New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog

Our New York City employment lawyers know that women are not expendable assets - fine for when business is going well, but unnecessary when it comes time to belt-tightening.

And yet, that is the allegation being made by five female executives who say they unfairly lost their jobs in the wake of the financial meltdown.

That some bank executives no longer have jobs wouldn't merit much attention - or sympathy - but for the fact that a number of lesser qualified male employees were able to hold on to their positions -- at least according to the allegations.

To be sure, the implosion of the housing market and the subsequent recession necessitated cuts within a number of large financial institutions. But an attorney for the former executives says the number of those who were women, in proportion to men, combined with the fact that there were few women at these institutions in the first place, show a clear discrimination.

For example at one public finance firm, 45 percent of the company's top executives laid off were women. And yet, only 12 percent of the department was comprised of women to start.

In fact, of the roughly 260,000 lay-offs in the financial sector just after the housing bust, 72 percent were women, who made up about 60 percent of the workforce in the first place.

This has left a number of firms with no more top female management.

And this is not a phenomenon that is solely found in the financial sector.

In fact, recently-released federal data showed that since June 2009, men have been the ones to land about 80 percent of the 2.6 million jobs that have been created. In the last year, they have snapped up more than 60 percent of new jobs.

Part of this has to do with the kind of jobs that are being created. Men largely dominate manufacturing jobs, and a number of those sectors have rebounded in the last couple of years. Meanwhile in government, which is occupied by a majority of women, has continued to be hit hard with budget cuts.

However, the co-director for the Center for Economic and Policy Research was quoted by the L.A. Times as saying that there is a sneaking suspicion that some employers will take a male applicant more seriously than a female, even when both are equally qualified.

This is gender discrimination.

It can be difficult to prove, but it is illegal and should be taken seriously and discussed with an experienced New York City employment lawyer.

Continue reading "Recession Used an Excuse for Gender Discrimination in NYC? " »

Grand larcenies are up in Great Neck and across Nassau County, according to new figures released by the Nassau County Police Department.

Our Great Neck criminal defense attorneys understand that the root cause is theft from parked cars that aren't locked. In most cases, police sources say that valuables are left in plain site with the windows down or the cars unlocked.

Police say that suspects generally work in teams of two, walking down both sides of a residential street checking for unlocked doors.

From a defense standpoint, grand larceny is one of the most common crimes, though the severity of penalties ranges depending on the value of the items stolen.

NY PL 155.30(1) defines grand larceny in the fourth degree as any instance in which a person takes property valued at more than $1,000. Conviction on this felony charge is punishable by up to four years in prison.

NY PL 155.35 defines grand larceny in the third degree as theft of property valued at $3,000 or more, and it's punishable by up to 7 years behind bars.

NY PL 155.40(1) defines grand larceny in the second degree as theft of property valued at more than $50,000, and it's punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

The most severe form of the charge is first-degree grand larceny, which under NY PL 155.42 is defined as theft of property that exceeds more than $1 million. That's punishable by up to 25 years in prison.

If a person is convicted of attempting to steal valuables at any of these amounts but isn't successful, the level of crime is dropped a degree.

With regard to theft from cars, we'd generally be dealing with either grand larceny in the fourth-degree or petty theft. Petty theft is a Class A misdemeanor, which means it's punishable by up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Because Nassau County police have specifically stated that it's not a rise in petty theft but in grand larcenies, we're going to assume these are generally fourth-degree grand larcenies.

Because you're looking at a four-year prison term in these cases, it's critical that you seek counsel from an experienced criminal defense lawyer if you're accused of this crime.

One possible defense would be mistaken identity, meaning the police either got the wrong person or you were maybe nearby but were not involved in the theft.

Alternately, if there is ample evidence you were involved, your attorney could argue that even if you were involved in the theft, the property in question was not valuable enough to rise to the level of a grand larceny. Your lawyer might therefore argue for a reduced charge.

According to a local newspaper, the number of grand larcenies is up almost 30 percent within the last year, from about 475 in 2010 to 608 in 2011.

Also increasing are the number of robberies, which police indicate jumped 13 percent, from 62 in 2010 to 70 in 2011.

Continue reading "Larcenies, Other Property Crimes, Up in Great Neck " »

Major banks have been accused of a number of misdeeds in recent years relating to the economic collapse. But now the most recent allegation involves potential employment discrimination in New York.

Our Great Neck employment law attorneys understand that two former employees have filed separate lawsuits accusing mega-banks Bank of America and Cantor Fitzgerald of company-wide racism.

Unfortunately, cases such as this can be difficult to prove. It's like being pulled over by a police officer. He or she may have initiated the stop based on your race, but if you were speeding, had a headlight that was out or tinted windows, it can be difficult to prove that the officer was wrong to stop you.

It's the same kind of uphill battle for employees who allege discrimination - an experienced law firm can help. Evidence might include an executive's statement made in the presence of others or some electronic communication such as an e-mail or something else to indicate that action taken against you (or favorable action not taken toward you) was on the basis of your race or some other protected status, such as your religion, gender or sexual orientation. A pattern of behavior on the part of the company can also go toward proof of employment bias.

Ideally, your complaint would be combined with a solid work history. In other words, the employer had no reason to take the action against you that it did except for a personally-held or company-wide bias.

That may well have been the case here, though it remains to be seen how the courts will decide.

In the first of these two cases, James v. Cantor Fitzgerald LP, filed in the US. District Court in the Southern District of New York, the plaintiff is a black man who worked at Cantor Fitzgerald for four years, ending in the summer of 2008. During that time, he says he endured racial harassment from co-workers that was condoned by his managers. This harassment included certain colleagues making ape-like noises while around him and in one case, a co-worker saying he would be enjoying a weekend absent any African Americans, only he used a slur instead.

The plaintiff says that he notified the bank management about it, but rather than address it, he says, he was denied promotions. In one case, he says, a bank manager instructed him to transfer locations so he could "be around his own people." The employee says when he pressed the supervisor for the meaning of that statement, he said the supervisor responded by telling him he needed to be around other African Americans.

He says he was fired for complaining about the harassment. He is asking for his job back, as well as back pay, bonuses and punitive damages.

In the second case, a black male was a manager at a Bank of America branch from early in 2007 until the summer of 2008. During that time, he stated that the branch policy was that white customers should not be served by African American employees.

What that meant for the manager was that he was routinely assigned to branches that were in lower-income communities. That in turn led to affecting certain commission and compensation. The manager said when he complained about this, he was fired.

He is seeking $10 million in damages.

Continue reading "Race Discrimination Alleged at NYC Banks" »

The case of a New York City police officer who was collared in a ticket-fixing scandal has taken a startling twist, with the prime suspect now accused of conspiring to have a key witnesses killed.

Our Great Neck criminal defense lawyers know that it will be critical for the defendant's legal team to carefully review the state's allegations.

The entire ordeal sounds like it could have been something out of a dirty cop movie - which is precisely why it has garnered the headlines. But in real life, the case won't be resolved in 140 minutes. It's going to be an arduous process of analyzing witness testimony, recorded phone calls that reportedly relied heavily on secret codes, and detailed review of bank and insurance records.

If the defendant and his wife, also accused in the case, have any hope of a favorable outcome, it is going to involve a skilled and experienced criminal defense lawyer.

Here are the basics of what we know of this complex case:

Ticket-fixing among the ranks has long persisted, a well-oiled system for making tickets go away. This resulted in a large-scale, internal investigation into the practice that ultimately resulted in the arrest of 16 officers in October - including the one in question in this case. He was personally charged with attempted grand larceny, attempted robbery, revealing the identity of a confidential informant and allegedly transporting what he believed to be drugs for a dealer.

Following the 43-year-old defendant's arrest, he and his 39-year-old wife reportedly used code while he was incarcerated to discuss hiring someone to execute a key witness in the case. According to prosecutors, the two spoke in code for various people and places, in one instance, using nearly half a dozen aliases for the same individual.

The wife reportedly went so far as to meet with someone she initially believed to be a hit man in her home to complete the transaction, though she stopped short of actually handing over the cash once she began to suspect the interaction was being taped, prosecutors say.

Now all of this might appear to indicate a strong case for the prosecution. But one must consider, in particular, the use of the discussions in code.

Similar issues have been raised regarding the Florida shooting of teenager Trayvon Martin earlier this year, where the main suspect and his wife are accused of talking in code in an effort to conceal assets. His wife was later charged with perjury as a result.

But the success of the prosecutions case in New York will depend on exactly what words were exchanged between the pair, and whether, in actuality, it amounts to code about a murder or simply the discussions between a husband and wife hoping not to have their every word analyzed.

This brings up an important point for anyone incarcerated: Your correspondence with anyone except your lawyer will no longer be considered private. Anything you say over the phone or in written correspondence can later be used against you. This is why it's important not to discuss your case - or any other possibly relevant details - with anyone but your attorney while the case is pending.

We understand this can be extremely difficult, particularly given that if you are awaiting trial on criminal charges, you are likely under an enormous amount of stress. But this is critical because you don't want those conversations being scrutinized, or worse, used against you in court.

Continue reading "NYPD Officer Accused of Murder-for-Hire Plot in Ticket-Fix Scandal" »

Robyn Fenty is not the first businesswoman to encounter major losses and headaches as a result of shoddy work by accountants. She is, however, perhaps one of the most famous.

Also known as Rihannna, the Barbadian pop star is suing her former accountants, alleging she lost tens of millions of dollars as a result of poor bookkeeping, an ongoing Internal Revenue Service audit and a failure to recommend she curb expenses during her most recent tour.

Our New York City business litigation lawyers understand that many entrepreneurs have a keen sense of the business world, but we rely on those professionals whom we hire to keep the books to do an accurate, thorough and overall competent job.

When that does not happen, and the company or enterprise loses money or assets as a result, the company may have cause to seek legal compensation. Having an attorney with experience in business litigation is crucial because these cases can become quite legally technical, and you need someone who is familiar with state law and regulatory guidelines governing accounting practices and standards.

In the State of New York, certified public accountants (or CPAs) must be licensed by the state, and the updated legislation governing their responsibilities is located in Article 149 of New York State's Education Law. There is a state board that oversees public accountancy, and determines whether an applicant is of good moral character and has met all the other requirements in order to practice, including mandatory continued education.

In this case, the accountants' licenses are not in question, but rather their competency. Fenty's lawyers claim that the accountants drained her accounts of tens of millions of dollars in potential revenue over a five-year period, as she continued to work both national and international tours.

For example, her 2009 "Last Girl on Earth" tour reportedly incurred major net losses, despite the fact that these were sold out shows. It was later revealed that the accountants had paid themselves more than 20 percent of total revenues, while paying Fenty about 6 percent.

Her lawsuit contends that the accounting company's uncommon practice of paying itself commissions on the tour as part of it's income left the agency with no incentive to inform Fenty and her team that they needed to reign in expenses - namely, a $7 million home in L.A. It later turned out that the home had a number of structural defects that reportedly made it unlivable, and she has also taken the real estate company to court on that issue.

Additionally, the ongoing audit, Fenty's lawyers indicate, has consumed her valuable time and resources in efforts to correct numerous errors.

At its core, the main issue in this lawsuit is a breach of contract. Fenty paid well for the competent accounting services for which she was promised. She'll now have to prove she has a strong case that she did not get what she was paying for.

Continue reading "Singer Sues Former Accountants for Millions in New York " »

The woman at the center of a New York discrimination lawsuit later told reporters it wasn't about the money.

Despite the $83,000 settlement the former special needs teacher received, she echoed what many of our clients say: It was about the principle of equality in the workforce.

It's something our New York employment litigation attorneys take very seriously. We believe that each of these civil rights cases that is won gets us all one step closer to a more diverse - and ultimately better - workforce.

The truth is, not only is discrimination flat-out illegal and morally wrong, but it impedes innovation and progress if everyone within a company or industry is exactly the same.

Disability discrimination, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), happens when an employer treats either an employee or a job candidate unfavorably simply because he or she has a disability. The law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee or prospective job candidate who has a disability, except if doing so would cause some sort of undue hardship. Generally, these laws are going to apply to all government and private employers who have more than 15 employees.

Reasonable accommodations would be such measures as modifying or providing certain devices or equipment, modifying work schedules or positions and making the workplace accessible and usable for those who are disabled.

Those things were reportedly at the center of the suit filed by the former West New York elementary special needs school teacher.

According to local news reports, the teacher fell at work back in 2006. She subsequently underwent knee surgery, but that only appeared to worsen her condition. The doctor informed her that if she was going to return to work, she would need to do so with a motorized scooter.

She did return, but was soon transferred by the district to the middle school, which was apparently better suited to her mobility needs, according to the school. However, the teacher said in her 2009 Division on Civil Rights Complaint that the middle school was not any better suited to accommodate her.

In one instance, the teacher was reprimanded for filing a complaint against a student who reportedly threw a bicycle at her. However, the administrative meeting she was to attend regarding that incident was inaccessible to her scooter. Forced to use a cane to navigate the building, she reportedly slipped and fell.

In another instance, her identification card, which gave her access to the school's automatic handicap doorway, stopped working. The school, she says, did nothing to rectify the situation once informed of it. Following fire drills, she was left in the parking lot because she couldn't get back in. She had to call another teacher to open the door.

There were also instances where other non-handicapped employees used the handicap parking spaces, leaving it inaccessible to her.

She was later fired.

All of these incidents collectively amount to a solid case for disability discrimination by the district, which is probably what ultimately led to their settlement agreement.

In addition to the payment the district must make to its former employee, the settlement agreement also mandates that the school will hold anti-discrimination training seminars for all management staff.

Continue reading "New York Disability Discrimination Hurts Everyone " »