New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog

A recent SAT cheating scandal has rocked Long Island as officials have brought in a former FBI chief to examine security procedures after allegations arose in Farmingdale, The Associated Press reports.

From teacher-school salary battles to student discipline issues and class-size issues, education law in New York covers many areas important not only to teachers and schools, but to students and parents.

Having sound representation in these areas is critical. Take this news story, for instance. The scandal came to light when teachers at Great Neck North High School began hearing rumors of a scheme to cheat on the SAT, the most widely used standardized test for college admission.

After investigating, seven current or former students were arrested. Authorities say that six of those arrested had an older college student from the high school take their exam in order for them to score better than they could. Teachers found that the scores on the SATs were far better than their grades.

In most places that offer the SAT test, students must sign up for certain dates where the tests will be administered. They must bring a form of identification and sit in a large room with other students to take the timed test. In many situations, students can elect to take the test at any school that is offering test times.

Officials are now reviewing security procedures after revealing an issue at the high school. One older student is accused of accepting up to $2,500 for taking the tests and even dressing up like a girl to take one of the tests. All charged face misdemeanors and have pleaded not guilty, The Associated Press reports.

Investigators have said they are expanding the probe to other schools -- private and public -- and expect to make further arrests soon. At committee hearings recently, officials said students are under immense pressure to perform well on the tests. Bad scores are sent to The College Board and can be used to disqualify a student from getting into a good college or university.

Taking these standardized tests are high-pressure situations, especially for students who do well at assignments and studying, but struggle at test-taking. They know what's on the line -- even with good grades, a bad SAT score could hold them back from getting into their top choices for higher education.

And a degree from a well-respected university can be very important for post-graduate education and in the work force. That said, schools must provide security procedures that are fair to every student. If some are studying hard and trying their best to get good scores to realize their dreams, but other students are cheating, that creates an unfair advantage. And that can ruin futures. Schools must ensure everyone is on a level playing field.

At the same time, the schools may be opened up to litigation in these situations and must have sound legal advice when there is talk of criminal charges, investigations and possible widespread cheating.

Continue reading "Great Neck SAT Cheating Scandal Requires Education Law Lawyer" »

A New York City police officer was arrested recently and charged with civil rights violations after he allegedly falsely accused a man of resisting arrest and followed that up with a racial slur, The New York Times reports.

This is the second recent example of a NYPD officer being charged with a civil rights violation. In Brooklyn recently, we reported on our blog that a seven-year veteran of the force was charged with pepper spraying and handcuffing a person, then accessing state and federal databases to check the person's background after an incident outside a bar owned of one of the officer's relatives.

Accusations of civil rights violations in New York can not only spark outrage, but can demoralize an entire police department. Big-city departments seem to constantly come under fire for race-related allegations, which sometimes lead to criminal charges.

Both the officers who face these charges and the victims who have been cast aside as second-class citizens require legal representation. A lawyer who has the experience on both sides of the issue should be hired to analyze the situation and best represent the client.

In this case, the 32-year-old white police officer is accused of approaching a black man on Targee Street in Staten Island in plain clothes and unmarked police cruiser in April and frisking him.

When the officer found nothing illegal, the man complained about the treatment and asked for his badge number. The officer arrested him and charged him with resisting arrest, telling the man he didn't appreciate being treated with disrespect, The New York Times reports.

The officer's report states the man flailed his arms, kicked his legs and pushed the officer during the arrest. The man spent 36 hours in custody. According to a federal complaint filed against the officer, investigators found text messages and intercepted phone calls on the night of the arrest that show the officer exaggerated facts in the report.

He not only is charged with a misdemeanor civil rights violation, but also extortion and insurance fraud, which could add up to 20 years in prison. The extortion charge is unrelated to this incident, but relates to the officer, who runs a plowing business on the side. Allegedly he lured a man he believed stole his snowplow to a parking lot, where the man was beaten by eight men.

The insurance fraud charges come from him allegedly telling a snow plow worker to bash a truck he owned and then say it was an accident. Investigators allegedly have a recording of the officer's voice saying "these guys are dead" after learning he was being investigated for the beating.

This will be an interesting case for several reasons. The first is that federal prosecutors rarely file charges in a criminal complaint. They typically take the case to a grand jury, which has to decide whether or not to indict. Perhaps they feel the evidence is insufficient.

Second, the case is based on three completely different situations, which could be difficult for the jury to figure out. Whatever the resolution, let's hope the victim and the officer receive fair treatment.

Continue reading "Civil Rights Issue Arises In NYPD Officer Arrest" »

According to the New York State Department of Labor, New York's unemployment rate went unchanged from August to September, staying at 8 percent.

New York City's unemployment is slightly higher at 8.7 percent, but lower than the 9.1 national rate. While it's better to be in a position stronger than the rest of the nation, New York isn't exactly rolling out extra jobs these days.

That's why it's more important than ever that issues such as unemployment discrimination in New York
become things of the past. There have been struggles for years about discrimination in the workplace that have left workers bitter and corporations hammered with lawsuits.

Whether it be hiring and firing based on gender, race, disability or sexual orientation, these issues have been handled by courts nationwide that have ended in them being added to protected classes that can get businesses in big trouble if they violate the law.

Unemployment may soon be added to that class. In June, a law went into effect in New Jersey that banned employers from putting out advertisements for jobs that required applicants to already be employed in order to apply for the new job. The unemployed, people who really needed a job, were left out in the cold.

A New York City bureau president, the New York Daily News reports, has pushed city council members as well as state legislators to introduce bills to ban discrimination in hiring based on unemployment. He said he's found nearly two dozen examples of advertisements recently where employers sought only job seekers who already had a job.

President Barack Obama has taken the issue a step further. According to Bloomberg, the President's new jobs bill would allow companies to be sued for discrimination if they exclude unemployed applicants from trying to get a job.

But Home Depot co-founder Kenneth Langone said the bill could actually be more damaging to job seekers than the good it could do. He believes businesses would simply avoid unemployed applicants for fear they could come under fire for a lawsuit.

Rather than interviewing applicants who are unemployed and opening themselves up to a potential lawsuit under the proposed bill, they would simply elect not to call them back. For that reason, it's possible the bill would actually make it tougher for the unemployed to get job interviews in the first place.

Unemployment discrimination is certainly a problem, but the best way to address it may not be promoting lawsuits against businesses. As usual, Democrats who support the president's bill and Republicans, like Langone, have come out against it. Supporters say the bill goes a long way in ensuring all Americans have equal access to jobs and slam Langone, saying his comments are overblown.

It's certainly true that all New Yorkers should have an equal shot at a job, and their current job status should have nothing to do with whether they get an interview. But it's also true that companies can be selective, and sometimes discriminatory, in hiring and promotions. Whether through legislation or eye-opening jury verdicts, businesses must learn their lesson that they can't discriminate.

Continue reading "Unemployment Discrimination In New York a Hot Topic in Bad Economy" »

A recent Nevada court case shows how prosecutors will cut corners in an effort to make sure that shaky arrest turns into an even shakier conviction.

In Stephans v. State, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the prosecutors couldn't rely on shaky testimony in attempting to convict a man for theft.

Charges of theft in New York City can range from simple shoplifting at a magazine stand to a more serious burglary or armed robbery. Therefore, the penalties can range from a short-term jail stint to major prison time behind bars.

And as is typically the case, prosecutors tend to charge theft suspects with multiple charges. If police believe a person shows a similar pattern to other unsolved crimes, sometimes they'll charge one person so they can close out their "cold case" files.

Or if a burglar is arrested, they could be charged with other related crimes, such as trespassing or using burglary tools. This gives prosecutors an advantage when entering plea negotiations with the defendant. The more potential time they face behind bars, the better deal the state may be able to get.

This case comes down to a man who was arrested and charged with stealing several bottles of cologne from a department store. When apprehended, the man faced charges of grand larceny, burglary and conspiracy to commit larceny.

At trial, the evidence the state relied on came from a loss prevention officer -- a hired security guard -- who was allowed to testify over the objection of defense attorneys. At trial, the officer was allowed to testify as to the actual theft as well as the value of what was stolen.

He testified that he recovered price tags from the stolen merchandise that totaled $477. But no price tags nor duplicates or anyway to confirm these numbers were entered at trial.

As with most states, in Nevada, a $250 value or more must be proven in order to prove grand larceny. Every state has a minimum value that must be proven in order to show what level or type of theft occurred. And for a judge to let a paid staff member of the department store come into court and say he has some price tags that aren't available to sway a jury into convicting is deplorable.

A defendant has a right to a fair trial and a right to have the state prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. That means they can't rely on the word of some person who has no proof. If there are price tags, they should have been made available. Or another person should have been called in to show how much those items were on sale for the day they were stolen. It was a slipshod case that luckily was straightened out on appeal.

Sometimes, an appeal is necessary to correct the mistakes of judges or prosecutors in seemingly simple cases. But, usually, an experienced Great Neck defense attorney can work out these issues in order to avoid a conviction in the first place.

Continue reading "New York Theft Charges Require Proof Under Stephans v. State" »

An appeals court has ruled that the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority didn't have to hold public hearings before it laid off more than 200 subway booth clerks last year, a reversal of a Supreme Court decision, Thomson Reuters reports.

Issues of labor law in New York have always been important, but with the economy sagging, they take on extreme importance these days.

Issues of discrimination in the workplace have no place in this country. Yet, it happens. As we reported in August, unemployment discrimination in New York is prevalent, despite efforts to stop this unfair practice.

The New York Times found in August that many job advertisements were targeting only those people who were already employed. If a person was unemployed, he or she was not welcome to apply. Can you imagine that actually happens? Fortunately, a law is now in effect that bans unemployment discrimination. And both state and federal laws prohibit hiring and firing practices based on age, gender, sexual orientation, race, national origin, disability and other unlawful factors.

The subway clerk issue was based on a rule issue, not a discrimination issue. According to the Transit Workers Union, which represents MTA workers, the staff reductions couldn't go through without an opportunity for public comment since the agency decided to offer mass layoffs rather than cut down staff through attrition.

But an appeals court recently ruled that because public hearings were held on closing customer service kiosks, the different method of downsizing wasn't a big enough issue to require a new hearing.

Some of the laid-off workers were re-hired for other positions, though the overall number of workers is still down. The ruling may be appealed to the state Court of Appeals, a lawyer for the union told Thomson Reuters.

MTA has eliminated clerks in subway stations starting in 2008, instead relying on electronic vending machines. Overnight service, bus and subway lines have been slashed and administrative staff has been laid off as well.

Given the long history of unions in New York and the reliance on laws and rules put in place to protect employees, many of these labor law issues can be complex. This situation wasn't simply a matter of employees being laid off, but whether the layoffs worked within the rules and laws in place.

These complex legal matters dealing with employment must be addressed. Without legal representation, problems can linger on for generations without resolution. There always must be a person who is willing to step up and take action. If rules are broken or laws violated in a workplace setting, a watchdog or whistle-blower cannot sit back and watch the injustices happen without consequence.

In New York employment law issues, this is critical. A person's job is important not only for income, but for his or her well-being. People are typically at work more than at home, so working in a bad environment can be devastating. These issues must be addressed.

Continue reading "NY Subway Clerk Layoffs Were Legitimate, Appeals Court Says" »

A case out of Georgia recently highlighted the importance of a strong theory of defense for a person charged with a crime in New York.

In State v. Green, a man who was simply defending himself was charged with murder and could have faced severe penalties had the charges not been appealed and the indictment dismissed.

While self-defense is most commonly considered usable in cases of murder on Long Island, it can apply to any violent crime, such as assault and battery.

Many states have a "Stand Your Ground" or "castle doctrine" law that allows for people to defend themselves if they are in fear for their lives. In most cases, if a suspect initiates physical violence, the victim can use force in return. The laws in some states are more conservative than others.

In New York, a person may defend themselves, but also has a right to retreat rather than use deadly force. Deadly force can be used if the person reasonably suspects the offender is using or about to use deadly force on them. It requires more calculation that other states' laws.

There are many situations in which self-defense is necessary and in Green's case, this is one of them. According to court documents, Green was in the kitchen of a house he rented from a couple. He was preparing dinner with a butcher knife while having a conversation with the wife.

When the husband saw this, he was enraged and told Green he was kicking him out and stormed off to get his money to refund it. In obvious fear, Green held the knife by his side, not knowing what the man would return with.

When he came back into the kitchen, he grabbed Green's wrists and head-butted him before the knife went into his leg. It punctured the femoral artery, causing him to lose massive amounts of blood en route to dying.

As a result, Green was indicted on charges of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and using a knife during a felony. His attorney filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on a self-defense theory that seems evident. A judge agreed, but the state appealed.

The Georgia Supreme Court agreed with the trial court's decision and dismissed the indictment, agreeing that Green acted in self defense, was in fear for his safety and didn't even attempt to stab the man, who was the aggressor.

Cases like this happen every day. Or a person breaks into a victim's home in an attempt to rob the homeowners, but they use force to protect themselves and end up injuring or killing a suspect and end up charged themselves. It's ludicrous and that's why defendants in this situation in Great Neck require a dedicated attorney to stand by their side in order to ensure justice is done in every case.

Continue reading "State v. Green Illustrates Need for Self Defense in New York City Criminal Cases" »

The Occupy Wall Street movement has garnered national and worldwide attention, encouraging others throughout the United States and across the planet to protest government, big business and other causes.

But this has come with a downside -- criminal charges. Because most cities allow peaceful demonstrations, but require permits, have time limits and don't allow people to sleep on the streets, many protesters have been arrested and carted off to jail.

Thomson Reuters recently reported that disorderly conduct charges against more than 700 people will stand. Disorderly conduct charges in New York against these protesters are simply a misdemeanor, but that doesn't mean it couldn't have long-term effects like a felony conviction could.

When people are arrested at a young age, it can sometimes be attributed to youth and poor decision-making. But that doesn't mean the mark goes away. In fact, a misdemeanor conviction can stay on a person's record forever, causing them problems finding work, getting into college or qualifying to serve in the military.

Most people may consider a misdemeanor a slap on the wrist, but a conviction can result in jail time, probation, fines and fees, other sanctions as well as it sticking with a person for life. People's attitudes change over time and they may find themselves changing careers or looking to erase bad acts of the past. But after a conviction, it's too late.

According to Thomson Reuters, a liberal legal organization had asked the district attorney to drop charges against the protesters, threatening to take any case to trial of a defendant who didn't want to accept a plea or pay a fine.

But the D.A. refused to bargain, instead offering adjournment in contemplation of dismissal. In New York, this means that the case will be postponed for a certain amount of time -- in this case six months -- and if the defendant doesn't pick up a second arrest during that time the charges will be dismissed and the case sealed from public view.

Of the 700 arrests between locations at Union Square and the Brooklyn Bridge, only 340 names appeared on the prosecution's offer, the news service reports. Other defendants received a summons to appear in court on a certain date.

Accepting the offer of adjournment could discourage protesters from participating in other planned demonstrations for fear they would get arrested. A second arrest would make those deals moot and give them additional legal troubles.

Protesters nationwide have caused local law enforcement agencies to fill up their jails with non-violent suspects, while they could be using their time better served finding real criminals. These may be more political moves than criminal investigations, but the bottom line is that arrests are being made and people require legal representation.

When a person is arrested, his or her life is turned upside down. They typically panic and wonder what the future will hold. Their first step should be to contact an aggressive Great Neck criminal defense lawyer, who has the skills and experience to guide them through the process. Whether misdemeanor or felony, the criminal justice system can be daunting and shouldn't be handled alone.

Continue reading "Occupy Wall Street Protesters Will Face Charges, Need New York Criminal Defense Lawyer" »

Tens of billions of dollars are being spent each year by companies attempting to keep their customers' information secret as well as the money being paid back to consumers whose identities and funds have been taken by cyber crime.

It has become a giant problem in this country and worldwide as thieves have taken to computer networks and mobile phone applications to steal money, rather than stealing purses and breaking into people's homes. Identity theft in New York
leaves victims in a wake or frustration and often leads to false charges when law enforcement officers or civil authorities come calling. Both require legal representation.

According to the ABC News article, obvious spam e-mails aren't the only way cyber thieves are striking. They are creating fake applications and making them look realistic, so when they are downloaded, the users have free rein inside your computer.

In some cases, obtaining a person's phone number allows crooksters to place small charges on the user's monthly bill. Most consumers likely won't notice such a small charge or if they do, they may not think it worthwhile to notify customer service and put up the battle that it likely will require.

The article states that for people who have online "credits" in websites, hackers can go after those, too. If each "credit" is redeemable online for cash they have value to hackers. Stealing these credits can also seem trivial to users, but on a large scale, they can mean big bucks for hackers. And they can mean your online identity has been breached, which can result in serious consequences.

Spam is also still a big hit for hackers. Clicking on outrageous headlines that bring up videos or websites that seem fishy can give cyber thieves access to your computer, so they can search for personal information.

Facebook has also been targeted. When users "like" an application, it requires certain information be accessed, such as e-mail accounts, phone numbers, status updates and other information. When phony applications are created on Facebook, they can be used to store this information with the intent of stealing passwords or gaining more access to a person's life.

While there's no doubting that these crimes are happening on a daily basis, tracking down the real culprits can be very difficult. This can lead to false arrests and poor justice. While this is certainly a big problem, a bigger problem is if the wrong people are arrested. Proving who is behind these attacks, which are typically hidden with fake IP addresses, usernames and performed with untrackable networks, can be difficult.

This sometimes leads to police putting the wrong person in handcuffs and the victims getting no justice at all. Getting reimbursed for cyber crimes can take a long time, but consulting with an experienced lawyer can speed up the process and ensure that your rights are protected.

Continue reading "New York City Cyber Crime Defendants, Victims Require Legal Representation" »

A woman going to court in a Georgia city to provide support for a relative was put in an awful situation and it took a lawsuit to change a discriminatory based policy, Thomson Reuters reports.

Religious discrimination in New York has no place in this country, which was founded on religious freedom. Yet people face difficult situations in this country every day based on their religion.

In this case, the woman walked into a courtroom wearing a headscarf and a security guard manning a metal detector told her she couldn't wear the headscarf in court. She told him that policy was discriminatory and she was ordered to remove the headscarf, was placed in handcuffs and arrested and taken to jail on a charge of contempt of court.

Muslim headscarves signify modesty as they cover a woman's neck and hair. But headscarves have sparked controversy in the United States and Europe. In France, the country has banned them on school grounds.

A lawsuit later filed by the woman -- who had her charges dropped -- alleged that by forcing her to remove the headscarf, the policy violated her constitutional right to freedom of religion. She alleged the actions caused "severe discomfort, humiliation and emotional distress."

While some people would argue that not allowing people to wear headscarves is a matter of national security, that, too, is discriminatory. While many Americans' views of the Muslim world are tainted by a small group of extremists, that doesn't give municipalities or companies a right to discriminate.

What policies like these do is place one religious group over another. Those who don't wear headscarves are given preference over those who do. If your religion caused you to take certain time out of the day or wear something and your boss told you you couldn't, you would feel angry, upset, disappointed and most of all, singled out.

These things shouldn't be happening in our country. We were raised to believe that everyone is equal and given equal opportunities, but discrimination quashes that theory. Whatever the form, whether based on religion, race, age, gender, disability, sexual orientation or a host of other protected categories, discrimination is not only wrong, but it's unlawful.

If this happens to you or a loved one, don't allow it. Fighting back is the only way to make a change. Like this woman, she didn't back down, but she forced the city's hand by making them change their policy in order to ensure all people are treated equally.

Continue reading "Headscarf Policy Costs Georgia City in Discrimination Lawsuit" »

Texas Roadhouse, a popular chain restaurant that has a location in East Meadow, has been sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly discriminating against older job-seekers.

Jobs are so difficult to get right now that older workers have felt the squeeze. As reported on our blog recently, the number of older job seekers is at a high level right now and many believe employers aren't giving them consideration.

Employment discrimination on Long Island and elsewhere is unlawful and can't be tolerated. Our country is founded on the principal that everyone is created equally and everyone deserves a fair chance. And at a time when jobs are so scarce, employers must be willing to consider anyone who applies, not just someone of a certain age group.

According to an ABC News report, the federal agency is suing the restaurant chain after it was revealed that waiter and bartenders were rejected for various reasons. Some include:

"We think you are a little too old to work here"
It needed greeters who were "young, hot ones who are 'chipper'"

Attorneys for the EEOC, the federal agency charged with ensuring discrimination laws based on age, race, sexual orientation, gender, disability and other factors are enforced, said the restaurant's management showed a clear case of age discrimination nationwide.

Only 1.9 percent of the "front of the house employees" that customers would see, like waiters, greeters and bartenders, are 40 or older. Workers who are 40 or older are a protected class. That percentage is far lower than the standards at other restaurants, the EEOC says.

Texas Roadhouse denied the allegations and say they would fight them in court. The EEOC, however, says this isn't an uncommon problem. With the economy in a downturn, workers 55 and older have spent far more time looking for work than younger jobless Americans.

Because waiting tables or being a greeter doesn't require a certain age group, the Texas Roadhouse case appears to be a clear case of age discrimination. Older employers are stereotypically more costly because of higher wages and health insurance costs, but that's not necessarily the case. In fact, studies have shown that younger woman -- because of pregnancy costs -- actually are more expensive for health insurance purposes.

Research has found that older workers take fewer days off than younger workers and get sick less often, but do end up spending more time on sick leave when they do get injured.

At a time when jobs are at such a premium, employers seem to be taking that as a sign that they can discriminate against certain groups. But this isn't right. While they have far more applicants to choose from, they can't have a systematic plan to choose certain age or racial groups over others.

Every worker should have a chance to get a job. Obviously, there are some exceptions, where older or younger workers simply can't do the job. But for most cases -- especially in restaurant work that isn't specialized -- every applicant should get serious consideration. If not, the law has been broken.

Continue reading "Texas Roadhouse Sued By Feds For Alleged Age Discrimination on Long Island, Nationwide" »

The tragic suicide of 14-year-old Jamey Rodemeyer from Williamsville, New York brought to light the anti-bullying efforts schools have made and what can be done to improve the situation.

Jamey killed himself after enduring bullying because he was gay. And his story made national headlines because he laid out his frustrations in a web video before his death. A recent study by the University of California at Los Angeles found that anti-bullying rules often discriminate against minorities and disabled students.

For the most part, New York education law tries to get it right. But the school system and the law makes mistakes and students face discrimination as a result.

Policies school boards think will fix a certain problem can end up creating another, unrelated problem. Needy and disabled students often end up getting the short end of the stick when all students aren't considered after administrators create rules or impose punishment.

According to the UCLA study, anti-bullying policies became fairly widespread following the 2003 "No Child Left Behind" legislation that made vast changes to schools across the country. President Barack Obama has also called for school administrators not to tolerate bullying.

Under "zero-tolerance" policies that have been enacted, bullies can usually be suspended or expelled for school in an effort to make education safer and more accessible to children.

But "problem children" may end up hurting under policies designed to punish kids who are willfully picking on other children at school. The UCLA Civil Rights Project says that minority students and those suffering from disabilities end up getting unjustly punished because of policies designed for bullies. When they miss school, they end up suffering academically.

The U.S. Department of Education wants to survey children to find out if they view their school as safe. It also warned schools that they could face federal penalties if they can't control bullying.

In Maryland and Connecticut, zero-tolerance policies result in having to take behavioral classes or remaining in class if they violate rules but don't pose a threat to other students. Texas, however, ends up suspending or expelling 31 percent of its students, a number that some think leads to children dropping out of school.

All students -- regardless of race or physical ability -- have the right to get a good education. And it's not only a right, but a necessity. A person simply cannot survive and have a strong future if they aren't educated.

And schools have an obligation to provide that education. School administrators must look at students in terms of an individual and not as a statistic or falling under a blanket rule. They must take into consideration that kicking a student out of school hampers their future and prevents them from realizing their dreams.

That's why students are parents require legal representation that can be essential in making changes to school policy and ensuring that students and future students are treated fairly. No one wants their child to endure bullying and it should be stopped. But what also should be stopped is impeding on learning.

In most cases, even bullies deserve second chances. Throwing a child out of school, and perhaps permanently damaging their future, is no answer.

Continue reading "New York Anti-Bullying Rules Hurt Disadvantaged Students, Study Shows" »

A veteran New York police officer, with seven years of service, was arrested recently and charged with violating the civil rights of a person he allegedly sprayed with pepper spray in Brooklyn, Thomson Reuters reports.

Civil rights charges filed against police officers are far too common. While there are hundreds of charges a person can face, including theft crimes, drug crimes, assault and battery and even murder in New York, an officer's worst nightmare is facing a criminal charge for an offense allegedly committed while on duty.

Officers require a strong criminal defense just like the average citizen. But while there are thousands of crimes committed every hour nationwide, that means there are thousands of victims as well.

And while not every defendant charged with a crime is guilty, that still leaves victims needing answers. They require legal representation as well. Victims need a strong voice in order to be heard.

In the instance of the police officer, the 31-year-old now faces up to 17 years in prison if he is convicted in federal court of the charges for which he has been indicted. According to Thomson Reuters, the officer allegedly used pepper spray in 2008 during an argument over parking in front of a bar owned by the cop's cousin.

While on duty and in uniform, the officer allegedly said "no one (expletive) with my cousin's place," before he handcuffed and detained the unnamed victim. A second person was also pepper sprayed.

Prosecutors also allege the officer used the department's computer systems to access information about the victim. They say he also used the computer system to access federal databases on behalf of his cousin, who is being investigated by the FBI on drug trafficking allegations.

If true, this is obviously a disturbing story because police officers have so much authority. To think officers will, while on duty, violate citizens' rights in order to protect a family member's business is tough to swallow.

But another thing that must be taken into consideration here is the possibility that this officer -- whose cousin is being investigated by the FBI -- may have been unfairly targeted.

In a criminal case, all angles must be considered. When a person's liberty is on the line, everything must be looked at in order to ensure justice is done.

And the victims deserve justice as well. That means getting compensation in cases where they had to pay for medical care or to reimburse them for the emotional and physical turmoil that so often comes with civil rights violations in New York. This is why the legal system was created. All sides must be represented and what is fair must be the outcome.

Continue reading "NYPD Officer Faces Civil Rights Violation, Criminal Charges After Brawl" »

It's obvious that banks across America have had problems in recent years with the out-of-control foreclosure process.

But a recent article by iwatchnews.org shows that banks were so overwhelmed by what was going on that they were fraudulently altering documents in foreclosure cases and fired employees who saw it and reported it.

Retaliation in New York and elsewhere is against the law, plain and simple. A company cannot fire an employee because they are a whistleblower or reported something illegal or wrong was going on in the business. This includes safety violations.

Sadly, this happens, however. Employers know they are doing wrong and when someone confronts them or points out what is happening because they are trying to do the right thing, the company comes down with the hammer.

Countrywide was one of the largest lenders in the country when Bank of America bought it in 2008. Since then, many reports have detailed the problems that Countrywide had with loan servicing, robo-signing and filing fraudulent documents in foreclosure cases.

But this story goes beyond signing fake signatures to documents. According to the news story, in 2007, corporate investigators for Countrywide sifted through paper that was in shred bins in the Boston area.

By finding the documents before they were shredded, investigators were able to find evidence that Countrywide workers were using scissors, tape and Wite-Out to create documents -- fake banks statements, inflated property appraisals and appraisals switched on different properties.

This documentation was being used to kick people out of their homes. They were literally cutting and pasting documents together to make this happen.

Eileen Foster, the company's fraud investigations chief, began looking into the problems and immediately got pushback from the company's brass. One executive sent an e-mail to dozens of workers in the Boston area, warning them that there was an internal investigation and telling them not to put anything that could hurt them in writing. And she got a call from another chewing her out.

A senior manager who oversaw the branches wasn't made available for an interview by investigators. Instead, the company's "Employee Relations Department" did the interview and let managers vet the transcript before handing it over to investigators.

While employees were fired and branches shut down, many of the executives who likely authorized or demanded such actions went unscathed. Others who spoke up about the fraud were laid off. And when Bank of America bought out Countrywide, they fired her for "unprofessional conduct."

But after the U.S. government intervened recently, she was given her job back and paid $930,000, after it was found that she was fired for retaliation for being a whistleblower. Others who worked with her say there was no way she was unprofessional, but only that the company had had enough of her digging.

Issues like these must be brought to light. A person cannot face this type of retaliation or discrimination in New York and allow companies to get away with it. It's wrong and it's unlawful.

Continue reading "Countrywide Retaliates Against Employees Digging Up Fraud on Foreclosures in New York" »

Andy Rooney retired recently at the age of 92 and after more than six decades working for CBS on "60 Minutes."

It's really amazing in this day to consider that someone would work until they are 92, but also that they would be able to work for a company for more than 60 years. There simply isn't that kind of company or employee loyalty anymore in corporate America.

Not only for younger employees coming into the workforce now, but for older jobless as well. MSNBC reports that claims of unemployed older workers have spiked in recent years, as older Americans feel they aren't getting a fair shot at available jobs. For those in their 50s or 60s who are out of work, the job hunt can be particularly difficult.

Age discrimination in New York is among the unlawful ways companies and employers show bias against workers. Also banned is discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability and religion, among others.

Age discrimination is on the rise. In 2006, there were 16,000 claims of age discrimination sent to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In 2010, that number spiked to more than 23,000, a 44 percent hike.

Older employees, in some instances, are seen as good for the company because they bring years of experience, knowledge of the craft and a stability that younger workers often lack. But older workers have been increasingly seen by employers as less than desirable, the article states.

Since the Great Recession, where older workers have been laid off as companies cut corners and try to save money, they have been unable to find work. In a high-profile case, technology firm 3M had to pay out $3 million in a lawsuit after the company laid off workers who were over 45.

In an e-mail, one of the officials stated that the company needed to develop 30-year-olds who have management potential, which followed the layoffs of the older workers.

Age discrimination is common in several areas:
-Lack of promotions
-Not given opportunities to receive training
-Not hired because officials believe they can't adapt to changes

Experts believe companies feel it's OK to lay off older workers because they have a feeling they are more established and therefore have more money stored away than younger workers. With the instability in the economy, that's far from a given.

Also, research shows that younger workers end up taking more days off from work than older workers and because of pregnancy issues, young women end up costing more to insure. While older workers get injured less often than younger workers, they take longer to recover.

AARP's August report on employment found that the average time that older workers -- 55 and older -- spend on unemployment is 52.4 weeks, compared to 37.4 weeks for younger job seekers. The report also found that 54.9 percent of older unemployed were "long-term unemployed" -- meaning they have been out of work for 27 weeks or more.

Older workers are getting discouraged because they feel like they don't have a chance to get work. They feel like they are being shown the door at a higher rate than their younger co-workers and that may be due to age discrimination in New York.

Continue reading "Older Job Seekers Feeling Sting of Age Discrimination in New York" »