New York Employment Lawyer Blog

The United States Supreme Court has just handed down a decision, in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, that will significantly impact the manner in which a plaintiff may prove a claim of employment discrimination.

In Mendelsohn, the issue was whether the plaintiff could prove his claim of age discrimination by submitting the testimony of other older employees who were fired by different managers than the ones that had fired the plaintiff. The Second Circuit, the federal appeals court in New York, held that the trial court had improperly issued a per se rule against such evidence.

The Supreme Court determined that it was improper for the Second Circuit to reverse the district court’s order. According to the Supreme Court, “a district court is virtually always in the better position to assess the admissibility of the evidence in the context of the particular case before it.”

The Supreme Court also ruled that there is no per se rule regarding the admissibility of discrimination by other supervisors. The Court held that admissibility of such evidence should be based on many factors, “including how closely related the evidence is to the plaintiff’s circumstances and theory of the case,” a decision best left to the lower court judge.

The impact of Mendelsohn, therefore, appears to be a confirmation of the discretion and authority of the lower Courts, placing boundaries on the appellate courts regarding factual determinations.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination , Employment Discrimination , Evidence

Bookmark:

Labor and employment issues, particularly in the context of the protection of federal anti-discrimination laws, are one of the significant subjects to be addressed on the Supreme Court’s docket during this current term. The Court will hear arguments from both employees and employers on issues ranging from age discrimination (ADEA) and disability (ADA) protection to EEOC filing issues to a case relating to retaliation under the federal civil rights statutes. This was originally discussed in the Outside Counsel column of the February 13, 2008, issue of the New York Law Journal written by Robert P. Lewis, which referred to the Supreme Court’s employment law docket this term.

Among some of cases that the Court will decide will be whether the ADEA’s protections against retaliation by one’s employer can be extended to federal employees. Another case poses the question of whether the ADEA’s requirement of filing a “charge” of discrimination is met by the filing by the employee with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of an intake questionnaire and accompanying affidavit. The Federal Civil Rights statutes will also be an area of focus for the Court. The statute at issue, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, does not contain the words “retaliation” or “retaliatory,” yet the question presented is whether a cause of action for race retaliation can be brought under the statute.

It is evident that the Supreme Court will be spending a great deal of its time grappling with the complex issues of labor and employment law. The employment field is ever expanding and presents some of the most cutting-edge and developing legal issues of the day. It is apparent that due to the complex and rapid developments in employment law, it is essential that should you believe you might need counsel in your employment situation, it is imperative that you contact an experienced professional in the field. The practice of our firm is devoted to employment law in all of its many facets. You have only to reach out for us and we would be delighted to speak with you. There is no fee for this initial consultation, during which time we would discuss the issues you may have. If you wish to browse our website, we would be delighted to have you do so.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination , Employment Discrimination , Racial Discrimination , Retaliation

Bookmark:

A former New York State Senate photographer, Joseph Maioriello, who is Caucasian, has prevailed in a Motion for Summary Judgment in his race discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The photographer claimed that he was terminated by then Minority Leader David Paterson due to his race and replaced by an African-American employee.

The photographer claimed that he had performed capably in the State Legislature for twenty-six years and claims that he was fired because some of the legislators that worked with Maioriello wanted a minority employee in his position. The Defendants claim that his termination was a function of both poor performance and that he was a holdover from a past political leader and there would be questions of loyalty to the new Senate leadership.

A Motion for Summary Judgment is a dispositive motion. Defendants will make this type of motion and argue that there are no issues of fact for a jury to resolve and on those grounds, the case should be dismissed. The plaintiff, in these cases, must raise issues of fact and demonstrate that the issues of the case are best resolved by the court allowing them to make their case to a jury and having them decide. The jury would then determine if there was, in fact, discrimination in the employment decision or whether the non-discriminatory reasons offered by the employer are believable.

In this case, Judge Mordue of the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York found there to be triable issues of fact in this case and it would be best for a jury to hear the cases presented by both sides and then make a determination at that point. The case is Maioriello v. New York State Senate Minority, et al, 1:05-XV-1062 (decided 2/12/08).

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Racial Discrimination

Bookmark:

Our courts have consistently held that discrimination in the workplace is rarely done openly. In fact, it is most often done secretly, behind closed doors. Rarely, therefore, will there ever be direct evidence as may be required, for example, in a criminal case. In a criminal case we understand the burden of proof may have to be established, “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” However, with all types of discrimination, whether it is because of age, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or any other protected reason, the burden of proof is not required to be satisfied “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” It may be established by circumstantial evidence.

The United States Supreme Court has held that the context of the remark should be considered. The Court stated that “the speaker’s meaning may depend on various factors including context, inflection, tone of voice, local custom, and historical usage.” Ash v. Tyson Foods, 546 U.S. 454 (2006).

Some examples of the type of comments or situations that may be considered are:

• The head of the company claiming that what the company needs is some “new blood”

• Those in a position of hiring saying that the firm could use “energetic new employees”

• Designating persons for transfer in a manner that made it impossible or unlikely that older employees could accept the transfer because of family or personal involvements in a particular location, although younger persons would be able to freely accept such a transfer

• Being told that you are, “too rigid and inflexible”

• Being asked, “when are you going to retire”

These comments, when considered in their totality, may well give rise to a viable claim of age discrimination

Therefore, if you believe you may be discriminated against for any protected reason, such as any of those referred to above, you might wish to contact an attorney practicing in the area of employment law, to secure an educated opinion as to whether you might have the basis for a valid claim.

Since our law firm specializes in the practice of employment law, we would be pleased to talk with, or meet with you, to evaluate your claim. We could then provide you with our belief as to whether a possible claim may reasonably exist. There is no charge for this initial consultation

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination , Employment Discrimination , Evidence

Bookmark: