New York Employment Attorneys Blog

A Texas company accused of exploiting mentally disabled men who worked at a turkey plant in Iowa has agreed to follow minimum wage, overtime and record-keepings laws in the future.

Hills Country Farms agreed to these measures Monday; an injunction approved by a federal judge settles the complaint brought by the US Department of Labor. In order to obtain such a settlement, the latter decided not to seek back-pay and damages related to non-disabled workers who were also allegedly not paid overtime and minimum wage.

In a separate lawsuit last April, a federal Judge ordered the company to pay $1.76 million in back wages and damages to 31 disabled men who worked at the same plant in Iowa. The Judge found the disabled workers received only $65 a month in wages even though many worked more than 40 hours a week. The company argued that they paid that amount because any wage above $65 would have reduced the men's Social Security benefits.

The case of six non disabled employees seeking the same remedies is still pending and expected to go to trial soon. Hills Country Farms is also facing a separate lawsuit pending in front of the EEOC claiming the disabled men were subjected to verbal and physical abuse, substandard living conditions, poor medical care, excessive discipline, and discriminatory wages.

In a today's decision, the Ohio Supreme Court expanded protection for workers injured on the job. An employee who is injured on the job but does not have a workers' compensation claim is nonetheless protected from retaliation.

In this case, the Plaintiff injured his back in April 2008 and got fired less than an hour after he reported the injury to the company's president. Although the worker filed suit alleging retaliation, he did not at the time file a workers' compensation claim at the time of his dismissal.

The Court ruled that the intent of the statute is to protect all injured workers, regardless of workers compensation claim status. Leaving a gap in protection before the filing of a claim would create a too disparate gap between employer and employee rights following an injury. Despite that, the Court did not find that the timing of the firing was sufficient to establish retaliation in the case.

In a recent case, Goodman v. L.A. Weight Loss Ctrs., a 350 pound man was denied a position at L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc., despite being the most qualified person for the job. The reason given? L.A. Weight Loss Centers, Inc. is "image conscious." Ultimately, the court found that the applicant was not protected by the ADA (which protects people with disabilities) because he was not regarded to be unable to perform a wide range of tasks.

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.

A Brooklyn chef working at Tina's Restaurant was fired after telling his boss he needed to go to the hospital. The 36 year old father of two was let go after taking the time off to see to his illness, leaving him unemployed with very few other options.

The employee has attracted the attention of Councilwoman Gael Brewer, who has introduced legislation recently that would require employers to give full time employees paid sick time. This maneuver would help workers across the city cope with the effects of illnesses without losing their jobs. Having to pay for health care on top of losing ones job is a situation no able worker should be in.

We here at the Harman Firm believe workers should not have to risk their jobs to attain health care. We support the actions of Councilwoman Brewer in her quest to help workers cope with illness and protect their jobs in their absence.

A recent piece in the Daily Mail describes the plight of a 22-year old law student. The student, Riam Deen, was hired at the London flagship store of the Abercrombie and Fitch chain. While there, Deen was required to comply with the stores strict dress and "look" policies, which dictate the appearances of the employees.

While working on the floor of the store, Deen was told to take off the cardigan that was covering the joint between her arm and the prosthesis. When she refused, she was sent to the stock room to work until the store deemed it appropriate for her to wear long sleeves. Later, she was told that she would have to stay in the stock room until they would allow her to wear a long sleeve shirt to cover up her prosthetic arm. Shocked, she quit and refused to be subjected to this treatment.

Abercrombie is no stranger to discrimination suits. Currently, a group of ethnic employees are suing the chain for discrimination after they were confined to the back and stock rooms of the store, while the floor staff was comprised mainly of white employees. It is shocking that this type of discrimination continues to persist in this day and age, where employees should be protected from unfair labor practices. Where does a stores' right to enforce an image end, and employees' rights begin?

We encourage you to avoid Abercrombie to protest this detestable behavior. Too let Abercrombie know what you think, call them at 1.866.314.7743, or email them at abercrombie@abercrombie.com.

Slipping under the new radar, the Healthy Family Act was reintroduced to Congress on May 15th. This act, originally introduced in 2005 by Ted Kennedy, is a step in the right direction for enabling workers to take time off when needed to deal with illnesses, beyond the scope of the provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act. The act would apply to all businesses with 15 or more employees, and require more time allowed for sick days. For every 30 hours an employee would work, they would be entitled to one hour of sick time, totaling 7 days of sick time on a year worked.

The bill has drawn the ire of pro-business groups, who state that it is an inappropriate time to be introducing legislation that will raise the costs of doing business. They contend that it is already hard enough for small business to remain afloat during these times, and this bill will only make it harder.

But the bills preamble states the difficulty faced by workers to take time off to care for themselves and their family, stating that nearly 59 percent of all private sector employees are not given any time off for sick days. This leads many individuals to come to work sick, often aggravating conditions and making it worse for themselves and those around them. Supporters of the bill state this is necessary, and that the United States lags behind other nations. All other industrialized nations in the world guarantee time off for illness, while only certain cities like San Francisco protect employees sick days.

The passage of this bill during the Obama administration is considerably more likely than under the Bush administration, who had paid no attention to the bill and consistently had sided with business interests.

Would you be more likely to take sick days if you had time? What effects do you think this would have on businesses?

The Holiday season can be one of the most stressful times of the year- preparations for Holiday plans, family matters, and not to mention the economic stresses brought on by both the Holidays as well as the recent economic downtown. Adding to this, you or your family members falling ill around this time of the year can compound the stress of the season and leaving families wondering how they will manage both taking care of themselves or their families and maintain their jobs in these uncertain times.

To the aid of working families, the Family Medical Leave Act passed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton states that employees are entitled to 12 weeks of leave time for every year worked to take care of the medical needs of themselves or their families. This act covers pregnancy and care of a newborn, caring for a sick child, spouse or parent, as well as seeking treatment for conditions that prevent you from working. This act guarantees that an employee is also entitled to the full benefits received prior to taking leave on their return to work. Furthermore, an employee must be given the same position at work. If the same position is unavailable, an employee must be given a job equal to original position in pay, responsibilities and benefits. The act also stipulates that an employer can not retaliate against an employee for exercising their right to the terms of the Family Medical Leave Act, freeing families from the worry of losing their jobs, benefits, or a demotion to take care of pressing family medical matters.

President Bush has proposed recent changes to the Family Medical Leave act that has simultaneously expanded benefits for Military and National Guard family members, while implementing stricter rules on employees in how they have to notify employers, while giving employers more access to sensitive medical records of employees. While expanding coverage to our Military service members is step forward, Bush's proposal will negatively affect employees when the provisions go into effect on January 16th, 2009. However, employees can look forward to the end of the pro-business White House of President Bush, and look forward to an emphasis on workers rights with the inauguration of Barack Obama.

If you believe you have been negatively impacted by an employer for taking care of family or personal medical needs, or if you believe your rights under the FMLA have been violated, you should contact an employment attorney. An employment attorney can help to evaluate your situation and to explore your full legal options.