New York Employment Attorneys Blog

A group of African American firefighters in Chicago have received the backing of a Supreme Court decision following a close 5-4 decision. The decision centered largely on the timeliness of their filing of a charge of discrimination, which is limited to 300 days.

The firefighters alleged that beginning in 1995, in order be hired into the Fire Department, individuals would have to score higher than 65 percent on a written exam to qualify. The Fire Department would then only hire individuals who scored 89 percent or hire, and hire a random sampling of these individuals. This sampling had greatly impacted the ranks of African American's within the fire department, and a lower court Judge agreed.

Upon appeal however, it was argued that the firefighters did not make a timely claim of discrimination, and had their claims dismissed.

This time around five Justices, led by Antonin Scalia, determined that since the City has continued to use the discriminatory test since 1995, it would fall under the continuing violations doctrine. As a result, it was ordered that the City hire 132 members of the class, and to provide a payment for the other members of the class that were affected by this discriminatory policy.

A Federal Judge in Brooklyn has ordered sweeping changes to be made at the New York City Fire Department, ordering that the City hire more black and Latino firefighters, and giving numerous employees back pay. The ruling, issued by Judge Garafuis of the Eastern District of New York, found that the hiring examination used from the early 90's until recently have had a disparate impact on black and Latino applicants vying for jobs in the FDNY.

In finding for the group of firefighters, Judge Garafuis has instructed the FDNY to overhaul the way in which it screens and hires applicants, and has ordered the city to pay out fines to current minority FDNY employees. The ruling also calls for retroactive promotions for a number of employees who had been subjected to the discriminatory tests.

The ruling also implied that the City must reevaluate its standards for testing firefighters for hiring and promotion, and to ensure that all future tests do not adversely impact minority groups seeking employment.

A New York City EMT is claiming that managers discriminated her against repeatedly after comments from supervisor were made, stating they made discriminatory statements about "you people" and "your people" in reference to African Americans.

The EMT also says she was denied a promotion in retaliation for complaining about such treatment, claiming managers said "this is what happens when you complain". The plaintiff was initially accepted for the promotion, which would amount to $7,000 dollars, and when she returned to work was informed that she would not receive the promotion.

The story, picked up by The New York Daily News - "EMT files race discrimination suit" is another troubling sign of discrimination and retaliation in the city. We at the Harman Firm would hope that a city with such a rich diversity as New York would encourage such discriminator behavior.

Retailer Jos. A. Bank, a nationwide chain of upscale clothing retailers, has been hit with a lawsuit alleging a pattern of racial discrimination against non-white employees.

Filed in California by one employee, the suit claims that the employee was terminated after filing a racial discrimination suite with the EEOC against the retailer. Further, the suit states that Jos. A. Bank

"systematically takes adverse employment actions against qualified, high-performing African-American employees in management positions by giving them less-desirable job assignments, lower pay, fewer promotional opportunities, more frequent and harsher discipline and retaliating for complaining about said illegal conduct,"
In particular, the suit claims that African American employees were systematically prevented from receiving management positions within the company.

The suit seeks reinstatement for a number of minority employees that have been unfairly treated by the retailer, and back pay in the event that the employees cannot be reinstated to their former positions.

We here at The Harman Firm deplore the fact that a retailer could engage in discrimination as alleged. While normally it is individual incidents, it is even more disheartening for employees to claim a rampant and systematic pattern of discrimination against minority employees.

Sandra Guzman, a former editor for the New York Post, filed a lawsuit recently where she describes a pattern of racism and retaliation at the New York Post, one of the papers owned by media magnate Rupert Murdoch.

Guzman states that she was fired in retaliation for complaining about the printing of a controversial political cartoon, which depicted President Barack Obama as a gunned down chimpanzee. Guzman, who is black and Puerto Rican, claims she was the only female editor of color at the NY Post and was terminated following complaints made about the cartoon, where she believed them to be racist and derogatory.

The cartoon ignited a controversy following its publication, drawing an apology from News Corps Chairman Murdoch. The cartoon depicts a chimpanzee labeled Obama, shot dead on the street. This was in reference to an incident in Connecticut wherein a chimpanzee had gotten lose and badly assaulted and maimed an individual, which occurred within the same week that President Obama extended nearly 787 billion dollars for additional stimulus funds.

Amongst other complaints, Guzman states that in internal documents, she was labeled "Cha-Cha #1", a derogatory insult aimed against her Puerto Rican heritage. The Harman Firm believes that no employee should be terminated for complaining about racial discrimination, and encourages everyone to stand up against this behavior.

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.

Today, United States District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis granted summary judgment in
favor of the Vulcan Society, the fraternal organization of Black firefighters in the
Fire Department of New York (FDNY), and three individual candidates, in a class
action lawsuit charging the FDNY with racially discriminatory hiring practices.

From 1999 to 2007, the FDNY used written examinations to select more than 5,300
candidates for admission to the New York City Fire Academy. These examinations
unfairly excluded hundreds of qualified people of color from the opportunity to
serve as New York City firefighters.

In light of the overwhelming evidence, the Court found that New York City's reliance
on these examinations constitutes employment discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Judge Garaufis's decision, dated July 22,
2009, he states that, "[f]rom 1999 to 2007, the New York City Fire Department used
written examinations with discriminatory effects and little relationship to the job
of a firefighter... [that] unfairly excluded hundreds of qualified people of color
from the opportunity to serve as New York City firefighters. . . Today, the court
holds that New York City's reliance on these examinations constitutes employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

New York City is home to a widening gap in unemployment between white and black workers in the city, according to new data found in an article in the New York Times- "Job Losses Show Wider Racial Gap in New York". This article explores the numbered behind this phenomenon, showing that while generally blacks make up a higher percentage of unemployed workers, the recession has hit this demographic particularly hard, and at rates much greater than their white counterparts.

The data, released by the City Comptrollers Office, showed that there are 80,000 more blacks on unemployment currently, even though there are over 1.5 million more white residents within the city. This data was troubling considering that many of the noticeable job loses had come from areas where minorities are not as highly represented, like finance and other professional industries.

However, looking at other areas where cuts have been made, like customer service and retail positions, which have been hit hard as consumers curtail spending. These areas traditionally hire more African American employees. Other areas where African American employees make up a larger percent of the workforce- such as government jobs, have been feeling the hurt as well as local areas and state agencies trim budgets. One such agency, the Post Office, who has traditionally employed many African American workers, has been forced to lay more workers of as the recession depends.

The study continues on to show that whites in New York City have actually gained 130,000 jobs, while most minority groups have lost jobs concurrently. This race gap is troubling for a number of reasons, the most of which points to the idea that the recession has had a disparate impact on minority workers. While the recession has affect many industries, it is no excuse to single out minority workers for termination during cuts in employment.

In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on the controversial Ricci v.
DeStefano case. The case, which was brought by a group of white firefighters
in New Haven, Connecticut claiming they were denied promotions when the city
of New Haven threw out the promotion exam. Lower courts found in favor of
New Haven in throwing out the results of the exam, and against the white
firefighters.

However, the Supreme Court reversed the findings of lower courts. Justice
Kennedy wrote for the majority, and was joined by Justices Thomas, Roberts,
Alito and Scalia. Kennedy stated unequivocally that ³the city rejected the
test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white,² and
that ³Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer¹s reliance on race
to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified
for promotions.²

The ruling will make it difficult for employers, mainly those that require
tests or other examinations to determine eligibility, to throw out results
if the exam shows a disparate impact on a minority. This includes many
government entities that employ civil servants, and often use exams for
promotion.

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsberg minced no words in showing her
disdain for this opinion, and standing behind the black and Hispanic
firefighters. The city of New Haven has a high percentage of blacks and
Hispanics, but the make up of the city's fire department does not coincide
with these proportions, and highlights problems associated with the
disparate impact clause of Title VII.

This case also draws attention to Judge Sotamayor¹s ruling in the Appeals
Court. She had found in favor of the city, which had thrown out the test
results when they were notified of their potential liability. This case was
closely watched to see if the Court would uphold Sotamayor¹s ruling.

The decision cuts a hole in Title VII. The issue for the employer under
Title VII is not the fear of being sued but rather the disparate or
discriminatory impact the employers' decisions (including mandatory tests)
have on the employee.

Shame on the Supreme Court for a leap backwards!

A case proceeding in the Supreme Court has raised the issue of race and discrimination in hiring and promotion of public employees. The case, brought by a group of white fire fighters from New Haven, Connecticut, claim that a promotion exam was to be scrapped in that it appeared that it would only promote 2 Hispanic firefighters and no African American fire fighters.

At the heart of the issue is the idea that these white firefighters were effectively denied a promotion by withdrawing the exam, and if this practice constituted a violation of the firefighters civil rights. Furthermore, it treads the middle ground between trying to create an inclusive work environment and overt racism and discrimination.

The hearings were largely split along between the liberal and conservative justices. The more conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia and John Roberts uphold the rights of the white firefighters, arguing the idea that who decides what outcomes of exams are good and bad, and weighing the impact of the denial of benefits to those who deserved it.
The more liberal justices on the other hand have held that the city of New Haven did nothing wrong in throwing out the exam, claiming that the test had a disparate effect on minority participation in line with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

This case marks the first instance of the Supreme Court dealing with the subject of race and discrimination in the Obama administration. This particular case, dealing with reverse racism, as well as a perception of institutionalized racism, marks an important moment for both the administration, as well as the current Supreme Court. The facts of the trial show we are a long ways off in having a completely equal workplace, and that discrimination in hiring and promotion is active well into the 21st Century.