New York Employment Attorneys Blog

What happens when employees can't negotiate their own employment contracts? You could potentially lose a whole N.B.A. season. For months now, owners and players have been negotiating a new labor deal to satisfy various concerns raised by members of the National Basketball Association.

On October 27, 2011, negotiations seem to be looking more promising. The N.B.A. is hopeful that they will be able to have a full 82-game season schedule, despite starting the season a month late. In the event negotiations are not completed soon, the game schedule could be reduced as was done back in the 1998-1999 season, which season only contained a 50-game schedule.

The current pre-season has been completely cancelled and if the negotiations end soon, the regular season would begin December 1, 2011 and continue until sometime in April, 2012 to secure the full 82-game schedule.

Employment contracts protect the players' interests as well as the interest of the owners, and negotiations aim to satisfy all parties involved while allowing for players to move freely between teams and to allow teams to be able to hire top players in order to compete favorably in the market.

After hours of negotiations and many hours ahead, the future of a favorite American sport will depend on employment law issues.

The attorneys engaged in a drawn-out litigation with Walmart lost a big suit four months ago. The U.S. Supreme Court put an end to the 10 year old nation-wide class action suit against the giant retailer alleging gender discrimination. The lawsuit was commenced by 1.6 million past and present employees.

The suit alleged that Plaintiffs could prove Walmart routinely discriminated against women and that the company's corporate culture was rampant with stereotypes. However, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Court's Opinion, ruled that the women failed to assert a prima facie argument of discrimination by Walmart.

Plaintiffs pursued the litigation further since the Supreme Court did not decide whether Walmart had actually discriminated or closed the door on smaller class actions. This allowed Plaintiffs' attorneys the ability just amend the Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in hopes of getting recovery for their clients. This revised Complaint limited the potential class to current and former employees who work in the company's California stores. Thus, now the suit is brought on behalf of only 95,000 Walmart employees.

The attorneys state that they will introduce new evidence of sex-stereotype comments made by the company's chief executive. The evidence purports to show that Walmart, with more than 200 stores in California, paid women less than men and promoted them less often, even when they were more experienced and qualified. Further, in a January 2004 message to all district managers from around the nation, then CEO Thomas Coughlin stated that the key to success in choosing leaders was "single focus to get the job done", he further stated that "women tend to be better at information processing, men are better at focus," which, for Plaintiffs constitute proof of gender discrimination.

This lawsuit seeks back pay for women who worked at Walmart's locations in California between December 1998 through June 2004. In response, Walmart attorney, Theodore Boutrous, said the Plaintiffs' lawyers "rely on the same incorrect and discredited theories that the U.S. Supreme Court repudiated."

While it is typically unusual for employees to be prosecuted by the federal government for safety violations, it does happen. Hughie Elbert Stover, age 60, knows this all too well. The trial of a former chief of security for a West Virginia coal mine, whose explosion last year left 29 workers dead, began yesterday, the charges ranging from lying to federal investigators to destroying evidence.

The charges stem from the information provided to the federal government by former employees. One employee testified that Mr. Stover directed him to destroy thousands of documents related to mine safety and security in the middle of the federal investigation. Other employees have testified that Mr. Stover trained security guards to warn mine personnel of safety inspectors, putting them on notice of an impending inspection. Supporting documentation even suggests that the mine used multiple sets of books to conceal safety violations from inspectors.

Follow the trial as it progresses.

Does your employer ask you to violate what you know, or believe to be, a safety regulation? Do you believe your employer is asking you to participate in unethical or even illegal activities in regard to safety standards? Call The Harman Firm today to explore your rights.

Since 1973, Private Transportation Corporation has been running the B110 bus between Williamsburg and Borough Hall in Brooklyn under a franchise with the City. The fare for this bus is $2.50 but this is probably the only similarity between a MTA bus and the B110.

The MetroCard is not accepted, the exterior colors of the buses are different from MTA buses; but the most stunning difference is the bus guidelines posted inside. In the B110, men sit in the front, women in the back. The guidelines state "when boarding a crowded bus with standing passengers in the front, women should board the back door after paying the driver in the front" and further "when the bus is crowded, passengers should stand in their designated areas."

Most of the B110 commuters are Hasidic Jews who explain that their religion dictates the separation of the sexes. A 30 year-old mother who boarded the bus last Wednesday told the New York Times that she never wondered what it would be like to sit with men.

While these rules have been applied for a very long time with little to no surprise or indignation, last week, The New York World, a Columbia Journalism School publication reported that a female rider was told by other riders that she had to leave the front. The story quickly made its way on the Internet and even came to the attention of Mayor Bloomberg.

At a news conference last Wednesday, the Mayor said that segregating men and women was "obviously not permitted" on public buses. This route was awarded to Private Transportation Corporation through a public competitive bidding process which is why Anne Koenig, head of the Transportation Department's franchise division, just sent a letter to the bus company's president asking him to provide any complaints filed about its practices and to show what the company was doing to prevent discriminatory practices. The City gave the company one week to respond and threatened to terminate their agreement over these discriminatory rules.

The Department of Transportation commented to the New York Times that while privately operated, the B110 bus is for public use and cannot discriminate against its riders.

20 years ago, sexual harassment in the workplace was brushed under the table by many, often even by the victims themselves who felt they had no recourse through their jobs or even Courts to stop the harassment.

Today things are much different, thanks to the actions in large part of Anita Hill. Twenty years ago, Ms. Hill testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which at that time was comprised of only men, speaking out against Supreme Court-nominee Clarence Thomas. Ms. Hill testified about the decade-long sexual harassment and abuse she had endured while working under Mr. Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which Commission ironically enough is the very government body which seeks to vindicates rights of employees who have been mistreated in their jobs in a variety of manners. In that year alone, the E.E.O.C. saw a 50 percent increase in the number of charges filed by employees claiming sexual harassment or abuse.

Although social awareness of sexual harassment has come a long way, it still has a long way to go. While many employers now offer classes regarding how to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace or other types of discrimination, it often does not prevent sexual harassment from occurring entirely.

The Harman Firm is dedicated to advocating for the rights of victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Do you feel you are the victim of sexual harassment? Call today to speak with an attorney about your rights.

Most of the people have been unpaid interns at some point in their careers. While an unpaid internship can be very instructive and allow the intern to get first-hand experience in their field, some companies are tempted to abuse the system to get free employees.

In the film industry, this seems to be a wide-spread habit and two men who worked on the hit movie "Black Swan" just filed a lawsuit last month asserting that the production company had violated minimum wage and overtime laws by hiring dozens of unpaid interns.

This lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against Defendant Fox Searchlight Pictures, the producer of "Black Swan". The lead Plaintiff, Alex Footman, a 2009 Wesleyan graduate who majored in film studies, worked for 5 months on the Black Swan set. He alleges his responsibilities included preparing coffee, ensuring that the coffee pot was full, taking and distributing lunch orders, taking out the trash, and cleaning the office.

The Complaint alleges that these unpaid interns are functioning as production assistants and bookkeepers, performing almost exclusively secretarial and janitorial work. The Complaint further asserts that "in misclassifying many of its workers as unpaid interns, Fox has denied them the benefits that the law affords to all employees."

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, back pay under Federal and State wage laws, and an injunction barring Fox Searchlight from improperly using unpaid interns.

The U.S. Department of Labor has certain criteria for who can be an unpaid intern. The unpaid position must benefit the intern, the intern must not displace regular employees, the training received must be similar to what would be given in an educational institution, and the employer should derive no immediate advantage from the intern's activities.

According to lawyers who often work for the film industry, the Department of Labor's criteria are obsolete. However, no one at Fox Searchlight was available to comment on the story to the New York Times at the time it was published.

The recent dismissal of a "popular but controversial history teacher" has stirred up a debate between parents, students, and the administration of a progressive Bronx private school. How far is a teacher allowed to go in the classroom in terms of comments to students? And who gets to decide what "how far" really is?

Barry Sirmon, a 58-year old veteran of the school and a political refuge from South Africa, made what some have called controversial and racially provocative comments to a few students. Those comments not only led to Mr. Sirmon's termination from Fieldston School, but also sparked the current controversy. Already, almost 350 of the 592 students in the school have signed a petition calling for Mr. Simon's reinstatement.

According to various employees within the school, an investigation was never even conducted regarding the comments before Mr. Sirmon was questioned by the school administration and then terminated. Additionally, although having been asked to immediately resign, Mr. Sirmon refused, asserting that he felt he had done nothing wrong.

Follow the story as it develops here.

Do you feel you have been terminated unfairly? Contact The Harman Firm today.

On September 19, more than 160 New York-based loan officers won a $9 million judgment against TopDotMortgage, Premium Capital's now defunct home mortgage arm and its executives in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

According to the Complaint filed in this matter, the loan officers worked on a commission-only basis. They were not paid any minimum salary or wage and were not paid overtime when they worked more than 40 hours a week. The company's response was that the workers were exempt from FLSA classification. Although the docket showed that the parties had been negotiating until June 2010, they were not able to reach a settlement agreement before trial.

This judgment puts an ending to nearly three years of litigation during which the Defendant faced many legal allegations. The Defendant's license was revoked by the Federal Housing Administration and on September 12, U.S. Judge Leonard Wexler doubled the damages awarded to Plaintiffs after a jury verdict found TopDot Mortgage's violations were willful.

Each Plaintiff is now entitled to $54,000 for two years of unpaid wages. But with such a big verdict - one of the highest awarded damages in a Fair Labor Standards Act case - the big question is: will Premium Capital be able to pay? Considering its license has been revoked and its website has just disappeared, Plaintiff's Counsel, Ryan F. Stephan of Stephan Zouras LLP, fears an imminent bankruptcy petition, though Premium Capital has not yet filed anything.

Ten years ago, this question did not phase people. But as social media becomes more popular, so do questions regarding what you can and can't post on Facebook, and how those comments posted will affect your employment.

Recently, Viki Knox, a public school teacher at Union High School in Union Township, New Jersey posted on her public Facebook page "homosexuality is a perverted spirit that has existed from the beginning of creation." That comment has sparked a debate about what teachers should be allowed to say on public, or even private, Facebook pages. Although no official decision has been made yet regarding Ms. Knox's future employment with the Department of Education, concerns over Ms. Knox' overall conduct within school grounds or even her ability to enforce new anti-bullying laws have been questioned by many.

Should Ms. Knox be allowed to keep her job? Furthermore, should we regulate what teachers say online, and by how much? Follow the story as it develops here.

After the New York Times published an article last week regarding a student with a severe stutter being silenced in his college classroom, the professor at the center of the debate is finally speaking out to tell her side of the story. While Philip Garber, Jr., the student with the sever stutter, contends that Elizabeth Snyder, the professor at County College of Morris, discriminated against him by intentionally refusing to call on him in class and even asking him to not "disrupt" the class with his comments, Ms. Snyder contends that she did not treat him any differently than any other student and that her actions were not the result of any discriminatory animus.

So, was it discrimination or something else?

Copious amounts of hate mail and vicious emails to Ms. Snyder suggest that many people believe it was discrimination. Perhaps as many, however, wrote in to the New York Times suggesting that the article was incredibly biased, that it should have represented the views of Ms. Snyder or the College as well as Phillip's views, and that it was unfairly prejudicial. If nothing else, it has certainly sparked a debate among many regarding discrimination in the classroom or in a college setting.

Do you feel you have been discriminated against, either in your employment or in a college setting? Contact The Harman Firm today.

According to a recent NY Times article, the recession has helped shrink the wage gap between men and women. In early 2010, consistent with historical trends, women's median weekly earnings were 79 cents to every dollar their male counterpart earned. However, by the second quarter of 2011, that number jumped to 83 cents to every dollar their male counterparts earned. This shift wasn't due to women earning more, however, but men earning less.

Male-dominated jobs, such as construction, took the hardest hit during the recession with earnings dropping 5 percent, while jobs typically dominated by women, such as health care, actually saw an increase in earnings. Higher paid jobs also favored women during the recession, with earnings in management, finance, and business industries staying the same for women but dropping 3 percent for men. According to the article, the current budget cuts will heavily affect women who are largely represented in local government jobs such as teaching, but the gap is narrowing, which is a step in the right direction.

Do you feel you are being treated differently in the workplace, or even paid a different salary, solely because of your gender? The Harman Firm is dedicated to advocating equality in the workplace.

Today, Wednesday October 5, 2011, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 10-553. The case concerns the scope of protection for parochial school teachers from discrimination in their religious-based workplace.

The Supreme Court has never explicitly held whether there is a "ministerial exception" implicit in the religious clause of the First Amendment, thereby protecting religious institutions' rights to hire and fire clergy without being constrained by employment discrimination laws. The twelve courts of appeals that have heard similar cases have held that this exception does exist and, at a minimum, applies to pastors, rabbis, and priests. The outcome of this case will determine whether parochial school teachers are considered "ministers," therefore shielding the religious organizations from the confines of employment discrimination laws or whether they should be considered like any other employee under these laws.

So, should Churches fall outside of the parameters of employment laws and not have to answer for potential infractions against employees? Follow the outcome of the case.