New York Employment Attorneys Blog

In a story that is bound to gain national attention, an Administrative Law Judge for the Taxi and Limousine Commission has come forward with claims that an attorney with cerebral palsy had assaulted her in his office.

The attorney, who has severe cerebral palsy, and cannot carry out even the most basic functions without assistance from others, had the Judge in his office. The Judge claims that he intentionally grabbed her, while the attorney counters that it was an involuntary and uncontrollable reaction as a result of his disability.

Read more at the Daily News' site- Lawyer: I didn't mean to touch judge's butt, my cerebral palsy made me do it

What do you think of this story?

A teacher in a Greenwich, Connecticut school district is suing, claiming that she was not hired for a position as a result of her age. The teacher, aged 57 when she applied for the job as an instructor in the school's Family and Consumer Sciences Department, was passed up because she was older. The school district hired a 24-year old assistant cheerleader coach instead, who was not certified to teach in the school system at the time of her hiring. The individual bringing the suit was fully certified, and had 14 years of teaching experience.

Following an EEOC hearing and finding. the teacher was finally hired by the school district. However, she is now bringing a Federal Age Discrimination charge against the district, claiming lost wages for the two years between the failure to hire and eventual placement within the Greenwich school district.

Given the budget shortfalls in district's throughout America, it is both disappointing that school continue to fail to adhere to Federal laws and guidelines for hiring have resulted in lawsuits such as this.

The New York Times Diner's Journal has revealed that Leona's, a restaurant in Midtown Manhattan named after the deceased socialite and real estate magnate, has been adding an automatic 19 percent gratuity to all purchases made.

This policy seems to be in violation of New York City's Consumer Protection Rules, which state that restaurants cannot charge an automatic gratuity, unless the service goes above and beyond what is stated in the menu, or is applied to parties of eight or more.

While not necessarily an employment law situation, it does raise many questions about how automatic "gratuities" are handled, and distributed to those who should be receiving them- like waitresses, porters, and back of house staff.

It has been revealed that World Wrestling Entertainment, the Connecticut based wrestling organization, that their General Counsel & Vice President over claims of sexual harassment resulting from a Wrestlemania Party.

An employee had claimed that the individual had propositioned her for sex during the party, at which employees were said to be drinking.

Strangely, the employee who accused the individual of such sexual harassment herself was terminated while having sexual relations with a subordinate in the office, during work hours.

If these accusations are true, it is sad to see an attorney blatantly disregard the laws regarding sexual harassment in the workplace.

Gothamist is reporting on a case currently unfolding in New York Courts, where a former employee of a mammography center claims she was fired for complaining about unsanitary conditions in which she had to pump breast milk, and that she was repeatedly scolded for making such requests.

The employee alleges that following her pregnancy, she was repeatedly told that she could not pump breast milk in her office, in violation of laws ensuring new mothers can take care of their needs. The suit alleges that she was fired for her pumping and for making complaints against individuals who told her not too. Most shocking of all the allegations is that she was employed by a mammography center, primarily concerned with the breast health of women.

The Fair Housing Act was designed to keep the process of buying and renting houses and apartments free of discrimination. Discrimination had once been rampant throughout the country, with landlords and owners refusing to provide housing to countless groups of people, including minorities and individual with families. While the Fair Housing Act has worked to end this discrimination, discrimination persists.

However, in an attempt to ensure that there really is housing for all, including the elderly, the HUD has allowed for some housing units to be established as "Senior Only" if they meet the following criteria:

* HUD has determined that the dwelling is specifically designed for and occupied by elderly persons under a Federal, State or local government program or
* It is occupied solely by persons who are 62 or older or
* It houses at least one person who is 55 or older in at least 80 percent of the occupied units, and adheres to a policy that demonstrates intent to house persons who are 55 or older.

As the population increasingly grays, designation as such seems to make sense. However, some individuals are finding themselves excluded from certain communities designed for the elderly and are being turned away.

What is your take on situation as such? Is HUD certified housing a necessity to aid the aging populous? Or another form of housing discrimination?