New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog

On the surface, it may appear that the "no fatties" New York City employment lawsuit filed against a local sports bar was about weight.

But New York City discrimination lawyers recognize that it's actually about sexual discrimination and sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.

According to various media reports, two women who worked as waitresses and bartenders for a New York City restaurant and bar claim that the company had a policy of "no fatties." The female employees were reported singled out and forced to step on a scale to be weighed. One of the women who refused was reportedly forcibly picked up by a male staffer and placed on the scale against her will.

Another staffer says that the night manager reportedly groped her breasts and buttocks and made vulgar and inappropriate sexual comments to her and about her weight.

This had gone on from between 2004 to 2006. Then in the summer of 2006, members of the management team reportedly charted the female staffers' weight and posted it on the internet.

When the women complained, they said, they were fired.

Of course, as New York City employment lawyers recognize, you can't legally be fired for reporting or complaining about discriminatory behavior - which it certainly appears this was. If their account is true, this is an issue of clear-cut employment retaliation.

The issue is not so much about the issue of weight or size. The women were not reportedly fired for being overweight. While that is certainly illegal, it can be more subjective and difficult to prove. (If you find yourself in a similar situation, an experienced attorney can help you explore all your options.)

However in this case, the women were singled out because they were women. They were subjected to poor treatment and sexual harassment because they were women. And they were fired because they complained about it.

Of course, the company has a very different take on this. According to attorneys for the restaurant and managers, the women were fired for unrelated reasons. They say the women frequently showed up late to work and ate on the job.

Those things may be true, but the timing appears awfully suspicious.

Sexual discrimination is one of those things that is severely under-reported, and sometimes the reasoning for that is employees don't often recognize it outright.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission outlines that sex discrimination essentially involves a person being treated unfavorably because of his or her sex. The law expressly forbids discrimination in terms of pay, job assignments, hiring, firing, promotions, fringe benefits, layoffs, training or any other condition of employment.

And with regard to sexual harassment, it can include unwelcome sexual advances or asking for sexual favors or physical or verbal harassment. What's more, the harassment doesn't even have to be particularly sexual. It can simply mean one person making offensive or derogatory remarks about a person's sex. An example might be making offense comments about women in general.

The law doesn't cover teasing or isolated incidents or offhand remarks. But there can be a fine line here. It becomes illegal when it gets to a point that the work environment has become hostile or offensive.

The case involving the waitresses appears to meet that criteria. The case will be decided by a jury.

Continue reading "New York Employment Discrimination Not Always Easily Recognizable" »

The money your company invests now in its New York City employment contracts can ultimately save you literally millions of dollars in the long run.

Manhattan employment law attorneys understand that these documents can be worth more than their weight in gold when disputes arise - as they inevitably do in business.

That has been the case with Tyco International and its former CFO, Mark Swartz, who has been imprisoned in connection with looting the firm. He's now suing the company for $60 million he says he's owed in retirement money.

Here's what we know of the case thusfar, as reported by Reuters:

The case is Mark H. Swartz v. Tyco International Ltd, and alleges the company is guilty of breach of contract for failing to pay Swartz his retirement money.

Tyco is a company based out of Switzerland and holds service and manufacturing units and makes security systems.

Swartz headed the industrial company from 1995 to 2002. Then in late 2002, he was indicted for securities fraud and grand larceny for stealing millions from the company.

In 2005, he was convicted, as was Tyco's former chief executive, Dennis Kozlowski (whom you may remember purchased a $6,000 shower curtain, marking him a tangible symbol of corporate greed). Both were sentenced to between 8 and 25 years in prison. Both are currently being housed at the minimum security Lincoln Correctional Facility. Swartz is given furloughs, where he is released Wednesdays and returns on Mondays.

Kozlowski also filed a lawsuit against the company, saying that he deserved millions in benefits from Tyco. Two years ago, however, a federal judge denied that claim.

Swartz's claim, though, is a little different.

He is saying that the company, to which he has paid more than $70 million in restitution, is in breach of contract for $48 million worth of retirement funds, as well as $9 million in taxes and other monies.

But his lawsuit, which was filed in the New York state Supreme Court, says that the company was aware that the local district attorney was planning to file criminal charges against him at the time that it rubber stamped his contract, which is the one at issue in his lawsuit. He claims that both the management and directors approved the agreement knowing that Swartz was going to soon be indicted. That, he says, means that they had no intention of actually honoring it.

Whether or not he is successful, the greater point for both sides is that employment contracts in New York City have to be thoroughly vetted by an experienced attorney - whether you are the employee or the employer. You should weigh all potential factors that could impact the strength and legality of the contract - and protect your rights and financial interests.

Continue reading "Invest Now In Employment Contracts To Save You From Later Headaches" »

The New York City embezzlement defense of former state Senator Pedro Espada Jr. hinged on whether his earnings from his own medical clinics in poor neighborhoods crossed the line.

New York City criminal defense attorneys know that it's not a crime to make money, to do well for yourself. It's possible that were it not for the political drama that was unfolding in the state at the same time, Espada might never have faced any criminal charges.

But as it turns out, he was found guilty of four counts of embezzlement, while a mistrial was declared on four other counts.

Espada is accused of pilfering taxpayer money that was intended to help poor patients and instead using it to treat himself to expensive ballpark outings, children's pony rides and expensive vehicles.

But digging a little deeper, it certainly appears that dirty politics played a role in the case. This of course illustrates the need for a skilled New York City criminal defense attorney in cases of alleged white collar crime.

Prosecutors in this case took weeks to introduce into evidence mountains of bank statements, checks and credit card bills that they contended revealed a secret scam in which Espada and his son would funnel money from the clinics they founded into their pockets. They allegedly did this by overcharging for certain fees, such as cleaning.

Meanwhile, prosecutors contend the clinics (of which there are four) struggled with only a handful of doctors, never enough cash and machinery that was out-of-date.

Espada founded the first of four clinics back in the late 1970s in the Bronx. Each center provided social and health care services. The clinics were subsidized by government funding.

Espada's defense attorneys say that yes, he made money off the clinics. But first of all, these clinics are situated in neighborhoods that would otherwise have no access to health care at all. And secondly, earning is not a crime.

What's crucial to understanding how all this came about, though, is understanding the political climate in the city at the time Espada was first charged. Espada, a Puerto Rican street fighter, eventually graduated from college, founded these successful clinics prior to his election to his senate post. He had just been re-elected in 2008, and in a coalition with two other Democrats, demanded leadership roles within the Democratic party in order to alleviate what he said was a lack of Latino and minority voice. If those demands weren't met, Espada and the others threatened to join the Republicans in voting on major issues, which would ultimately end the Democratic majority - the first in 50 years.

Espada and the others followed through with the threat, joining the Republicans. It was politically very ugly, and ultimately cost him his senate seat.

It was in this climate that Espada was accused of embezzlement from the clinics. He described it as a political "witch hunt."

The gamble with politics sometimes is that you can lose big. However, disagreeing with someone politics doesn't make you a criminal.

Having an aggressive white collar crimes attorney on your side in these situations is critical.

Continue reading "New York City Embezzlement Defense Tricky With Ugly Politics " »

It appears New York employment law is falling behind the times.

Our employment litigation attorneys have been closely following the news out of Illinois, which is poised to become the second state to protect employees and prospective employees from being forced to divulge their passwords and log in information to their private social media sites.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn is debating whether to sign the bill into law. If he does, Illinois and Maryland would be the only two states with this type of protection.

In New York, there has yet to be any serious debate among legislators at the state level about whether to press forward with a similar measure, although given the pervasiveness of social media in America and throughout the world (more than 900 million active users across the globe), this is expected to become a major point of contention between employers and employees.

Democratic U.S. Senators from both New York and Connecticut have asked that the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission launch an investigation into the legalities of the issue. We'll all be waiting to hear the outcome of that.

In April, two U.S. representatives (one from New York) introduced the Social Networking Online Protection Act. If passed into federal law, it would bar employers or potential employers from mandating that employees fork over their passwords, username or other information in relation to their social networking profile.

Of course, even if it does pass, people in general need to be careful about what they post to their profile in terms of information and pictures because some of that information can be seen publicly - and there's nothing to stop an employer or potential employer from using public information against you.

On the one hand, certain employers believe they have a strong interest in thoroughly vetting employees and prospective job candidates - to the point that the privacy of the latter is overshadowed. These primarily include in jobs where public trust is key: i.e., teaching, law enforcement and banking.

However, without legislation to stop or at least limit the process, we are giving up quite a bit in terms of personal liberty in exchange for the "privilege" of having a job.

And it's about more than just the privacy of the employee or job candidate. That person may have hundreds of "friends" on his or her social networking site, and those individuals have the expectation that certain correspondence is private. Those individuals aren't even given a choice about whether that correspondence is subject to review by their "friend's" employer.

If the Social Networking Online Protection Act is passed, New York state legislators probably won't feel compelled to push a measure at the state level, unless there are loopholes.

Continue reading "New York City Employment Law Needs to Catch Up to Social Media" »

Researchers at the University of Buffalo studying the fairness of New York City employment litigation discovered that plaintiffs often face an uphill battle.

Our employment discrimination attorneys know that it can certainly feel intimidating to go up against a wealthy, well-established corporation with deep pockets. But what is important for you to note is that if you're in the right, your chances of winning out are good.

What is key to that success, however, is a solid, experienced attorney who is familiar with employment law in New York and knows how to deftly guide you through a confusing and sometimes daunting process.

The University of Buffalo study, conducted by Sociologists Ellen Berrey and Steve Hoffman, indicates that while both sides of these disputes often question the fairness of the proceedings, employers tend to have more resources at their disposal. This is not really anything new, but it's important to point out because you need to be educated about what you're going up against.

We also know that there has been successful employment litigation against a number of corporate giants, so it truly is a matter of being thorough in your own research and choosing an employment litigation lawyer who knows the law.

The study is entitled, "Situated Justice: A Contextual Analysis of Fairness and Inequality in Employment Discrimination Litigation." It was published in the Law and Society Review.

Hoffman and Berry essentially looked at a random national sample of employment civil rights cases. They also conducted 100 interviews with lawyers, defendants and plaintiffs who were somehow connected or involved in cases of employment discrimination lawsuits.

Interestingly, both defendants and plaintiffs view the process as patently unfair. Plaintiffs say they often start out brimming with optimism, and then tend to get discouraged due to the length of the litigation and the fact that the results aren't always generated as quickly as they may prefer. Particularly when you're taking on a larger corporation, any lawyer who tells you the process will be simple or without a few headaches is a lawyer of whom you should be wary.

However, that does not mean that your case is not worth taking to court. Each case has to be weighed and sifted based on the circumstances of the case. Rest assured, however, if we take on your New York discrimination case, you have a good shot at being successful.

Conversely, employers also viewed the process as skewed in favor of the plaintiffs in that they believed frivolous lawsuits that had no merit could be filed against the company at will by anyone - often disgruntled employees. They would be forced to shell out big money in legal fees to defend the case, regardless of the strength of the plaintiff's case.

The unfortunate truth is that such cases can prove to be a thorn in a company's side. However, most people aren't going to go to the trouble of bringing forth an employment litigation lawsuit unless they're legitimate, and our attorneys stand ready to honestly and fully answer any questions you might have.

Continue reading "Study: New York City Employment Lawsuits Can Seem Daunting " »