New York Business Litigation Attorney Blog

A lawsuit involving New York City employment retaliation and discrimination has been settled for $750,000, according to a recent report by The New York Times.

Our New York City employment discrimination attorneys understand that a black employee of the city's Human Resources department claimed that the city took action against her after she complained about how administrators secured government contracts.

That settlement was announced just three days after jurors in the Federal District Court awarded her $420,000 in compensatory damages following a trial alleging discrimination and retaliation. All but $100,000 of that sum was found against the commissioner of the agency, which is involved in servicing more than 3 million people.

A jury had also decided that the city should pay punitive damages, but the city settled on the $750,000 amount before the jury could decide how much that could be - indicating city officials believed a jury might have ruled for an even higher amount. Likely, they agreed to simply pay this and not file an appeal.

Still, the city insisted the claim had no merit, and the decision to settle was nothing more than a savvy business move in order to save taxpayers' money. However, given the jurors' findings, it seems there may have been more weight to the employee's claims than they are giving credit.

As the human resource agency's chief contracts officer, the plaintiff said she objected to what she believed was preferential treatment that was given to companies in which the employees were members of the local labor union. Back in 2007, she informed the agency's commissioner of her concerns. He responded, she said, by demoting her and slashing her salary by 20 percent.

The duties that she previously held, she said, were then given to white women who was considerably less qualified. One agency official reportedly told her to be grateful that she wasn't responsible for cleaning bathrooms. City officials later said that comment was taken out of context, adding that the agency has a history of promoting minority members, and the move toward this one employee was not indicative of a greater pattern.

With the settlement, the city maintains it has done nothing wrong. The plaintiff later told a reporter that while she disagreed with certain aspects of the settlement, she agreed to it overall.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission protects employees from being victims of retaliation if they have filed a discrimination complaint. Additionally, the Occupational Safety & Health Administration prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who have engaged in certain protected actions. That includes things like complaining about workplace safety or health hazards, reporting security concerns, cooperating with investigators or reporting illegal or potentially illegal activity.

If you're not sure whether your action will garner you protection from New York City employment retaliation, you should contact a skilled employment attorney who can help guide you through the process.

Our New York City employment retaliation attorneys have worked these cases from both angles - the employers and the employees - so we have a unique insight into how to handle them and the likely strategy of the other side.

Continue reading "New York City Employment Retaliation Claim Results in Costly Settlement" »

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" »

A federal court has upheld the dismissal of a New York employment lawsuit by an employee who claimed he was forced to retire from Staten Island Rapid Transit as retaliation for complaining about a sexually charged cartoon.

A Great Neck, New York employment attorneyshould always be consulted when an employee is terminated under questionable circumstances. Wrongful termination can occur for any number of reasons, including retaliation for reporting race or age discrimination, sexual harassment or other violations of workplace rights protected under state and federal law.

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit examined the employee's claim of retaliation in the workplace after he complained about a sexually-charged cartoon. The burden of proof typically rests with the employee when filing a New York employment retaliation or federal employment retaliation claim.

The plaintiff must show that he engaged in a protected activity, that his employer was aware of the activity, that the employer took adverse action against him, and that a connection exists between the adverse action and the protected activity. In this case, Staten Island Rapid Transit acknowledged the employee's complaint and admitted that it was a protected activity. But the system denies an adverse employment action.

The court found no proof that adverse working conditions resulted from the employee's complaint about the offensive cartoons. The plaintiff said he complained in the late 1990s after 20 years of seeing the cartoons posted in the workplace. Posting of the cartoons ceased and it wasn't until May 2003 that the employee retired.

"There is thus no evidence that Borski's complaint was met with retaliatory harassment," the court wrote. "Furthermore, no reasonable jury could conclude that a reasonable person would feel compelled to quit his job over conduct that had ceased years earlier."

We can make several observations here. First, the employer did itself a favor by responding proactively to the complaint. Ignoring employee complaints that involve sex, age, race or religious discrimination is always a mistake. Second, it is certainly possible that a complaint over long-standing cartoons in the workplace (whether for religious or other reasons) could have led to workplace harassment.

In such cases, it is always best for an employee to consult a New York employment lawyer. Documentation of such harassment would have gone a long way toward assisting the employee in proving his case in this instance.

Lacking such documentation, the court found not reasonable jury would conclude the plaintiff was constructively discharged from his position. Consequently, the court ruling sided with the district court decision to grant summary judgment to SIRT, dismissing the employee's claims.

Continue reading "Documentation often Critical when Proving Employment Retaliation Lawsuits in New York " »