New York Employment Attorneys Blog

The American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") brought suit against the Chesterfield School District on behalf of one of its students for unconstitutionally promoting religion. Specifically, the District held a prayer rally at a school assembly and prayers at official events.

The ACLU acted on behalf of a middle-school atheist student who did not agree with the Christian activities, such as the evangelical assembly, at school. Moreover, this student was pressured into attending religious events - for instance he was given the choice of attending a religious concert or being sent to the suspension-room. Such treatment hinders students' freedom of religion and may even be considered religious discrimination.

The ACLU and the Chesterfield School District finally agreed to settle the suit. In the consent decree and order, the Chesterfield County schools admitted they had violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which mandates separation of church and state. The official outcome of the case prohibits school officials from promoting religion and encouraging prayers at events and was made final on Thursday, January 26, 2012, by a federal judge.

Follow the story as it develops here.

Casimir Manyoni Mung'aho, a newly ordained Roman Catholic Priest, was removed from his parish by church officials for secretly fathering a child while in seminary.

Father Mung'aho had been serving as a parochial vicar in the parish of St. Stephen in Warwick, New York. He had come from Tanzania to the United States six years ago to become a priest. He said he wanted to be a role model for people. Indeed, he was liked by his parishioners and the children to which he taught religion.

However, the priest was also later revealed to be a parent. He had fathered a child while he was attending seminary. Although he was still a seminarian when his child was born, and as such had not yet made promises to be celibate, Father Mung'aho was still expected by the church to be celibate.

The archdiocese has not made any final decision on this case yet. Indeed, the removal of Father Mung'aho will allow church officials to address the matter at hand. In the meantime, however, Father Mung'aho has been asked to live independently and reflect on his actions.

Follow the story as it develops here.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq., and its subsection, the Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq., prohibit individuals from accessing, without authorization, stored electronic communications, and provide criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized access to electronic communications and data.

"The purpose of the SCA was, in part to protect privacy interests in personal and proprietary information and to address the growing problem of unauthorized persons deliberately gaining access to, and sometimes tampering with, electronic or wire communications that are not intended to be available to the public." Penrose Computer Marketgroup, Inc. v. Camin.

A person violates the SCA if she accesses an electronic communication service, or obtains an electronic communication while it is still in electronic storage, without authorization. Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp. Thus, employers that own their employees' cell phones, pay the bills and are parties to the cellular service contracts may still violate the SCA where they access employees' personal text messages via the wireless provider, without authorization from the employee.

Wireless providers also risk violating the SCA where they disclose employees' text message content to employers. See Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co. (wireless provider violated SCA by disclosing to employer transcripts of employee's text messages sent to and from employer-issued device).

For violations of the SCA, employees may obtain an award of actual damages and, even without proof of actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and punitive damages where the violation was intentional. See Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp. (employees were entitled to statutory damages of $1,000 per SCA violation whether or not they suffered actual damages); Pietrylo v. Hillstone Rest. Group. (district court upheld jury's award of back pay and punitive damages based on the jury's finding that defendants' SCA violations were malicious).

Teresa R. Wagner, a former student at the University of Iowa College of Law and a former teacher at the George Mason University School of Law, was refused employment at the University of Iowa College of Law. Ms. Wagner is a conservative Republican activist and believes her political beliefs are the cause for this refusal. Consequently, she has sued the University of Iowa for discrimination based on political motivation.

In December 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit decided that Ms. Wagner's case should go to trial, as there was sufficient evidence suggesting that the University's refusal to employ Ms. Wagner was based on Ms. Wagner's political beliefs. This preliminary victory for the application of First Amendment rights related to political beliefs and association to academic hiring might enable professors who have been discriminated against because of their political beliefs to take action and affirm their rights.

Follow the story as it develops here.

For pharmacists, a rash of new robberies and various killings around the country has made the profession more unsafe than it had been viewed in the past. Some areas have experienced more violence than others, including Long Island where 6 people have been killed recently in pharmacy robberies. As the potential danger for pharmacists grows, many pharmacies have reacted either by not carrying drugs frequently requested by the demographic of people they suspect will attempt to rob their pharmacy, adding additional surveillance or even purchasing guns for protection.

But all of this begs the question: how safe is safe enough for employees under the law? Although that question has not been answered in the context of pharmacists and the recent increase in robbery violence, many employers are taking seemingly necessary precautions in order to protect themselves and their employees. Follow the story as it develops here.

Do you feel your workplace is unsafe? Have you complained to your employer about the unsafe conditions but the situation has not changed? Contact an attorney today.

Dog lover Lynn Jones was fired from her job for trying to save the life of an abused dog. As an employee of Airport Terminal Services in Reno, Nevada, Ms. Jones refused to board the dog into the cargo hold of an airplane, which flight would have almost certainly caused the death of the sick and abused dog. After a prolonged emotional discussion with her boss, Ms. Jones finally succeeded in the argument - airport police called animal welfare and the dog was taken into their custody.

However, the situation caused Ms. Jones her job.

After this story first went public, Ms. Jones was offered her job back. But this saga still begs the question - when is it OK to stand up for the lives of animals? Or even something that you perceive is illegal?

Follow the story as it develops here.

Has your employed instructed you to perform a task that would have resulted in bodily harm or even possibly death to yourself or others? Were you terminated as a result? Contact The Harman Firm to speak with an attorney today.