's doors adorned with hateful slurs.

Some residents even referred to the floor on which three of the couples lived as the "AIDS Floor". A few of the couples have sued for damages resulting from the failure to repair, but the lawsuits have only brought more retaliation against these couples based on their sexual orientation, causing one couple to bring a discrimination lawsuit.

This sort of behavior should never have to be tolerated by any individual. Discrimination on the basis of ones sexual orientation is always wrong, and often illegal. The Harman Firm believes that every individual has a right to live the way the choose, without discrimination or harassment from others.

A group of employees at Mama Mexico restaurant in New York City have brought a suit against their employer, claiming a multitude of charges against the owners and management. Among other things, the suit claims that employees were cheated wages, failed to pay overtime, and unlawfully split tips from staff.

As well, the complaint has individual claims of pregnancy discrimination, retaliation for complaining about conditions, as well as a claim for assault and battery against an employee. These claims should hardly come as surprise to those paying attention to the seeming endless stream of employee abuse carried out by restaurants.

What is surprising however is the story of the founder of the chain of popular, upscale Mexican restaurants Juana Rojas Campos. Campos has received a great deal of attention for his life story, rising from the ranks of new immigrants in America, to owning a chain of successful and well received restaurants. However, it now seems the same person who fought hard to get to where his position in life now appears to have done it on the hard work and abuse of his employees, many of which have the same background.

In a class action lawsuit filed in Federal Court this week, famed New York restaurant group Cipriani is under fire for allegedly underpaying workers, withholding wages, and failing to pay proper overtime to numerous workers. The lawsuit is another in the ongoing legal troubles for the group of restaurants, whose owner has not returned to New York for nearly 9 months while living abroad. Numerous other employees have come forward alleging underpayment of wages, and the group has also had trouble with the landlord of the Rainbow Room, where they have recently lost their lease.

This is also another staggering example of the out of control culture of corruption that exists in the New York dining world. It almost isn't even news anymore when a restaurant is found to have systematically taken advantage of its workers, and denying pay and overtime.

Maybe we should start a diner's hall of shame around New York City, alerting diners to the violations found at restaurants around the city and allow them to make decisions based on where workers are treated fairly.

File this one under questionable employment decisions. The Hartford Courant, a local Connecticut newspaper fired its consumer affairs reporter after the individual exposed a pending investigation into Sleepy's Mattress Company. Sleepy's, one of the biggest advertisers of the Hartford Courant, is pending an investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General's office for, among other charges, selling used mattresses and bedding as new, as well as selling mattresses that were infested with bedbugs to consumers.

The journalist, George Gombossy, worked at the newspaper for over 40 years before being laid off after the allegations were documented. The paper refused to print the article, and terminated him as a result. The veteran writer is now out of a job and writing his own blog as a result of this ridiculous retaliatory behavior. This situation exposes the reality of both print journalism, and the job market as a whole. Newspapers are cutting corners everywhere, and in this case it is not surprising the Hartford Courant is siding with advertisers rather than take responsibility for the papers credibility. It's a shame when journalists are being persecuted for telling the truth and informing consumers about such matters.

Snuck somewhere into the Stimulus Bills passed in February, President Obama added and extended COBRA coverage for millions of American workers. Affecting these workers, and their employers, the bill signed into law created an extension of COBRA Health Care benefits for workers who had been terminated between September 2008 and December 31, 2009. Eligible workers will now be able to maintain their employer managed health care plans by paying 35 percent of the premium, while the subsidy and their employer will have to pay the remaining 65 percent.

This bill also allows individuals who did not initially wish to continue their plan to purchase coverage if they had been terminated during this period. This is good news to those who were laid off and could not possibly continue to afford their health care coverage while only receiving unemployment benefits.

Employers, on top of being responsible for the new coverage amount, must also give notice to employees that had been terminated that they are eligible for these benefits, as well as inform them as to the terms of receiving the benefits.

This is excellent news for individuals who are already having trouble coping with the harsh economic realities of the recession and the difficulty of being unemployed. This move allows for more individuals to retain access to health care and avoid racking up even more debt through medical bills. This move, coupled with Obama's recent push for health care reform, could translate into better and more consistent coverage for all Americans.

In a startling revelation, it appears that some New York State inmates have been receiving unemployment benefits while incarcerated. Apparently eleven inmates in various penitentiaries collected over $30,000 in unemployment benefits. This came as the state comptroller and auditor froze payments of over $18.000 destined to be disbursed to these inmates.

The state was looking into how exactly these individuals were able to get benefits while behind bars. Some sources said that it was likely that these inmates were working with people on the outside that had access to their personal information. As part of the requirement for receiving jobless benefits, individuals must be ready to go to work and be actively looking for work, meaning that individuals must have been appearing on their behalf, or phoning in job search records for the inmates as they collected.

The fraud was only caught after a the jobless benefit records were compared against the prison logs for the year 2008. Defrauding the state is a felony offense, meaning that it is likely that these jailed individuals will see another set of charges attached to their rap sheet.

The New York Post's David Seifman has written an interesting article- Nepotism Wrist $lap- detailing the strange logic of the New York City bureaucracy and its treatment of employees. Seifman describes the errant hypocrisy showcased in the Department of Investigation's inquiry into the Marie Dorsinville. Ms. Dorsinville was fine $3.500 for three violations of policy while working at the Department of Health. Reportedly, Dorinsville tried to have a subordinate interview her brother for a position, and then when he was hired, she acted as his supervisor- violating ethics regulations.

Meanwhile, an employee who acted as a whistle-blower and reported this unethical behavior is still out of a job after being fired following their complaints. What sort of system do we live in where City employees will admit to guilt over ethical violations and keep their jobs, while the ones who report this unlawful activity are out on the street? This behavior is appalling, and calls for a harder look at how the City of New York treats those who hope to expose illegal behavior.

Rastafarian employees of the Grand Central Partnership are now free to wear their hair as they please, after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a lawsuit on their behalf. The Rastafarian workers, many of whom had been suspended or fired for breaking the companies dress code, brought a suit against their employer alleging that their practices against long hair was discriminating against their religion. The court agreed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act which affords employees reasonable religious accommodations if they are not disruptive, and found for the workers. This is another small victory for workers rights in challenging some of the unfair and discriminatory practices of employers.

Laid off and hoping to get back on your feet quickly? According to a New York Times article published on August 3rd, this may be more difficult than anticipated, even as we pull out of the recession. The article details the troubles faced by many workers who have been laid off, particularly in gaining similar employment, or earning as much money as they previously had been making.

Many employees, even those who survived the recession of 2001, are finding that it is very difficult to continue on at their old salary, drastically changing the ways they live. It also explores the long term damage cause by a termination, showing that being laid off for a brief period of time can be more expensive than imagine and hurt future earning potential. This is often caused by the fact that laid off employees have to start with a new company, or start in an entirely new field, essentially resetting the bar on their wages. The promotions and raises that they had earned may not carry to their new employment, and make it difficult to reach the same wage levels they once previously had.

Another week, another set of allegations of wage violations against
restaurants throughout New York City. This time around, 25 workers filed
a complaint against Wu Liang Ye, a group that operates two Chinese
restaurants in Midtown and the Upper East Side. The suit claims that
managers and owners had failed to pay workers for overtime, or even a
minimum wage, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The suit also
alleges management drawing into tips that were meant for delivery staff
and busboys.

The amended complaint goes on to further allege that since the original
complaint was filed in February, management of Wu Liang Ye has retaliated
against workers for complaining and for trying to organize, and that some
employees who have complained have been fired.

This is just another example of management abusing and taking advantage of
employees; most of whom can least afford it. Workers should not have to
take such treatment, and we at the Harman Firm recommend that all workers
who believe have had their pay unfairly docked, or retaliated against come
forward to seek justice.

Check out this interesting article in the Wall Street Journal- Dealing With Infertility Treatments On The Job- .
The article deals with the much under discussed, but very relevant topic of reproductive treatment and workplace rights. The author of the article describes the difficulty faced in trying to explain to her boss the treatment she was undergoing, as well as the difficult in balancing her personal and professional life throughout the course of treatment.
Workers have many protections when it comes to seeking treatment for reproductive issues. In the Amendments to the Americans With Disabilities Act, problems with reproduction is covered under the new ADA, protecting men and women from being wrongfully challenged when seeking treatment.
Furthermore, women are also protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. Under a ruling made last year, women can invoke the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to cover fertility treatments and other reproductive problem treatments. These two important amendments help build on the idea that infertility and reproductive problems are considered medical problems, and not personal matters. It is good to see the expansion of the rights of employees who are pregnant, as well as those seeking to get pregnant.

In an article published in today's USA Today examines how the recession has affected older, white male workers. While it has been reported that the recession has had a wide racial gap in unemployment in inner cities, the article looks across the country to see how this particular group has fared during this downtown. Conversely, the article claims that the overall unemployment gap racially throughout the country has shrank, due in part to the effect on these older white male workers.

The article explores men in their 50's who have worked the same or similar jobs throughout their lives, and are now finding themselves unemployed for the first time, and undertrained to take on new employment. Generally, older more experienced workers have ridden out periods of downturns, but the widening crises has expanded its reach to these workers who have often spent their careers with one company.
It also explores the difficulties associated with loosing a job that late in life, including having to be retrained, as well as the rising costs of health care and insurance, which get more expensive as one ages. Older workers requiring medications for conditions are finding themselves unable to pay, and have to decided which medications to take and which bills to pay.

In these many scenarios, we are seeing the personal difficulties associated with the recession, and how families are forced to cope with sudden changes in lifestyle and habits. Lets hope that the recent signs of the economy's turn around will continue, and these affected families will be able to get back on track.