New York Employment Attorneys Blog

Michigan State University has released a new study which indicates that sexual harassment might have become so commonplace that women have built up an immunity to it. The study, published in the Journal for Psychological and Personality Science, surveyed more than 6,000 women in all five branches of the US Military.

The study was intended to explore how men and women view harassment and whether they viewed it as burdensome, frightening and how it impacted their psychological well-being. Surprisingly, the study revealed that that men are much more likely to report sexual harassment, reporting it either when it was bothersome or frightening, but women were less likely to report the harassment, reporting it only when it was frightening. Researchers caution, however, that these results do not suggest in any way that sexual harassment is less distressing for women than men.

The Harman Firm, PC is dedicated to eradicating sexual harassment in the workplace.

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court held that not only are written complaints protected under the FLSA retaliation provision, but also oral complaints. The decision, split 6-2 in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., prohibits employers from discharging employees because the employee filed a complaint, written or otherwise.

The decision highlights the controversy surrounding the word "filed." The Supreme Court decided that, when the FLSA was enacted, it was intended to include any complaints filed in any manner, due in large part to the high illiteracy rates of those most affected by FLSA violations.

Researches at the University of Tennessee have released a provocative new study, published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, which suggests that men who blame females for being targets of sexual harassment are likely to be sexual harassers themselves. Their study was focused not so much on why sexual harassment happens but why people are willing to excuse it.

The researchers conclusions were drawn from a study which sampled 119 college men, from ages 18 to 23, which asked them to react to a hypothetical situation. While some of the males sampled related to the victims, others related to the harassers. Those who related to the harassers were more likely to blame the victims for the sexual harassment.

When sexual harassment occurs in the workplace it is mostly the victims themselves who come forward to report the situation in which they feel harassed. But what happens when it is someone else? What rights do they have?

In fact, a lot. Federal laws, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not only protect a victim from retaliation from his or her employer, but also the person reporting the abuse. In a recently filed case, the EEOC charged Gold International, Inc. with retaliation against a male employee who had reported sexual harassment of several of his female coworkers. The day after filing an internal grievance, Jeffrey White, the former employee of Gold International, Inc., was terminated. Although Gold International, Inc. offered to rehire Mr. White, the rehiring was conditioned on Mr. White withdrawing his EEOC claim for retaliation. Gold International, Inc. later rehired Mr. White, only to terminate him weeks later. Upon being questioned as to why it was important to pursue cases like these, local EEOC representatives expressed his feelings that "the threat of retaliation can prevent employees from raising legitimate concerns with their employer out of fear for their jobs."

Do you feel there is sexual harassment around you in the workplace? Does it make you or others feel uncomfortable? Speak with an attorney today.

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prisoners may bring a cause of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics against employees of a private company that contracts with the federal government, where the employees do not have a direct employment relationship with the government. Despite encompassing prisoner rights as well, this case does bring forward important issues that surround almost all of employment law: by whom exactly are you employed and against whom can you bring a cause of action?

Follow this case as it is heard by the Supreme Court.

In a class action lawsuit, representatives of the class of plaintiffs are required to have similar or equal interests and no conflicting interests within the class. In other words, the class representative must actually represent the class in his or her interests against defendants.

In a recent decision, in Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp., the appellate court determined that the named plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives because they had weaker promotion claims than others in the class and there was a conflict of interest arising out of some workers' supervisory roles. In its decision, the court noted that under rule 23(b)2, plaintiffs are prohibited from asserting claims in a class action lawsuit that would make necessary individual calculations and hearings.

Do you feel you are involved in an employment situation that is discriminatory and doesn't just affect you but also your coworkers? Call and speak with an attorney today.

One of the United State's largest department stores, Dillards, has recently come under fire with charges of race discrimination. One employee, Shontel Mayfield, was terminated under the pretext of "excessive absenteeism" during a mandatory evacuation for Hurricane Ike, which pretex Ms. Mayfield says was race discrimination.

In light of the copious amounts of damaging evidence against Dillard's, the EEOC is seeking "permanent injunction prohibiting Dillard's from engaging in further retaliation against any employee." Ms. Mayfield is also seeking compensatory and punitive damages as a result of her wrongful termination.

The vast majority of sexual harassment cases which are brought before judges involve males sexually harassing females. However, this is certainly not the only form of sexual harassment.

In a recent case taken on by the EEOC, male employees of Prestige Home Centers, Inc. complained of inappropriate touching and groping, requests for sexual favors, and sexually explicit and embarrassing comments. In a settlement which has just been reached, Prestige has agreed to injunctive relief enjoining the company from permitting further sexual harassment, adopt new sexual harassment policies, implement a sexual harassment committee and anti-discrimination training, and report all sexual discrimination claims directly to the EEOC. Although this sexual harassment endured by the male employees of Prestige was not what is generally considered traditional sexual harassment, it was clearly a violation of the male employee's rights.

Are you the victim of non-traditional sexual harassment or any other type of sexual harassment? The Harman Firm is committed to eliminating sexual harassment in the workplace.

Willimenette Tree Wholesale, Inc. has agreed to pay $150,000 to four Latino immigrants who brought suit through the EEOC with charges of sexual harassment and retaliation. The situation stemmed from two female employees of Willimentee Tree Wholesale, Inc. being sexual assaulted or harassed, then complaining or having others complain on their behalf to the management. In turn, the complaints led to four terminations, for both women who were the victims of sexual assault or harassment as well as their family members who had grieved to management on their behalf.

Advocate groups as well as the Oregon Law Center view this case as a victory, not only for these four Latinos who were wrongfully terminated, but for the Latino community in general. Mavel Morales, the lawyer from Oregon Law Center who represented the four, expressed that "we hope that their voices will encourage other farmworkers to stand up for their right to work free of sexual harassment and fears of retaliation."

Do you feel you have been a victim of sexual harassment or retaliation? Do you feel forced to be silent because of your immigration status or you fear you may lose your job? Contact an attorney today and find out your rights.

In a recent decision issued by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. North American Stainless LP, No. 09-291, the Supreme Court found that the definition of a person "aggrieved," as used in Title VII, should incorporate the 'zone of interest' test, expanding Title VII protection to those employees with an interest "arguably sought to be protected by the statute."

The Plaintiff, Thompson, was discharged from his job three weeks after his fiancé brought charges of discrimination against North American Stainless LP, the same company Thompson worked for. This landmark decision will enable Thompson, and others in similar situations, to pursue a retaliation cause of action against their employers even if they are a third-party but are related to the grieving party in a significant way. The Court expressed their opinion by saying: "we expect that firing a close family member will almost always meet the standard, and inflicting a milder reprisal on a mere acquaintance will almost never do so, but beyond that we are reluctant to generalize."

If you feel this situation is similar to your own employment situation, contact an attorney today.