New York Employment Attorneys Blog

Gothamist is reporting on a case currently unfolding in New York Courts, where a former employee of a mammography center claims she was fired for complaining about unsanitary conditions in which she had to pump breast milk, and that she was repeatedly scolded for making such requests.

The employee alleges that following her pregnancy, she was repeatedly told that she could not pump breast milk in her office, in violation of laws ensuring new mothers can take care of their needs. The suit alleges that she was fired for her pumping and for making complaints against individuals who told her not too. Most shocking of all the allegations is that she was employed by a mammography center, primarily concerned with the breast health of women.

A Judge has given the go-ahead for a huge class action lawsuit against the retail giant. The suit, which alleges a pattern of gender discrimination by Wal-Mart, has the potential to affect over 1 million female Wal-Mart employees.

The suit alleges that female employees have been paid significantly less wages in comparison to men hired by Wal-Mart since 1998. The suit had be certified a class action by a Trial Judge in 2004, and had been appealed up to the 9th Circuit, where this decision to move forward had been made.

This suit has the potential to be the largest gender discrimination class action brought in the country. Wal-Mart could potentially be liable for huge sums of damages, and even more if the attorney's for the plaintiff's can demonstrate that Wal-Mart knowingly paid females less, which could lead to the awarding of punitive damages.

Wal-Mart, who is the nations largest retailer, is no stranger to these types of suits and has often come under fire for their employment practices. Of note, Wal-Mart is currently making plans to move into New York City, where their vehement anti-union stand will be challenged by local groups.

A number of events, including the attempted Christmas Day bombing, have highlighted the security surrounding our transportation systems in America. However, a number of recent claims regarding the Air Marshall program have brought the programs into a different light as employees in the program have claimed discrimination and harassment at the hands of supervisors and coworkers.

In one allegation, a supervisor is said to have created a "Jeopardy"-like game, using derogatory names for Hispanics, African-Americans and homosexuals has a way to punish employees and to insult others. Also, a TSA Marshall in Cincinnati claims that her supervisors opened a disciplinary hearing into her work performance after filing a formal complaint for sexual harassment against supervisors.

We at the Harman Firm are terribly shocked at these accusations. No employee should be forced to work in an environment where they are not respected and treated equally, especially for these individuals who work to keep the air safe. It is unfortunate that those we trust with our safety are subjected to such behavior.

A 17-year old Florida teen had tried to apply for a job at a Florida area McDonald's. Filling out the online application, the teen decided not to check a box for the sex area, as she is transgender.

Following up at the in person interview, Ms. Bellamy told the two managers that she was transgender. Following the interview, she received a voicemail from on of the managers claiming that she had lied to him, and that "McDonald's does hire [expletive].

The manager was fired following the release of the tape, which has the manager outright insulting this woman for trying to find a job at McDonald's, and that McDonald's would never hire someone like her.

Ms, Bellamy's case continues to garner attention in Florida and around the country. She has initiated a lawsuit under Florida law, which recognizes gender identity as a protected class concerning employment matters.

This also highlights the need for strong Federal protections against gender discrimination and transgender identity issues. Looking forward to the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which would bring a number of protections to people such as Ms. Bellamy.

The original article can be found at the Consumerist-McDonald's Manager To Transgender Woman: We Don't Hire [Gay Slur]- , including a link to a video containing these comments from the manager, as well as links to the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund.

A New York based electronic store, B&H, is accused by four employees of gender discrimination after the employees sought positions as salespeople and were all denied. The three former workers and one current employee claim that B&H refuses to have female salespeople on the floor, relegating them to other positions and only promoting men.

The suit claims that when the lead plaintiff declared her interest in a sales position at B&H, and was rebuffed by other employees saying that the company does not hire women for those positions.

The store had recently paid warehouse workers over $4 million dollars in a settlement stemming from a suit over discrimination and failure to promote. The popular electronic store seems to have numerous problems concerning equal employment opportunities and civil rights.

Have any of you been to B&H and seen a female salesperson?

A group of women have brought allegations of sex discrimination against a string of supermarkets. The complaint alleges that women were routinely discriminated against in the hiring procedures of the store, only being allowed to serve as cashiers. Nearly 90 percent of the cashier's employed by the company were women, while there were no women working as stockers, in the meat department, or elsewhere in the store.

The complaint was initiated when an individual sought employment with one of the stores named, incorporated under the Dynasty VI name, and was told that there were no more cashier positions available. However, the individual had found out that there had been an opening for a stockperson, and inquired about the job. When pressed, the manager said that they do not hire women as stock-people.

The suit alleges that this is a rampant practice at these New York area stores. It also alleges that women when hired were also pushed into newer divisions of the supermarket, which would not have the same promotion procedures and pay as positions occupied by men.

We here at the Harman Firm believe that it is good that individuals are coming forward to stand up against this illegal behavior which has been unlawfully keeping women out of positions that they are perfectly qualified to do. Only when you individuals are aware of the many facets and types of discrimination in the workplace can they truly take action against this behavior.

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.

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/

The pay gap between men and women, where the median income of women stands at about 75% of what men are paid, is equally prevalent in the world of non profit work, where startlingly more than 70% of the employees are female. This gap has been echoed in a number of surveys aimed at discovering the nature of these pay disparities, and why they are so rampant in the non-profit industry. A 2004 study by Guidestar, a non profit monitoring company, revealed that at groups with a budget of $50 million dollars or more, a male executive director was likely to be earning more than twice what a similarly employed female would be making.
A similar study conducted in 2007 by the Robert Morris University's Bayer Center for Nonprofit Management and the United Way of Allegheny Count, found similar trends in non-profit compensation between men and women. The study found that the average male non-profit director in Western Pennsylvania would make an average of $116,000 as compared to around $74,000 for women directors in the area.

Both studies examined the nature of these disparities by taking in a wide sample of both large and small non-profit groups. Both studies concluded that of large non-profit organizations that have large budgets with millions of dollars, the executives and directors are much more likely to be male, making up nearly 75% of the groups Guidestar surveyed. In addition, women are much more likely in both studies to be part of smaller non-profit organizations where salaries and budgets are much lower. It has also found that women are less likely to demand a salary that is commensurate with their fundraising efforts, compared with men who are likely to seek to find parity betweent their efforts and salary.

The good news, if any, is that the Guidestar survey shows that in non-profits with small budgets, women are actually making more money than their male counterparts, and are gaining over previous years in middle and high budget non-profits, closing the gap between the two groups. While this is a start, it does not truly address the disparities that exist here, and throughout the workplace.

This morning, President Obama signed into law the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act signaling a quick shift in the White House's policies towards workers. The Act, the first such act to cross President Obama's desk had been passed by both the House and Senate and has been floating around the Hill for sometime now.

The Act, brought on by the Supreme Court's decision in the Ledbetter vs. Goodyear aims to make it easier for workers who have been paid unequally for equal work to file for damages against their employer by expanding the time in which an individual can file a claim. Before this Act, the statue of limitations began with the first discriminatory paycheck and ended three years after. This made it hard for workers who have been discriminated against since the disparity in pay is usually revealed over time.

President Obama invited Mrs. Ledbetter to the White House today to celebrate the legal victory of her crusade against pay discrimination. David Axelrod, Senior Advisor to President Obama, said "Days like this is what it's all about. This is what we were working for." This bold move is a good start in undoing the damage of worker's rights brought about by the Bush administration in the last four years, and will hopefully pave the way for an increased defense of workers.

One piece of legislation that is likely to be voted on by Congress next year is the Fair Pay Restoration Act. This Act will amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to clarify that an unlawful practice occurs each time compensation is paid pursuant to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, and for other purposes.

The bill was introduced to address the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter vs. Goodyear Tire and Rubber. In this case, Lilly Ledbetter took Goodyear Tire to court over lost wages resulting from extreme salary discrimination. Ledbetter was paid substantially less over time than her male counterparts who had similar or less experience than her.

The Court ruled (5-4) that Ledbetter could not receive back pay or damages from her employer even though a jury found that she was unfairly paid less than her male colleagues for many years. The Court stated that her claims fell outside of the 180-day statute of limitations in which she had to file her complaint of discrimination, even though the disparity in pay was ongoing and continuous. This extremely narrow view has upset many involved in both the labor and feminist movements.

The Fair Pay Restoration Act aims to correct this by eliminating these unreasonable time limits, allowing victims of pay discrimination to seek back pay and damages when they become aware of the injustice. This is crucial in that wage discrimination does not generally occur as a single incident. Rather, it is the accumulation of systematic discrimination over long periods of time, highlighting the need for legal reform.

Republicans oppose this measure for fear that it would adversely impact businesses by opening businesses up to a huge number of back claims dating back decades. When the issue was up for vote, Republicans filibustered to prevent action from being taken on the bill.

With the pro-worker Obama administration coming in, we can expect a renewed effort to amend the Civil Rights Act. With the Fair Pay Restoration Act signed into law, we can come closer to taking serious action on wage discrimination.