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" »

New York City discrimination attorneys have been watching the case involving a New Jersey woman who claims religious and sex discrimination with regard to her employer's dress code.

New York City discrimination lawyers understand that while many employee dress codes are totally legal, there is a fine line between enforcing somewhat Draconian dress codes and employment discrimination.

Before we explain more fully, here's what we know of this case, according to Good Morning America:

A woman from New Jersey was hired to work as a data entry clerk at a lingerie wholesale company, headquartered in Manhattan.

She had worked there only two days, she said, when she was first counseled by her superior. Her supervisor had informed her that the store owners, who are reportedly Orthodox Jews, were unhappy with the woman's outfit, deeming it, "distracting."

When she asked what the dress code was, she was told to look around and take stock of what the other female employees were wearing. She said she observed that attire to be basically a range from "very" casual athletic wear to formal business attire.

The woman says she came to work the next day fully covered in a gray t-shirt, black jean leggings and boots. Her employers, however, found this unsatisfactory. At that point, she alleges she was instructed to tape down her breasts. When she asked if the supervisor was kidding, he responded that she was simply to cover up more.

The supervisor then reportedly gave her a hideous bath robe and instructed her to wear it. The worker said she was humiliated, and was taunted by co-workers. She was eventually given the option to go purchase a sweater, which she then left to do. However, while shopping for a sweater, she received a call telling her not to return.

Now, here's the thing: Existing law regarding sex discrimination prohibits policies that impose discriminatory burdens or that are sexually demeaning. However, dress codes in and of themselves aren't illegal.

So even if a company wants to demand that female workers wear skirts and make-up, it's not considered discriminatory, unless maybe the male employees in the same position are allowed to walk around in jeans and t-shirts.

A lot of companies have dress codes, particularly for people who work with the public.

What this woman may have going for her in this case is that it does not appear that dress code was ever properly and clearly communicated to her.

This is not the first local case in which a woman has sued her former employer, claiming dress code discrimination. A woman in Queens sued Citibank two years ago after her bosses there reportedly banned her from wearing "heels and sexy outfits." Other female employees, she noted, were wearing the same attire as her and were not penalized. She, on the other hand, was fired. She claims it was because her bosses felt she was "too hot."

It is not so much the banning of certain clothing, but the disparity between this employee and others that determines whether this individual's case may be solid.

In the case of Citibank, the bank ended up settling with her for an undisclosed amount.

Continue reading "New York City Discrimination Attorneys: Are Female Dress Codes Legal? " »

A weatherman in Los Angeles is suing CBS broadcasting for discrimination, saying the station only aims to hire young, attractive women to report on the weather.

New York City, like Los Angeles, has one of the largest media markets in the country, and as such, this case could have implications for future New York discrimination lawsuits involving similar circumstances.

Our New York City discrimination attorneys believe that everyone should have an equal opportunity to pursue the career path they choose. Federal law prohibits employers from discriminating against someone on the basis of sex, age, race, religion and other factors.

But what about when you work an industry like television, where good looks - and certain looks - are practically a requirement of employment?

The fact of the matter is, federal law prohibits discrimination - period. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act spells this out clearly. These laws are enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Under this law, the discriminatory practices include just about every aspect of employment. This includes:

• hiring and firing;
• pay or classification;
• transfer, layoff, promotion;
• recruiting;
• testing;
• use of certain company equipment or facilities;
• benefits;
• retirement or disability;
• training;

In this case, Kyle Hunter, an award-winning meteorologist, said he had applied for two weatherman jobs in the Los Angeles area - one at station KCBS and the other at KCAL. The first opening position was to replace longtime weatherman Johnny Mountain. But despite his superior resume, which showed Hunter to be a more qualified and experienced candidate, the job was given to Jackie Johnson, a younger female.

Then when Hunter applied for Johnson's old position, the job again went to a younger (i.e., less-experienced) female. Hunter said it is clear that gender and age played a role in the hiring decision, and that he was at a disadvantage because he is over the age of 40 and a male.

Yet, he is a weatherman with more than 20 years experience in various large markets, has a bachelor's degree in meteorology and is certified by the American Meteorological Society. The qualifications of the other candidates, according to his suit, did not come close.

This case is somewhat unusual in that we often hear about ageism and sexism in terms of males having the advantage. Women have long talked about that glass ceiling that for decades prevented them from advancing or even being accepted into certain fields.

Hunter's attorney, Gloria Allred, was quoted as saying that men are equally protected under anti-discrimination laws.

For its part, CBS has denied that sexism or ageism is at issue. In fact, it called Hunter's lawsuit "frivolous."

Our New York discrimination attorneys will be closely watching this case as it unfolds.

Continue reading "New York Gender Discrimination Happens to Men Too" »

Racial discrimination in New York among the firefighting ranks could cost the city upwards of $130 million.

Our New York City labor and employment lawyers understand that this entire affair has impacted a fine institution, lauded for its many sacrifices and accomplishments. But discrimination in any form is unacceptable, and it's especially disheartening when it is allowed to persist at any level of an organization.

For decades, there had been whispers and knowing nods that there was racial discrimination at the New York Fire Department. A simple look at the demographics reveals the startling truth: The department is more than 90 percent white, 6 percent Hispanic and 3 percent black - hardly reflective of the diverse makeup of New York City.

However, the situation didn't come to a head until 2007, when the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit, claiming that the entrance exam discriminated against racial minorities.

In 2009, a federal judge in Brooklyn agreed with that take, ruling that whites scored consistently higher on the tests than minorities. He ruled the oversight wasn't intentional, but rather the result of a test structure that was inherently more favorable to whites. Test scores were based on reading and comprehension skills, rather than actual firefighting skills. What's more, there was a culture of nepotism within the department. Because the department had been made up largely of white firefighters to begin with, their family and friends were consistently recommended and supported throughout the application process, further perpetuating the lack of diversity.

It was ordered that a new exam would have to be developed, with the help of a third-party, equal opportunity consultant.

Now, the courts are taking this message a step further. The city is going to have to shell out almost $130 million in back wages to minority applicants who weren't hired after taking the department's entrance exam. That payout is going to be split up among some 2,200 applicants who were turned down between 1999 and 2002. The applicants' salary between when they applied and now is going to be factored into the settlement. So someone who made less is going to get more.

Plus, the department needs to hire nearly 300 black and Latino applicants.

A spokesman for the Vulcan Society, which is a fraternity of black firefighters, said that the decision marked a great victory for both the department - which will benefit from the diversity - and those who had previously been excluded - who will benefit from the renewed opportunity.

At this point, nearly 62,000 individuals have registered to take the new exam this week. That is three times the amount of any year of previous applicants.

While the city has defended its hiring practices, saying that the number of minorities has tripled in the last decade, clearly, it hasn't been enough.

This case just goes to show that discrimination in the workplace is costly - not only in terms of possible financial penalties, but in terms of the human toll as well.

Continue reading "Racial Discrimination at FDNY Results in Heavy Fines, Department Changes" »

The political season is heating up. As the Republicans attempt to figure out who will challenge President Barack Obama for his position, the rhetoric will be flowing big time throughout the rest of the year.

But what happens when office talk becomes political talk? Workers' opinions can fly and they may dismiss some candidates perhaps based on their race, gender or age. That can lead to hurt feelings and a possible discrimination lawsuit in Long Island.

So, what should be done? For employers, they must create well-worded policies that lay out the proper workplace behavior without trouncing First Amendment rights of their workers. On the flip side, workers who feel words of discrimination are being flung around the office must report this to their supervisors in order to fix the behavior.

The Associated Press recently wrote an article on the topic and spoke with some experts who advise companies to take steps to ensure that their workers are able to voice their opinions in the office, but at the same time make sure other employees don't feel uncomfortable in a hostile environment.

Politics, along with religion, may be the most controversial topics people can discuss in our country. Especially in 2012, where Congress is divided and all sides seem opposed to each other, this is sure to be a big water-cooler conversation piece.

The article provides a few suggestions for this situation:

Don't be overbearing
The key for a boss is not to make the work environment oppressed or overbearing. If the staff typically is hard-working, but gets sidetracked, go easy, unless there is an upcoming deadline for a project. Or, politely suggest they continue their conversation later. Allowing workers to talk during work is a morale builder and shutting it down can end up hurting productivity.

Political talk
The First Amendment doesn't allow employees at a small business to say whatever they want, but some states do allow employees to talk about politics. But these discussions can be problematic when workers get heated.

As mentioned earlier, when people talk about a particular candidate and disparage that candidate based on their race, gender or age, an employee may deem the workplace a hostile environment, which could lead to a discrimination lawsuit in New York.

The first step should be to approach the staffer who made the comments and tell him or her they were inappropriate, whether there was an issue raised by others or not. Expressing opinions is one thing, but demeaning someone is a different thing altogether. As most people know, these conversations can turn to arguments quickly. This can also be problematic.

Employees should be careful using valuable work time to get into these arguments or discussions. This can give companies legitimate reasons to fire or punish someone, even if the conversation started at break or lunch time. If it takes up work time or if company equipment is used to do it, such as e-mail, this can get the worker in trouble.

Continue reading "What Bosses Need to Know to Avoid a Long Island Discrimination Lawsuit" »

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 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" »

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" »

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" »

New York City doesn't have "a good track record" of addressing racial bias in recruiting firefighters, a federal judge said recently as he determines how far he should go in helping to addressing the situation, Thomson Reuters reports.

Discrimination in New York takes on many forms and affects many people. Employers can unfairly treat prospective employees, by choosing not to hire them based on unlawful reasons; it can also happen to people who have already hired and who have years of experience.

A worker can face unlawful discrimination and unfairness based on their age, if they're over 40, race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, military status and other characteristics. And that's wrong.

According to the Thomson Reuters article, a federal judge has found that officials in charge of hiring in New York City have a bad record of hiring, having shown poor judgement in the hiring of firefighters.

After several trials that he decided, a federal judge in Brooklyn must now decide what the city must do to fix the problem and he must decide how far the courts must go to come up with a remedy.

The Vulcan Society, a group of black firefighters, wants a mandate that is both broad in nature and enforceable that would force city officials to address what they call a "glaring imbalance in the racial composition of the fire department." Minorities, including blacks and Hispanics, make up a large portion combined of the city's population -- about 25 and 27 percent, respectively, yet they only make up about 10 percent of the city's firefighters.

The group wants the judge to mandate the city recruit 35 percent of its firefighter applicants from black residents citywide. The group also wants the city to hire 293 Hispanic and black job seekers who have already took the hiring exam. That is an estimate that equals the number of minorities who would have been hired if they received scores as high as white applicants on past exams.

The plaintiffs are also seeking clarification on why some candidates are rejected and more open communication about the hiring process as well as an independent monitor to address racial bias allegations at the department.

Attorneys for the city claim that the city should be able to continue increasing the minority population among its ranks on its own, without court intervention.

This is shaping up to be quite a battle between the employees who are seeking a fairer process and the city, which doesn't want to be controlled by a court ruling. It's likely that whatever the decision, the losing side will appeal and the issue won't be settled for some time.

But it takes these lengthy court battles to sometimes get an employer to do the right thing and not discriminate against its employees or its prospective employees. And, likewise, corporations must use the court system to fend off litigation that is baseless and only seeks to hurt the employer's reputation.

Continue reading "Judge Prepares Ruling on What Officials Must Do To Address Racial Discrimination in New York City Firefighter Hiring" »

A woman has sued Bloomingdale's, alleging the giant department store chain that offers upscale wares discriminated against her when she attempted to purchase a men's shirt for her upcoming wedding, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Cases of discrimination are typically considered when they happen to employees at work -- when unqualified people get promotions or others get shunned based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, age, family status or other factors. Obtaining loans and renting apartments are two other areas where discrimination complaints are common. But discrimination in New York, New Jersey, Long Island or elsewhere can happen out in the public, as well.

It's a common practice in housing, especially public housing sectors, where an applicant for an apartment or house is denied for no good reason. It can also happen in the shopping sector. Some businesses may discriminate against consumers based on their skin tone or other factors that are deemed illegal.

In this case, a woman alleges she was shopping at a Bloomingdale's in Los Angeles, hoping to purchase an outfit for her wedding in 2010. She says she walked into the men's section of the store and was approached by a salesman, who allegedly asked her for whom she was buying a men's shirt and then told her he wouldn't measure her, the newspaper states.

"After some further offensive comments, (the salesman) asked, 'Why are you buying a man's shirt anyway? You're a woman,'" the lawsuit states, according to the newspaper.

The woman says the incident caused her to cry and that she hasn't brought herself to go back to the store since the whole thing happened. The department store chain reportedly offered her a free shirt, but it hasn't been enough to lure her back.

The woman's lawsuit, which name's parent company Macy's Inc. as well as Bloomingdale's, alleges sex or sexual orientation discrimination and seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages.

There are a host of ways that someone can be unlawfully discriminated against, including gender, age, race, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, and others. Public entities, such as restaurants, shopping centers and hotels, as well as creditors and housing institutions can't simply not serve or not help a customer based on those characteristics.

Nor can people in the workplace be denied promotions, or employment for unlawful reasons. Both state and federal laws regulate these matters and instruct both employers as well as public entities regarding the rules and regulations.

Consulting with an experienced New York Employment Lawyer can be advantageous in assessing the situation and determining whether the allegation qualifies under the guidelines of the law.

Bloomingdale's has 43 stores in the United States, including seven in New York and five in New Jersey, according to its web site. The chain also has a location in the United Arab Emirates.

Continue reading "Bloomingdale's Sued After Woman Alleges Discrimination " »

A 61-year-old Long Island lifeguard is suing New York, alleging age discrimination because he wasn't allowed to wear his preferred swimsuit during an annual qualification test, ABC News reports.

While some companies, and even public entities, make specific rules about how people can dress, which employees can and can't do certain tasks and other mandates, they sometimes don't consider those rules can violate discrimination laws in New York.

And, in other cases, officials purposely discriminate against employees and hope they don't get caught. Or, they believe that the current economic crisis our country is facing will keep employees quiet and that they'll simply deal with the discrimination in order to keep their job.

According to the news report, the Long Beach man has always worn swim jammers, which are tight shorts that fall just above the knee, when swimming or acting as a life guard. But in 2007, when he arrived to complete a re-hire evaluation at Jones Beach, parks and rec officials wouldn't let him take the test.

Boxers, briefs or board shorts, the officials told him.

"The older you get, the less skin you should show," said the man, who has spent several decades as a lifeguard on Jones Beach. "Basically, the state's been trying to get rid of the older guys. They really don't like older lifeguards."

To be a lifeguard, someone must take several timed tests, including swimming 100 yards in 75 seconds or less. He said boxers and board shorts inhibit speed. And speedos, he refuses to wear.

Government officials have denied wrongdoing. A 2007 complaint was dismissed by the New York State Division of Human Rights. In 2008, he tried to take the new lifeguard test, but wasn't allowed because of his swimsuit. He sued again in 2009 and though the New York State Supreme Court in Nassau dismissed the case, an appeals court reinstated it. The case is expected to go to trial soon.

Discrimination can come in many forms. A person may be denied employment because they are currently out of work. An important team player may not get a promotion because she doesn't look as good in tight clothing as another co-worker. Someone may face racist comments or jokes based on their skin color, speech or national origin.

Regardless of how a person faces discrimination, it's wrong. Companies don't like admitting they are wrong because it can open them up to lawsuits. So, it usually takes the legal assistance of an employment attorney in Great Neck or elsewhere to protect an employee's rights.

There's nothing wrong with one employee doing a better job than another and being rewarded. But it should be on-the-job performance, and only that standard, that factors into important personnel matters. Other factors, such as how a person looks, where they're from or how they talk shouldn't be part of the discussion.

Continue reading "61-Year-Old Long Island Man Sues For Swimsuit Discrimination" »

A sixth teen in Minnesota has filed a lawsuit against a school district there, alleging her school's staff members didn't do enough to protect her from bullying. A Missouri school district faces a lawsuit alleging the school didn't protect a student from being raped.

Those headlines are not what school districts in New York or anywhere want to see, mainly because of a student being injured, but also because of the potential financial impact a large settlement can have on the remaining students who are attempting to learn and prosper there. Education Law in New York has many facets and can include lawsuits filed against school districts, teacher-school district conflicts and even class-size and funding issues with the state.

In the Minnesota case, a lesbian teenage girl claims she was punched and called slurs after attending a middle school there and alerted authorities, who did nothing to protect her. It is an add-on lawsuit filed by five other students who are being flanked by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

The lawsuit claims the steps officials took after hearing about the bullying were "grossly inadequate," with some students being told to stay out of the way and lay low, Time reports. The plaintiffs want to get rid of the school district's sexual orientation policy, which instructs staff members to be neutral on sexual orientation matters.

In the Missouri case, a middle school girl alleges school officials didn't protect her from a male classmate, who allegedly harassed her, sexually assaulted and raped her. The special education student alleges she told officials about the events during the 2008-2009 school year, but they allegedly said they didn't believe her, according to the News-Leader.

The lawsuit also alleges school officials forced the girl without her parents' permission, to write a letter of apology to the boy and hand-deliver it. She was expelled and disciplined for filing a false report. When she returned to school, the harassment and assaults continued, and because the school didn't believe her, she didn't report the abuse. But her mother took her to get an exam, which showed she had been sexually assaulted and that the boy's DNA matched samples taken. The boy pleaded guilty to the charges, the lawsuit states.

Both of these situations are tragic because students were injured. And New York school districts aren't immune to these types of allegations and situations. It's possible that school officials didn't do enough to protect these students and, likewise, it's possible the school staff did their jobs, but bad things still happened.

As stated above, education law can pertain to on-campus attacks and the school's response, the accommodations given to special-needs students and even the battles between school districts and the state on matters of funding, teacher pensions in New York and other matters. Sound legal representation is needed in all cases to ensure a client's rights are protected.

Continue reading "School Districts, Parents, State Often Benefit from Education Law Attorneys in New York" »

As the New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog reported in May, New York lawmakers introduced legislation that would add the unemployed to a protected class as unemployment discrimination is an ongoing issue.

But as that bill goes through the proper channels before possibly becoming a law, employers are still openly discriminating against those who have lost their jobs and are desperately seeking work. That means that for 8 percent of the state of New York's population and 8.8 in New York City, according to the New York State Department of Labor, they are being unfairly denied interviews because they are currently unemployed. New Jersey was the first state to ban unemployment discrimination, with a law that went into effect June 1.

While companies are trying to employ only certain classes of people, this form of employment discrimination in New York is unacceptable and shouldn't be tolerated. Just because New York law hasn't thrust those who are unemployed into a protected class, such as the disabled, it doesn't mean this is proper.

Everyone should have an equal ability to gain employment, regardless of certain characteristics, such as not currently having a job. Certainly, a person shouldn't face discrimination at work for being disabled, a certain gender, age, race or status, but discrimination also shouldn't come because a person is unemployed, as many people are today. Until a law passes, making a claim might be difficult, but the issue highlights the fact that many classes are already protected under today's employment laws, including those who are discriminated against based on age, race, religion and military status.

According to the article in The New York Times, a recent review of job listings on popular websites shows that hundreds of employers would consider or strongly prefer only people currently employed or recently laid off. Even someone out of work for six months had a tough time finding work, the article reports.

The newspaper reports that given the average duration of unemployment is at an all-time high -- about nine months -- limiting qualified prospective employees to currently or recently employed probably disqualifies millions of people from work. The companies seeking work range from hotel concierges and air-conditioning technicians to business analysts and auditors.

Because those employers actually hiring are receiving likely an untold number of applications, experts say, they are being more selective.

Whether discrimination happens at the office or before even getting a job, it is unlawful and unjust. Thousands of claims of discrimination are filed each year as employees end up missing out on promotions, miss out on training opportunities or are simply cast aside for better-looking or younger workers. Despite the laws in place in New York and throughout the country, bosses and employers in record numbers ignore them and wrongly give preference to some employees over others.

With our state and our entire nation slow to recover from the effects of the Great Recession, employment discrimination shouldn't be happening. These companies should be held responsible for their actions.

Continue reading "Unemployment Discrimination Prevalent, Newspaper Reports" »