New York Employment Attorneys Blog

20 years ago, sexual harassment in the workplace was brushed under the table by many, often even by the victims themselves who felt they had no recourse through their jobs or even Courts to stop the harassment.

Today things are much different, thanks to the actions in large part of Anita Hill. Twenty years ago, Ms. Hill testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which at that time was comprised of only men, speaking out against Supreme Court-nominee Clarence Thomas. Ms. Hill testified about the decade-long sexual harassment and abuse she had endured while working under Mr. Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which Commission ironically enough is the very government body which seeks to vindicates rights of employees who have been mistreated in their jobs in a variety of manners. In that year alone, the E.E.O.C. saw a 50 percent increase in the number of charges filed by employees claiming sexual harassment or abuse.

Although social awareness of sexual harassment has come a long way, it still has a long way to go. While many employers now offer classes regarding how to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace or other types of discrimination, it often does not prevent sexual harassment from occurring entirely.

The Harman Firm is dedicated to advocating for the rights of victims of sexual harassment in the workplace. Do you feel you are the victim of sexual harassment? Call today to speak with an attorney about your rights.

According to a recent NY Times article, the recession has helped shrink the wage gap between men and women. In early 2010, consistent with historical trends, women's median weekly earnings were 79 cents to every dollar their male counterpart earned. However, by the second quarter of 2011, that number jumped to 83 cents to every dollar their male counterparts earned. This shift wasn't due to women earning more, however, but men earning less.

Male-dominated jobs, such as construction, took the hardest hit during the recession with earnings dropping 5 percent, while jobs typically dominated by women, such as health care, actually saw an increase in earnings. Higher paid jobs also favored women during the recession, with earnings in management, finance, and business industries staying the same for women but dropping 3 percent for men. According to the article, the current budget cuts will heavily affect women who are largely represented in local government jobs such as teaching, but the gap is narrowing, which is a step in the right direction.

Do you feel you are being treated differently in the workplace, or even paid a different salary, solely because of your gender? The Harman Firm is dedicated to advocating equality in the workplace.

If you frequently read the newspaper or if you follow the Silicon Valley's activities, then you have probably heard of Carol Bartz. Ms. Bartz was recently terminated from her position as CEO of Yahoo! over the phone.

Ms. Bartz was one of the only women to hold such a prestigious and high-level position in the Internet and Computer field. She is well know for her "salty language," and her fans were not disappointed when she called the board members that fired her over the phone a bunch of "doofuses" who "f---- me over."

If this kind of language is considered common for a man, it seems that people are shocked when a woman utilizes such language. Her comments were judged so unusual by the Wall Street Journal that the newspaper decided to publish an amusing compilation of "Carol Bartz's Best Quotes."

So, is a woman socially allowed to curse at work? According to Deborah Tanne, a linguistics Professor at Georgetown University, "it stands out because it is not expected." Ms. Bartz appears to be a forerunner, moving toward Gender Equality in the Workplace, specifically regarding the right to curse at work.

But this particular case asks a broader question of the women in the workplace. It is already shocking that women are generally paid less than men for the same position; but also that their work is not perceived in the same way in business and they are expected to have different behavior even more refined, than men at work. It seems that women are not socially allowed to show their anger as much as men in the workplace, as Ms. Bartz's case shows.

The road for women to achieve sex equality in the workplace seems to be still a long one.

The Harman Firm is committed to regularly addressing and working to expose and prevent further sexual harassment on on college campuses.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." It is a remedial (rather than punitive) statute designed to eliminate financial participation of the federal government in illegal discrimination. Title VI claims cannot be brought against individual defendants as they do not receive federal funding. In college and university settings, Title VI has been invoked in racial and ethnic discrimination and harassment cases. It has also been used in affirmative action cases. Sexual harassment cases, however, are made using either Title IX or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Title IX was enacted by congress in the Education Amendments of 1972 and states, "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..." Title IX is identical to Title VI, except that Title VI "prohibits race discrimination, not sex discrimination, and applies to all programs receiving federal funds." The Supreme Court has held that "..."sexual harassment" is "discrimination" in the school context under Title IX..." Other courts have held that sexual discrimination cases against institutions receiving federal funds should be brought under Title IX, not under Title VI. "Because [Title VI] does not forbid sex discrimination, Plaintiffs' Title VI claim against the Army is dismissed with prejudice." "Indeed, the legislative history reveals that Title IX was designed to fill the gap left by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which did not prohibit discrimination based on sex."

Title VII prohibits (with some exceptions) discrimination in employment situations based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. It has been used successfully in cases relating to sexual harassment in the work place. "...the language of Title VII is not limited to "economic" or "tangible" discrimination... in 1980 the EEOC issued Guidelines specifying that "sexual harassment," as there defined, is a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII."

Title VI is applicable to racial and ethical harassment cases in college or university settings but for sexual harassment cases involving federally funded programs, Title VII or Title IX applies.

In recent years, much has been done to raise awareness of sexual harassment in the workplace, and how to go about identifying and reporting such behavior. However, this practice still affects scores of workers, with more and more individuals reporting sexual harassment in an academic setting. Under Title IX, sexual harassment falls under discrimination in an academic setting. Harassment in an academic setting can take many of the same forms it does in a work environment -- name calling, unwanted advances, touching, inappropriate conversation and more.

What makes sexual harassment in academia more difficult and problematic is that while harassment is defined as unwanted behavior, professors and administrators have a great degree of perceived power and control over students, making it often hard to achieve a true sense of consent. Professors, like employers and supervisors, can often take advantage of the relationship between student and teacher to get away with such unwanted sexual behavior.

Professors can make it seem as if willing participation in such activity is a requirement due to their relationship, and can often exert their influence in extreme ways. Their behavior is different from others on the street in that it is an exploitation of the expectations of the student/teacher relationship. This is further compounded by the fact that tenured professors often enjoy relative job security, and a high degree of professional respect.

Your Rights
As a student, you have rights to ensure that you do not have to tolerate sexual harassment. No individual should be subjected to, or exploited by, sexual harassment as carried out by professors. Contact our office today to explore your rights and options for pursing your case.

The Harman Firm, P.C. serves the New York metropolitan area including Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Westchester, White Plains, Nassau and Suffolk Counties.

A lawsuit has been filed against the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation by a former female wealth manager. Rochelle Cohen, who had been with the bank in her role for over ten years, was terminated after the company said her position had been eliminated.

Cohen had managed funds totaling over $200 million for a portfolio of over 80 clients during her time working for the Bank of New York. In her suit, she says that she always received excellent evaluations and that her performance was exemplary. Further, the complaint states that she continually complained of unfair treatment. For example, Cohen made numerous complaints that younger male employees were getting paid more than her. She was also passed up for numerous promotions while others were promoted ahead of her.

This combination of both age and sex discrimination is particularly troubling for the area bank. A spokesperson for the bank declined to comment. For more on gender discrimination, check out the video below:

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.