New York Employment Attorneys Blog

A former Apple Store employee working in the downtown Manhattan store has filed a Federal Lawsuit against the computer giant, alleging that she was fired after taking a leave of absence. The employee claims that she had a nervous disorder, and required the assistance of a psychiatrist. During the absence, she was assured that her medical condition would not be revealed. However, upon returning to work after four months, the employee claims that everyone was aware of the nature of her break, and began treating her differently.

Upon returning, her position was given to another employee, and she was often told to wait in the basement and sit at a desk without any specific job functions. Occasionally, she was asked to assist other employees. During this period, she applied and requested numerous positions at the Apple store, but was told that she was denied as a result of questions regarding her mental stability.

The employee then was told there was a position available in Chicago, where she relocated to. Upon moving, she was informed that she was not hired for that position. She proceeded to file the lawsuit alleging that Apple has continually denied her employment opportunities as a result of her perceived disability. Employment discrimination can take many subtle forms; we should all work toward eradicating all forms of illegal employment discrimination.

Massey Energy, the Richmond-based company whose mine was the site of a disaster which killed 29 miners, is now under fire from an employee claiming that he was repeatedly abused and discriminated against because he is gay.

The lawsuit, which names individual defendants and a Massey subsidiary Spartan Mining Company, accuses the company of doing nothing to protect the employee from repeated threats and harassment. The complaint alleges that the employee was subjected to threatening notes and letters pinned to his car, and death threats against him because of his sexuality.

The employee, who still works as a coal miner, is concerned for his safety and simply wants to do his job without harassment from other workers. A representative for Massey acknowledged the suit, and stated that all coal miners preform a difficult and vital task, and should be free from discrimination. There was no further comment on the merits of the lawsuit, or on the hostile, anti-gay work environment alleged in the complaint.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, has been sued in Texas by a former employee who claims that she was terminated for violating the company's "policy against procreation". The employee claims that she notified supervisors that she was pregnant, and was promptly terminated.

While Halliburton claims that the termination was part of a wave of company-wide layoffs, the employee was the only one out of her group that was terminated. Further, a posting for her exact position and duties was posted briefly online after her termination.

The employee is represented by Todd Kelley, a Dallas based attorney known for representing other victims of Halliburton's discriminatory policies. Kelley represents a former Halliburton employee that worked overseas as a contractor. The employee claims that she was raped by multiple individuals, and then locked in a shipping container to prevent her from reporting the rape. Halliburton claimed that the employee could not sue, prompting Sen. Al Franken to sponsor a bill declaring that any company with a defense contract cannot bar employees suing for sexual assault and rape.

After a drawn out fight, President Barack Obama has signed into law a repeal of the controversial policy first enacted by President Bill Clinton. The bill, signed after many hours of debate and Republican stall tactics, overturns a longstanding policy of discrimination against gays in the military. Under the policy, any gay service-members were not allowed to disclose their sexuality under penalty of court-martial.

This policy has resulted in a number of discharges of gay servicemen and women, including essential military personnel like translators tasked with engaging communities in the United State's two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The signing of the bill has been met with support from civil rights activist groups. The overturning of the policy helps correct one of the most discriminatory employment policies enacted by the Federal government. Allowing individuals to serve openly allows soldiers to better serve their country honorably, and enjoy the freedoms that they are fighting for.

While Republicans, including John McCain, have consistently voiced opposition to the matter and looked like the repeal was doomed going into a lame duck session of Congress, we applaud President Obama and lawmakers for helping make this campaign promise a reality, and create a more equal America.

Following up on a wave of aggressive lawsuits by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the entity has now set its sights on Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, accusing the company of illegally denying jobs to applicants based on credit scores. The lawsuit claims that the company's policy of requiring pre-employment credit checks has disparately affected black applicants.

The subject of credit scores as a prerequisite to employment has become the latest battlefield between employees and employers. While it is legal in certain circumstances to require credit checks, generally for positions that require the handling of large amounts of money or other peoples money, it is also often illegal to deny employment to individuals if the job functions are largely unrelated, or affects unfairly a whole class of individuals.

In this case, it appears that Kaplan's credit check policy has had a disparate impact on potential employees who are black. The policy in many cases acts as a Catch 22 to potential employees in that they cannot get jobs as a result of poor credit, but cannot fix their credit without jobs.

We're greatly encouraged that the EEOC has turned its attention to overly broad and discriminatory credit check policies. With more attention, employers will understand that they cannot hide behind loophole to continue such discriminatory practices, and will be held accountable for their actions.

Previously, we've reported on the Long Island Railroad Engineer caught up in a war of words between her previous employer and coworkers. The employee, Melissa Stampf, was placed on a 20-day probationary period after being accused of grabbing a fellow co-workers breast, and was ultimately terminated from her position. The employee contended that the accusations were fabricated, and that the punishment was completely out of line with how other co-workers allegedly involved with the incident or other sexual harassment.

Now, after the Jury deliberated for only three hours, the employee was awarded nearly half a million dollar in damages. Almost $150,000 of those damages come in the form of punitive damages on the part of the employee who allegedly fabricated the entire story about the breast grabbing.

In what has been a crazy back and forth of he said-she said, it is good to see a jury come out on the side of the wrongly accused employee.

A sweeping new law has been passed in New York by Governor Patterson, signing into law some of the strongest protections against wage theft. The law is designed to protect workers against employers unlawfully stealing or withholding wages from employees, and would create treble damages amounting to four times the money withheld, while also adding safe guards for whistleblowers reporting these violations.

This law removes barriers from workers coming forward to complain about unlawful deductions, unpaid overtime and failure to pay minimum wage. These lower barriers are encouraging, and hopefully will get workers in vulnerable industries like construction, food service and hospitality to come forward to report their employers for such violations. Previously, workers feared termination if they complained about these violations and the civil remedies were inadequate for recouping wages.

More importantly, this law applies to all workers in New York, regardless of immigration status. This means that all New Yorkers, legally employed or otherwise are covered under this new law, strengthening the rights of all workers against wage violations.

For more on the new law, head on over here.

Just in time for the holiday season comes a lawsuit filed in New York Supreme Court. A Roman Catholic employee has come forward alleging that as a sales executive for a Midtown watch company was barred from wearing a cross in the work place.

The employee, Jamie Errico, claims that she was scolded for wearing the cross in the office place and was told "adamantly" that she should never wear the cross again. The lawsuit further states that the other Jewish employees were allowed to wear yarmulkes and Star's of David, and were allowed to routinely meet for prayers.

Further, the suit claims that non-Jewish employees were docked for taking off time on Christmas eve, while Jewish employees were routinely given time off whenever needed on the eve of holidays.

This holiday season, we want to remind employees and employers that religious discrimination is not only just wrong, it is illegal. Employers should take careful steps to maintain order and respect in the workplace, creating an environment where all employees are treated fairly and within the law.

College internships have been a right of passage for students, allowing students to gain valuable job experience in a working environment, usually in exchange for college credits. Internships are generally meant to benefit the students participating in them. The recession has tightened the job market, leading many employers to try and make due with less resources, most notable by cutting staff and reallocating job duties to maintain productivity.

This has included replacing the job duties of paid employees with interns. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, this behavior is illegal. The US Government has put out guidelines for internships, which must satisfy the following six conditions in order to be considered an actual internship:

1. The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;

2. The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;

3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;

4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;

5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and

6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.

We understand that the job market is difficult to crack, and that college students should be actively engaged in finding employment opportunities, internships that do not meet all of these guidelines take advantage of this group.

While college students are often hesitant to come forward about employers that violate internship policies for fear that they will alienate future employers, companies that violate intern policies should be held accountable under the law.

If you believe you may have been in an internship that violates these requirements, you may be entitled to damages under the FLSA. Call us today to evaluate your rights. Also, be sure to read the Department Of Labor's Intern Fact Sheet.

Russel Abrams, a hedge fund manager currently being sued for reportedly misleading investors at Titan Capitol Group, had had a history of sexual harassment. Abrams, whose hedge fund has lost much of its value and has had a long history of trouble with the fund, was previously involved in a high-profile sex discrimination suit.

The suit, filed by two former employees, alleged that Abrams demanded that the two women print out naked pictures of his wife. Abrams wife countered that the women had received the pictures illegally, and were using them to blackmail Abrams into a payoff. The plaintiffs in the case alleged that he forced them to transfer and print the images, and that Abrams had lorded over the office and the two assistants, bossing them around and making derogatory comments about them.

Abrams and his wife later counter-sued the two plaintiffs, alleging that the pictures were being used as blackmail.

We have seen financial sector produce a number of sexual harassment suits lately, with this case joining the "too-hot for Chase" bank teller, and other lawsuits alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in the banking and finance world. Is it the combination of money and traditional masculine roles that produces these results? In any even, no person should be subject to sexual harassment and we encourage all those affected to come forward and report such behavior.

Long Island Rail Road engineer Melissa Stampf has sued the Long Island Rail Road for wrongful termination and discrimination after being accused of sexual harassment. The employee claims that she was treated differently than male employees because she is a gay female, and that she is an Asian American.

She claims that she was terminated after putting her hand on a fellow colleagues shoulder and asking what was going on. However, this claim is refuted by the other employee and fellow coworkers, which say that Stampf grabbed the female employee's breast.

While Stampf denies the sexual harassment charge, she says that she has been punished much harsher than her straight male colleagues who had been suspended for five days after being accused of similarly sexually harassing the same employee in question. Stampf had been fired following an investigation, while the other male employees remain employed with the LIRR.

We will keep up with this case as it progresses.

New York City restaurant chain Saigon Grill, who has previously been sued for violations of wage and hour law by delivery personnel, is now under fire again. Now, employees are alleging that the restaurant has engaged in a pattern of age discrimination.

The restaurants, which have come under new ownership after the previous owners paid out over $4.6 million dollars to settle a previous lawsuit alleging labor violations, is now accused of refusing to hire employees who were over 40 years old. The individuals, referred by a Chinese advocacy group, reported that while the new owners of the Saigon Grill on the Upper West Side of Manhattan hired a number of individuals referred, but refused to hire prospective workers who were older.

Individuals currently picketing outside of the restaurant say that when they confronted the manager and owner about illegally refusing to hire older workers, they were terminated as well. Further, employees who took steps to form unions and complain about proper wages and legal hours were demoted and had their hours cut.

It is apparent that while the management may have changed hands following the previous lawsuit, that the new owners have failed to take any of the lessons from court to heart and are instead continuing an illegal pattern of employment law violations.

Following up on the US Supreme Court's hearing of the case, WalMart v. Dukes on whether to certify the largest class action group in US history, we wanted to provide some more information on what is a class action suit.

Check out the video below, and also our website to see if you may have claims to initiate a class action lawsuit under Federal or New York State law.

Continue reading "Employment Class Action Lawsuits" »

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a case brought against Wal Mart by thousands of current and former female employees. The Supreme Court will decide if the case will proceed as one massive class action suit. If the case proceeds as a class action, the case will be the largest class action suit in United States history.

The case is brought by female employees claiming a pattern of discrimination based on their gender. The suit, originally filed in California in 2001, alleges that female Wal Mart employees have been routinely denied advancement and promotion, as well as not being paid as much as their male counterparts. What started with six plaintiffs has turned into a case with over 1.5 million class members, and which action spans nearly nine years.

We will keep you posted on what the Court eventually decides, and how this may impact future gender discrimination and employment class action suits.

Americans are living longer, and as a result more people are working later in life. Many older Americans are finding that they cannot retire as soon as believed, leading many workers to work well into their 60s and often into their 70's.

The New York Times looks at this phenomenon, exploring home aid workers taking care of the elderly. However, many of these workers are elderly themselves, with a report stating that 28% of home care workers are themselves above 55. The aging elder care workers are tasked with taking care of those even older than them, and are often dealing with the similar difficulties with aging. You can find the entire article here.

As aging employees become a greater percentage of the workforce, it is important to remember that age discrimination is illegal. Under the Age Discrimination Employment Act, it is illegal to not hire or terminate an employee because of their age, as along as they can preform the job functions required. If you feel you have been discriminated because of your age, read more about the ADEA here.