New York Employment Attorneys Blog

Nicolette Sheridan, one of the stars of ABC's "Desperate Housewives" has filed a lawsuit against a former producer of the show, Marc Cherry, claiming among other things, that he assaulted her while working on lines. The suit claims that Mr. Cherry hit Sheridan in the face and head after she had a question regarding a line during a taping.

Further, the star claims that following the incident, she complained up the ABC hierarchy, only to be stonewalled at every turn. Eventually, Sheridan's character was killed off of the show, and was not rehired for future seasons.

These claims are interesting given the types of blood thirsty and power-hungry characters are portrayed on Desperate Housewives. In this case, it seems like this ridiculous behavior has migrated off the screen and on to the set of the show.

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.

On July 1, 2009, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced a $1.125 million settlement with the owners and former owners of two Brooklyn-based supermarkets for underpayment of their workers as well as other violations of New York State labor laws.

The AG's office filed a lawsuit against the Associated and Pioneer supermarkets after their investigation found that employees at the stores were not paid proper wages. At both supermarkets, baggers had been paid no wages at all and had to rely solely on tips for income. In addition, delivery workers at the supermarkets often worked 70-hour weeks but were not paid minimum wage nor were they paid time and a half for overtime. Many other supermarket employees had also worked in excess of 40 hours per week, but were not paid overtime wages.

Under the terms of the settlement, the supermarket owners will pay restitution to over 50 of their employees for unpaid wages totaling $1,125,000, in addition to the penalties that will be paid to the State of New York. Each worker covered by the agreement will get about $20,000.

In a separate criminal action, the two owners of the Associated Supermarket pleaded guilty to failure to pay wages and failure to maintain payroll records, both misdemeanors. Each received a one-year suspended sentence and must comply with a deal to surrender payroll and time records to the Attorney General's Office on the first of each month for five years to ensure compliance.

See: 2 Bushwick Supermarkets Settle Labor Charges

As I've written about on this blog earlier, there seems to be a recurring problem with bakeries refusing to treat their employees properly. This time, a Federal law judge has ordered the Stella D'oro Company to reinstate workers who had been on strike since last August, as well as pay them back wages through May.

The workers went on strike after the company went to their union demanding that the union accept a $5 an hour wage decrease for groups of workers. As well, the company had demanded that the employees take cuts in their pensions as well as their health care benefits.

The National Labor Relations Board had found the company at fault during the negotiation process, claiming that the company had not negotiated fairly with the union by withholding necessary audits, as well as declaring an impasse in negotiations without having satisfied the conditions necessary to do so.

This drawn out process brings some closure to the workers who had been on strike and picketing for almost a year now. The workers, who had been living on unemployment, had stuck together throughout this long process and should be proud of taking on the unfair employment practices of the company.

See:http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/bronx-cookie-plant-is-ordered-to-reinstate-striking-workers/

An article printed on June 2nd in the New York Times reveals an interesting debate going on within the state. The debate stems from a bill that is sitting in the house currently, which would require all developers who are building low income housing to pay their workers a prevailing wage, comparable to the going Union wage.

The developers of these low income housing units, who have mostly built housing for government housing projects, say that the legislation would hamper their ability to provide housing for those that need it. Given the economic downturn, and the potential for more people to turn to government subsidized housing, it would be inappropriate to force these developers to compete with union jobs.

Supporters of the bill and construction workers rights say that the bill would provide for better construction and a decent standard of living for those that build these housing units.

On the face of this issue, it seems a stark contrast between providing housing for those that need assistance in affording it, while also hamstringing workers by not paying them as much as other prevailing rates in the field- making it more likely that these individuals will have to take advantage of the low income housing options.

Another such concern is that if prevailing wages are required, the laborers would largely be made up of white union members, as opposed to the mostly black and Latino workers that are non union contractors.

This situation highlights the fragile balance between providing for the public good, while doing so at a low enough cost for developers. The interchange of money between developers, contractors and those that would eventually occupy the units are an example of the stresses of the concerns for labor, and the bottom line.

A group of hospitals in the Albany region have recently agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by nurses. The deal, described in a NY Times article published March 9th seeks to settle a claim brought by the nurses who said hospitals had conspired together to keep nurses for wages down in the area.

Per the agreement, the nurses will receive $1.25 million dollars and prohibits the hospitals from sharing wage information of the nurses with any other hospitals operating in the area. Statements from the hospital admit no wrongdoing stemming from settling, and stated that they decided to settle the case to "preserve scarce resources" from going to waste.

A statement from the SEIU claimed this was a victory, and that "for too long, hospitals cut corners when it came to valuing the hard work of nurses", with many advocacy groups and nurses stating that the suppression of wages for nurses has further increased the shortage of nurses throughout the country.

The settlement also opens up new options for nurses who are currently awaiting similar trials in other states. The settlement allows for the lawyers for the nurses in this group access to nurses at other hospitals in the area to further explore claims of wage suppression and conspiracy.

Given the rise of employees bringing claims against former employers, a new strategy of employers has been to bring pre-emptive lawsuits. Taking the adage a best defense is a good offense to heart, employers have started to aggressively pursue pre-emptive lawsuits against employers in attempts to stem claims and to gain a decisive advantage in the legal system.

Ronald Green, partner at the firm of Epstein Becker Green writes about the advantages for employers to bring about such suits. Among them, Green states that in certain situations, notably litigation that can reveal confidential, embarrassing or protected information or in the case of a costly class action suits, preemptive suits can maximize the benefit for employers by enabling them to set the time and venue for litigation, while as plaintiff is more likely to be viewed sympathetically by the jury. Furthermore, taking action in advance of counterclaims enables corporations to play damage control while maximizing their public relations efforts.

The New York Law Review cites a recent example of this kind of action, where a law firm has taken pre-emptive action against a secretary that has demanded a $9 million settlement stemming from accusations of patterns of sexual harassment and culminating in a rape. The law firm fired back with a pre-emptive lawsuit claiming defamation, tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress in that the attorney in question was "set up". Furthermore, the firm requested a declaratory judgment seeking to rightfully fire the employee for misrepresentations stemming from providing a false Social Security number to avoid a past drug charge. The employee is currently is currently on paid leave, awaiting the outcome of the trial.

However, the range and use of these preemptive lawsuits are limited, and sometimes can work counter to the goals of an employer. The article cites Deborah Katz, an attorney based in Washington, D.C. She states that pre-emptive lawsuits are ""clearly retaliatory acts", and that they can subject the employer to even further liability for retaliation. Also, Katz claims it is a thuggish tactic aimed at intimidating an employee to back down from their claims.

This can be seen in the case of Bill O'Riley and his former employer, Andrea Mackris. Mackris, whose immediate supervisor was O'Riley tried to settle for damages stemming from sexual harassment during her employment with Fox News and O'Riley. Her attorney, Bennedict Morelli was in confidential negotiations with Fox's when they brought a charge of extortion towards the attorneys firm and Mackris. This ultimately erupted in a public relations war, with O'Riley trying to paint Mackris as the stereotype of the hyper-sexualized gold digger. After transcripts of tapes between the two leaked coupled with the extortion suit, public opinion turned largely against O'Riley and Fox forcing them to settle with Mackris and to drop the pending lawsuits against Mackris, and Morelli's law firm.

As an employee, a pre-emptive lawsuit can get in the way of your legitimate claims against an employer. These suits can take precious time and resources away from your claims, and can have shed a negative light on the way in which your case is perceived.