New York Employment Attorneys Blog

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?

In a report released on March 3, the AARP claims that the last decade was one of the worst for older employees. Most staggering amongst the findings in the report is that older employees unemployment rates jumped over 331% over the last ten years.

Whereas the decade started on a bad note for older employees, with layoffs coming to make way for younger employees, the recession beginning in 2007 and 2008 has only compounded the problems faced by these workers, making the lives of workers 55 and over extremely difficult in these times.

Uncertain economic conditions, eroding pensions and savings, coupled with individuals living longer and healthier lives than previously has all contributed to a glut in unemployed workers 55 and over. This group includes individuals who are looking to return to a career after a break or retirement.

Coupled with unemployment, respondents in the report claimed that they believe their age was a hindering factor in their inability to find adequate employment. These statements reflect the trend that older workers are continually being discriminated against on the basis of their age, and steps need to be taken to protect the rights of elderly workers.

Late last year, the Supreme Court ruled on the matter of Gross v. FBL, greatly raising the bar for proving that an individual had been the victim of age discrimination. The court deemed that the plaintiff must prove that the adverse employment effect was directly related to ones age, and not other factors, greatly narrowing the ways in which individuals can bring age discrimination suits.

This case has been widely discussed in the legal and employment worlds as they adapt to these changes in law. This, along with the Ledbetter v. Goodyear decision, which had limited plaintiffs claims for discrimination in pay based on sex, marked a Supreme Court that appeared hostile to the rights of working individuals.

Following the Ledbetter decision, Congress acted to help re-enforce the rights of individuals who had been systematically paid less that workers of different gender. And it appears that in light of this recent decision, members of Congress are working on a law that would help strengthen the rights of workers who believe they have been discriminated against based on their age.

This week, Sen. Patrick Lahey and others plan on introducing a new bill that would help work against the decision laid out in Gross v. FBL Financial. This would help to reestablish the rights of older workers who feel that they have been discriminated against in the work place.
We here at The Harman Firm are glad to see our Congress take such action in light of a Supreme Court that has been extremely hostile towards the rights of workers and have undermined the rights that people have fought long and hard to gain. With the current Obama administration, we hope to see more of this type of legislation and an affirmation of the rights of workers everywhere.

A 12 person Texas jury has returned a whopping almost one million dollar verdict against a company that had discriminated against a manager based on his age.

The company. Host International, is responsible for food and beverage services at El Paso International Airport in Texas. Host international had acquired Delaware North, the service company that had held the contract before being bought out.

Frank Montalvano, age 57, had been the longtime Delaware North Food and Beverage manager. After being told his salary was going to be cut because large salaries are for young employees, he was eventually terminated.

Montalvano brought the claims of age discrimination, and in a 4 day trial was awarded $992,000 in damages based on the discriminatory behavior of Host International and their treatment of him.

Last week, an age discrimination lawsuit was brought against the telecommunications giant. The suit alleges that a controversial hiring policy has disproportionately affected the ability of older workers to find jobs at AT&T. The company has a policy of not re-hiring any workers that have taken a retirement or severance plan from the company.

The EEOC is leading the case against this practice, claiming that this policy of refusing to rehire workers once they were retired unfairly affects older workers, preventing them from ever seeking employment with AT&T in the future. They claim it is unlikely that many younger workers under 40 years old, will be affected by this policy, and instead will work to keep mostly older workers from being employed.

The company, when pressed for comment, has no rationale or reasoning for this program. The company also made no comment pending litigation in the matter, making many wonder what exactly was AT&T trying to accomplish with this policy.

The lawsuit states that over 50,000 employees have retired or separated from the company under this plan, and it is likely a large number of these individuals were older workers.

We'll keep you updated as this possibly huge lawsuit progresses further.

The recent Supreme Court session has been a disastrous term for the rights of workers in America. The current Court has weakened the rights of older employees in the case of Gross v. FBL Financial services, where the Court determined that age discrimination had to be the motivating factor in pursuing an age discrimination claim, deeply undercutting the interpretation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act. Later in the term, the Court ruled on the highly controversial Ricci v. DeSteffano case, where they found against the city of New Haven, who through out a promotion test for firefighters when it would have resulted in few if any minority firefighters receiving promotion- mostly in accordance with Title VII.

These setbacks have greatly affected the ways in which employees can seek recourse and damages from the actions of their employers. This is why it is a perfect time for Congress to get to work on an overhaul of the Civil Rights Act. Similar to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act introduced after her appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, this new act could bolster the rights of employees and undo the damage brought by the current members of the bench.

Specifically, this act could work to restore the rights of employees who believe they have been discriminated against because of their age, as well as clarify the problems of Title VII that make it difficult for local and state governments to apply equal protection under the law. As well, it could go beyond that and provide greater rights for part time and tipped workers, who are often taken advantage, and not paid fairly.
Lobby your Congressmen and women to enact real change for employees, and help fight against the challenges to workers rights.

In a puzzling split decision, the Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled 4 to 3 that religious schools were exempt from claims of discrimination brought by employees. The ruling states that the state rights barring discrimination in the work place do not protect employees whose jobs were linked to the mission of the religious institution, which includes teachers at religious schools. The justices stated that since their jobs are linked to the mission of the institution, they are free to fire their employees at will to further their mission.

This ruling is startling, given the trend of recent anti-employee laws being passed. This law essentially undermines the rights of employees working for religious institutions, even though they are often lay-people and not part of the clergy. While religious freedom is one of the most important freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution, it seems hardly appropriate to use religion as shield for discrimination based on gender, race, age or any other protected group. The Court of Minnesota should be chastised for condoning discrimination, and working to erode to rights of workers in the state.

In an extremely surprising and disappointing decision, the Supreme Court ruled last week in favor of an employer in an age discrimination case. The 5-4 decision showed the deep divide between the two sides on the issue, with the majority ruling that the employee must show that age was the primary factor in a wrongful employment action. The burden of proof of this discrimination falls on the employee bringing the claim, and not on the employee.

Clarence Thomas, speaking for the majority stated that "the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age...even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor".

The case was Gross v. FBL Financial Services, where Jack Gross was effectively demoted in title and responsibility, with part of his work load going to a younger female employee who used to report to him directly. Gross brought a case against FBL Financial, and was awarded $46.945 by the jury. On appeal, this award was overturned, leading to the Supreme Court fight.

This is a very disappointing sign for working Americans, especially as the workforce continues to get older. Businesses are now more empowered to let go of older workers as costs rise, and replace them with younger and cheaper employees.

This conservative bench has been no friend of workers, ruling first against Lilly Ledbetter in her case against Goodyear fighting for pay equality. In that case, Congress stepped in to correct the law and work to ensure equal pay for men and women. Hopefully, Congress will take the right step here and shore up the rights of older workers.

Just like other forms of discrimination, age discrimination is no more tolerable in our society than others and we should stand up for older workers.

The New York Post has reported on the case of John Vendikos, who has recently been let go from his position as bartender at the New York Yankee's Stadium Club. The seventy three year old man has been serving drinks at Yankee stadium for almost 27 years, and was shocked to find out that he was no longer welcome when the Yanks made their move to their new home.

Vendikos, who had poured cocktails for the likes of Joe Dimaggio and other Yankee greats, was asked to re-interview for his position when the club made their move across the street in the Bronx. When he showed up for his interview, the interviewer was dismissive, stating, "Why should I hire you? You're old". Thinking it was a joke after his long tenure of service, Vendikos eventually found out he was not hired and passed over for his old job.

The Yankees deny any claim of age discrimination, stating that they are committed to hiring employees of all ages. This claim can't help the struggling organization that has received hit after hit in the public relations department upon opening the new stadium in April. From outrageously expensive tickets, broken and non-functioning equipment and other stutters. Most serious is this latest charge, showing that age discrimination is still a part of the workplace, and will likely only become more rampant with the tightening job market.

A former Playboy employee, Joseph DeAcetis, has come forward with allegations of discrimination against Playboy. DeAcetis claims that he was fired because he was gay, and that he appeared much older due to his grey hair.

In his lawsuit, DeAcetis claims that his managers often called Playboy's gay employees "girl"s, and that he was repeatedly made fun of for having grey hair. Seeking $4 million dollars in damages, Acetis filed his lawsuit in Manhattan late last week.

Aside from being discriminated against, DeAcetis claims that his duties as fashion director were given to younger male employee's over time, and that he was passed up for television appearances, being told he looked "too old".

Under New York State and City law, discrimination based on sexual orientation is against the law, backed by the same laws that are designed to shield other protected groups from discrimination. In the past, discrimination against individuals had been much more common, but new laws have been designed to stem these instances.

Sadly, only 13 states have adopted laws that are designed to protect against discrimination based around sexual orientation and there remains no federal law that prohibits the practice in private business, meaning there are thousands of workers each year that are unprotected against such workplace descrimination.