New York Employment Lawyer Blog

A lawsuit alleging that a Rochester, NY contractor discriminated against African-Americans recently settled for $1 million. The suit alleged that African-American employees were targeted for racial slurs and graffiti, were given the least desirable jobs, laid off soonest at the end of the construction season, and hired last at the beginning of the construction season.

As a part of the settlement, the company must base layoffs and recalls on seniority, make a good-faith effort to employee African-American foremen, and provide anti-discrimination training.

This settlement comes as a relief for many of the company’s current and former employees.

More information can be found here.

Hewlett-Packard C.E.O. Mark V. Hurd was ousted from his executive position last week after the accusation of sexual harassment by HP marketing consultant Jodie Fisher.

Although it was generally known Hurd preferred to do business on his own, reports state that he enjoyed Fisher’s company at lunches and dinners. Hurd also approved HP’s payments of $1,000 to $10,000 for Fisher to attend company events, in which Hurd would take her out to dinner afterward. It is alleged that Mr. Hurd attempted to hide his relationship with Ms. Fisher from the executive board.

HP hired a consulting firm to investigate the sexual harassment accusation. The independent firm concluded that no inappropriate action was taken by Hurd professionally or ethically.

Mark V. Hurd was forced out of his position as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard yesterday after an investigation revealed “inappropriate conduct.” The investigation did not confirm violations of Hewlett-Packard’s sexual harassment policy. It did, however, reveal that Mr. Hurd had committed a series of indiscretions, including: failing to disclose a personal relationship with Ms. Fisher that constituted a conflict of interest, submitting inaccurate expense reports, and misusing company assets.

The investigation demonstrated that Mr. Hurd had a close relationship with Mrs. Fisher and often had private dinners with her which he payed for with company money. The New York times estimates that he misrepresented up to $20,000 of personal expenses.

Potential employees were disqualified from temporary jobs with the 2010 Census Bureau in New York City for their criminal background. Civil rights groups are bringing a lawsuit in response to their discriminatory practices, alleging they violated the Civil Rights Act. Applicants with a previous arrest are required to provide official records regarding the matter within 30 days to challenge the information. This is required of any applicant with even the most insignificant criminal background. Applicants could be disqualified simply for being picked up as a suspect in a crime.

The Census Bureau’s policy on applicants with a previous arrest has been criticized before, yet they have not made any changes to ensure they are treating potential employees fairly.

More information is available here.

A Queens police officer has filed a sexual harassment suit against the New York City Police Department. She claims that a sergeant had asked her out several times, and when she rejected these advances, she alleges that he retaliated against her. “Almost every day he mentioned my lips, he said he was attracted to my shape and rubbed up against me,” the officer claims.

The tipping point came after an New York City Police Department talent show in which the officer was a participant. During the performance, she had a wardrobe malfunction and her pants accidently slipped off. Subsequently, the alleged perpetrator obtained a copy of the video of the performance and showed it to other officers on a laptop computer.

The officer also claims the New York City Police Department engaged in retaliation, which is illegal under New York employment law. She alleges that management took no action protect her from the sexual harassment and that the offender was allowed to take out his frustration on the youth programs the plaintiff ran - even taking away the police van used to transport kids. The plaintiff was eventually transferred out of the youth officer job. She now hopes to find relief through the judicial system.

Recently release job figures show that the unemployment rate has held steady at 9.5 percent for the past three months, and many are not optimistic that it will improve in the second half of 2010. The economy recently suffered another blow as 143,000 temporary census jobs came to an end, bringing the net total of jobs lost in July to 131,000.

It seems that instead of hiring new employees, companies are expecting more of their current workers, as evidenced by the one-tenth of an hour increase in the average workweek and 4 cent raise in hourly pay.

A ruling by the California Supreme Court makes it easier for employees to get their discrimination claims heard in court. Under the old rules, a lawsuit could be tossed out if the employer proves that the discriminatory comments were “stray remarks.” This ruling allows discrimination cases to be heard by a jury even if the comments are made by employees who are not in a position to fire, or if the comments happened long before the decision to fire is made.

In this claim, a 54-year-old employee alleges that he was fired because of his age. He says that executives called him an “old man,” said that he wasn’t a good “cultural fit,” and that his ideas were “too old to matter.” The company claims that he was fired due to poor performance.

A gender discrimination suit against pharmaceutical giant Novartis resulted in a settlement of $175 million. The lawsuit, on behalf of Novartis’ female sales staff alleged that the company discriminated against women by paying them lower salaries and offering them fewer chances of promotion. A 2004 suit against the same company resulted in a jury award of $250 million dollars in punitive damages.

As a part of the agreement, Novaris will pay $152.5 million to the current and former female sales staff. A further $22.5 million will pay for a program that will revise their sexual harassment policies and address gender disparities at the company.

More information can be found here.

President Obama and other officials at the White House gave their support to the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Act will require businesses to inform the government about the payment of their employees as it relates to their gender, race, and national origin. This Act is an amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and will aid the government in their efforts to end pay discrimination. The President stated that employment discrimination is harmful to American families, as well as the economy.

Currently, women only make 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. This difference is significantly greater for women of color. The Justice Department has pledged to increase their efforts of enforcement in order to help close the wage gap. A pilot program has been launched to organize the investigation and litigation charges against the state and federal employers that violate the Paycheck Fairness Act.

More information can be found here.

The City of New York City will pay a total of $300,000 to two police officers settling a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in connection with their claims of sexual harassment by a male supervisor. An attorney for the Plaintiffs stated, "Although our clients are satisfied that the litigation is over, it is further proof that the once-silent issue of same-sex harassment is on the rise."

The perpetrator of the harassment retired from the New York Police Department following a department trial in which he was found guilty of gesturing toward the officers in sexually suggestive ways and simulating a sexual act in their presence.

Additional information can be found here.

The cat’s paw theory, as applied in employment law, allows employers to be held liable when an individual with a discriminatory animus influences the decision of another with no discriminatory animus. In Staub v. Proctor Hospital, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a mid-level manager with a discriminatory animus, who influenced the decision of a higher-level supervisor, was the proper set of circumstances for the cat’s paw theory. In overturning the plaintiff’s favorable verdict, however, the Seventh Circuit found insufficient evidence of “singular influence” over the decision-maker in applying the “‘cat's paw’ to 21st century federal antidiscrimination law.”

In so holding, the Seventh Circuit found that without sufficient evidence of singular influence, any evidence of a discriminatory animus by the non-decisionmaker should not have been introduced. Relying on past precedent, the court found that although the decisionmaker’s investigation into the non-decisionmaker’s claims was “wholly robust,” “it was enough that the decisionmaker ‘is not wholly dependent on a single source of information’ and ‘conducts her own investigation into the facts relevant to the decision.’”

What becomes problematic is not applying this framework, but understanding what factual circumstances are sufficient to pass this evidentiary threshold. In Staub, the decisionmaker reviewed earlier disciplinary write-ups, written by the non-decisionmaker, and relied on past remarks she claimed she overheard that Staub was a problematic employee. The decisionmaker failed to interview any of these other employees, however. The Seventh Circuit stated the decisionmaker must have a “blind reliance.” As the facts summarized by the Seventh Circuit indicate little otherwise than blind reliance, and thus singular influence over the decisionmaker, the Seventh Circuit has created a high threshold in applying the cat’s paw theory. The Supreme Court is set to review this decision during the term beginning in October.

Further information can be found here.

New York became the first state to enact legislation granting workplace rights to domestic workers, passing the Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights on July 1, 2010. The bill was passed in part due to a fierce lobbying effort by Domestic Workers United, a group organized ten years ago to protect the rights of nannies and other household laborers in the New York area.

The bill provides domestic workers, a previous unregulated class of employees, with many of the same basic labor protections that have been available to other professions for over a century. These basic protections include setting a 40 hour work week (44 hours for live-in workers), providing for mandatory overtime compensation, 24 consecutive hours off per week, and three paid days off each year. Critical provisions provide domestic workers with recognition under New York’s Human Rights Law and protection from discrimination, sexual advances, and harassment by employers.

More information can be found here.