New York Employment Attorneys Blog

A New York based electronic store, B&H, is accused by four employees of gender discrimination after the employees sought positions as salespeople and were all denied. The three former workers and one current employee claim that B&H refuses to have female salespeople on the floor, relegating them to other positions and only promoting men.

The suit claims that when the lead plaintiff declared her interest in a sales position at B&H, and was rebuffed by other employees saying that the company does not hire women for those positions.

The store had recently paid warehouse workers over $4 million dollars in a settlement stemming from a suit over discrimination and failure to promote. The popular electronic store seems to have numerous problems concerning equal employment opportunities and civil rights.

Have any of you been to B&H and seen a female salesperson?

Retailer Jos. A. Bank, a nationwide chain of upscale clothing retailers, has been hit with a lawsuit alleging a pattern of racial discrimination against non-white employees.

Filed in California by one employee, the suit claims that the employee was terminated after filing a racial discrimination suite with the EEOC against the retailer. Further, the suit states that Jos. A. Bank

"systematically takes adverse employment actions against qualified, high-performing African-American employees in management positions by giving them less-desirable job assignments, lower pay, fewer promotional opportunities, more frequent and harsher discipline and retaliating for complaining about said illegal conduct,"
In particular, the suit claims that African American employees were systematically prevented from receiving management positions within the company.

The suit seeks reinstatement for a number of minority employees that have been unfairly treated by the retailer, and back pay in the event that the employees cannot be reinstated to their former positions.

We here at The Harman Firm deplore the fact that a retailer could engage in discrimination as alleged. While normally it is individual incidents, it is even more disheartening for employees to claim a rampant and systematic pattern of discrimination against minority employees.

After supporting Proposition 8 in California in a highly publicized campaign, the Mormon Church in Utah has come out in support of a local city ordinance which is designed to protect gays in the city from being discriminated against in employment and housing decisions: Mormon Support of Gay Rights Statute Draws Praise

After vehemently opposing the right for gays to be married in the state of California, this turn around is pleasantly surprising and appreciated, making Salt Lake City the only city within the state to support laws against sexual orientation discrimination.

While defending their support of traditional marriage arguments, they acknowledged that this deals entirely with employment and housing issues. The Church stated at a City Council meeting that "The issues before you tonight are the right of people to have a roof over their heads and the right to work without being discriminated against."

For the Church to take such a stand is a bold move in the generally socially conservative organization, and hopefully will focus more attention on the issue, while bringing support for LGBT individuals across the country.

Check out this article from Law.Com- 2 Scientists Get $6.2 Million Award in Age Discrimination Suit. Two scientists who claimed they were targeted for termination as a result of their age, and that they were specifically fired for being older workers. As a result of their claims, the jury in this case found in favor of the scientists, and determined that their termination was "willful", resulting in double damages for the plaintiffs.

This is a promising sign after the Supreme Court has worked to weaken the rights of elderly workers and their rights as employees. Hopefully, more workers will be properly represented in these cases and stand up for their rights against age discrimination.

Sexual harassment in the workplace continues to be a problem for countless individuals in the work place. Harassment can take many forms, largely face-to-face interactions. However, HR professionals are seeing a startling new trend brought on by Blackberry culture: text message sexual harassment.

A growing issue of concern is sexual harassment that spills over from the workplace encounters between people, and into their private, away from work lives, enabled by texting technology. Increasingly, it is being reported that victims of sexual harassment are often harassed through texts from harassers.

The carrying over of sexual harassment through texting during and after work is a disturbing development. We urge individuals to treat this type of harassment as any other. In particular, be sure to document the offending texts since many cell phones are set to delete or push texts out of a mailbox after a certain time. The Harman Firm urges individuals to speak up about this increasingly invasive harassment.

The Cheesecake Factory, a nationwide chain of family dining restaurants, has settled a suit brought by the EEOC alleging rampant sexual harassment. The complaint has alleged that the Cheesecake Factory was complicit in allowing male kitchen staff members to sexually harass other male employees of various restaurants.

The settlement, $345,000 in favor of the group of affected workers, comes as the company denies any wrongdoing in the matter. They argue that the settlement does not imply any fault on behalf of Cheesecake Factory, and is for the purposes of avoiding further disruption or litigation fees.

This case is an excellent example shattering the myth that male employees are free from sexual harassment in the workplace. In this case, it was an example of male on male sexual harassment that went unpunished by the management, resulting in a poor work environment for these individual. If you are a male experiencing sexual harassment in the workplace, you should not be afraid to confront it. Make sure you bring it to the attention of your superiors as soon as possible.

As the job market tightens, and more and more people are competing for fewer jobs, prospective employees are doing whatever it takes to remain competitive in vying for jobs. For many Americans, this includes trying to gloss over a previous criminal record.

The Wall Street Journal weighs in on this phenomenon, where unprecedented numbers of people are trying to clear their criminal histories. States are facing thousands of requests for expungments of records. For many individuals, a past brush with the law over something innocuous, or a record as the result of plea deals to avoid strict sentencing, have followed them throughout their lives even if they were never incarcerated.

The article tells the tale of Wally Carris, whose application for employment was denied after a past arrest record came up during a search, which he failed to acknowledge on the application. Twenty years prior, Mr. Carris was approached by two men threateningly. He pulled a silver hairbrush out of his pocket, claiming it was a knife to scare the men away. In the following police report, he was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, to which he paid a fine and believed it was the end of it. However, that fateful night resulted in a past that has followed him since, leading to his petition to expunge his record.

The increasing use of background searches in employment matters, coupled with the trove of personal information found on the internet, has made applicants minor infractions come under the microscope of potential employers. This has vastly hindered many of these individuals to find suitable employment, and forced the drive to clear their names in public record.

Employers contend that the background searches are necessary, as workplace theft becomes an increasing problem. Many employment groups argue that the searches are a form of protecting employers from any unforeseen consequences, and to find the best possible fit for a position.

Given the state of the economy, what do you suggest? Should background checks should be ultimate cause for non-hiring? Or should employers take the time to inquire about an individuals past to better understand circumstance?

Sandra Guzman, a former editor for the New York Post, filed a lawsuit recently where she describes a pattern of racism and retaliation at the New York Post, one of the papers owned by media magnate Rupert Murdoch.

Guzman states that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about the printing of a controversial political cartoon, which depicted President Barack Obama as a gunned down chimpanzee. Guzman, who is black and Puerto Rican, claims she was the only female editor of color at the NY Post and was terminated following complaints made about the cartoon, where she believed them to be racist and derogatory.

The cartoon ignited a controversy following its publication, drawing an apology from News Corps Chairman Murdoch. The cartoon depicts a chimpanzee labeled Obama, shot dead on the street. This was in reference to an incident in Connecticut wherein a chimpanzee had gotten lose and badly assaulted and maimed an individual, which occurred within the same week that President Obama extended nearly 787 billion dollars for additional stimulus funds.

Amongst other complaints, Guzman states that in internal documents, she was labeled "Cha-Cha #1", a derogatory insult aimed against her Puerto Rican heritage. The Harman Firm believes that no employee should be terminated for complaining about racial discrimination, and encourages everyone to stand up against this behavior.

Check out this interesting New York Times article on racial and national origin discrimination in South Korea.- South Koreans Struggle With Race

It is rather eye opening to see that discrimination is incredibly prevalent throughout the world, but that is not stopping certain governments by tackling the problem and passing laws outlawing discrimination.

The United States has had a long history of waves of immigrants coming to live and work, and each group has generally faced resistance as they adapt to life here. It is interesting to see now how countries that have long been homogenous or isolated open up to further shifts in populations from around the world, and how they cope with such inclusion.

Signed back in 2008, the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act did not make much news at the time of its introduction into law. However, as genetic sequencing and identifying becomes faster, easier and cheaper for individuals to do, it is important to take a look this bill and understand its future ramifications.

The main purpose of this bill is to prevent the discrimination of individuals based on any genetic information, and on account of any potential consequences of an individuals genetic make up. For instance, if it were to be revealed through a genetic profile that an individual would be susceptible to a particular illness, the Genetic Non-Discrimination Act will protect workers from being discriminated or adversely affected based on this information.

Further, this bill bars employers from requesting genetic information profiles of workers or new employees, or making genetic testing a requirement for any job offer or duties.

The act also bars health insurance companies from creating genetic profiles of insured individuals. Further, it makes it illegal to deny an individual coverage based on any information a genetic profile may reveal- including pre-existing conditions, future likely conditions, or any other information gleaned from a genetic profile.

Thanks to the foresight of Congress in taking a stand against discrimination and exploitation based on the retrieval of genetic information, Americans will not be subjected to bias based on their genetic profile. The rise of genetic testing raises many questions as to what information is stored at the genetic level, and calls for protection until we better understand exactly how this information can and will be used.