New York Employment Lawyer Blog

Recently, in Zakrzewska v. The New School, 06 Civ. 5463, decided 3/17/08, held that, “Traditionally, New York courts have applied the federal courts’ construction of federal employment discrimination laws in construing the provision of the NYCHRL. Indeed, Section 1 of New York City’s Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 makes clear that the construction of federal and state civil rights legislation with language comparable to that of the NYCHRL acts ‘as a floor below which the City’s Human Rights law cannot fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise.’”

We most respectfully suggest that all our colleagues remain mindful of the New York City Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 so that they may appropriately and effectively point out that our courts have given effect to the language and intent of the Restoration Act.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination

Bookmark:

In a recent decision, in the case of Weiss v. Morgan Stanley, 05-cv-3310, the Court clearly pointed out that, “A plaintiff may prevail on a claim for retaliation even when the underlying conduct complained of was not in fact unlawful so long as she can establish that she possessed a good faith, reasonable belief that the underlying challenged actions of the employer violated [the] law.”

It is, therefore, essential that we keep in mind the fact that, although, the plaintiff may prevail in the underlying discrimination claim, there is a reasonable basis to pursue a retaliation claim so long as the sentiments expressed in the Weiss case quoted above, exist.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Gender discrimination , Sexual Harassment

Bookmark:

Recently, it has been sad to witness the frequency in Reductions in Force (RIF) which seem to be increasing in intensity. We do wish, however, to point out that there have been occasions, where the “reduction” although identified as such, was, in some part, motivated by age discrimination.

It becomes necessary, therefore, that when a potential client discusses termination as part of a reduction in force, we inquire further to determine whether he or she was identified in the reduction in a fair and appropriate fashion. We have, on occasion, identified instances, in which, during an appropriate and acceptable “reduction” we have found that discrimination existed. When such is found to be the case, the courts have responded by labeling the discriminatory conduct as such, despite the label that was affixed to it by the employer. We believe, therefore, that we must be vigilant in order to identify unlawful conduct, as such, despite the label that may be affixed to it. We would invite our colleagues to review Ferguson v. Lander, 3:06-CV-0328, with respect to this subject.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination , Employment Discrimination , Employment Law , Gender discrimination

Bookmark:

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held in Thompson v. North American Stainless, No. 07-5040 (6th Cir.), that third party retaliation is actionable.

In Thompson, a male engineer filed a retaliation suit against his employer. He claimed that his employer fired him in retaliation of a gender discrimination suit brought by his fiance, who was also an engineer at the same factory.

As a result of this expansion of retaliation, plaintiffs who bring employment discrimination claims against their employer will no longer have to fear retaliation against their friends or relatives who happen to work at the same workplace.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination

Bookmark:

Recently, a Federal Magistrate Judge concluded that a factory controller was in part terminated because of age discrimination. Although the company argued that the termination was the result of a “Reduction in Force” (RIF), the fact was that his termination was based, at least in part on his age. It would be worthy, therefore, to read the decision of Magistrate Judge Peebles in Ferguson v. Lander.

Although we are aware that the law clearly permits an employer to engage in a RIF. The employer is not protected if it can be determined that the termination was the result of “intentional discrimination under ADEA.”

The case is particularly enlightening because the findings of fact by the Magistrate Judge reflects the mechanism that sometimes occurs in these cases. We are citing the case therefore, not only for its legal interest but also for the fact pattern which is clearly worthy of the attention of all of us.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Age Discrimination , Employment Discrimination , Employment Law , Evidence

Bookmark:

We believe, it is worthy to note that in the case of Motorola Credit Corp v. Uzan, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that the state law was not violated when a Billion Dollar punitive damage award was granted by a federal trial court in a case in which Defendants refused to provide economic information.

The decision in the Motorola matter resulted when the Second Circuit, applying Illinois law, three factors must be considered in the granting of punitive damages. (1) The nature and enormity of the wrong, (2) The financial status of Defendant, and (3) The potential liability of Defendant.

We recognize that in order to respond to the second element, namely the financial status of the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to provide financial information. When a defendant, through what might be considered reprehensible conduct, fails to provide that information, the Court concluded that punitive damages were appropriate.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination

Bookmark:

Although we are all mindful of the fact that New York Courts have consistently applied Federal Employment Discrimination standards in construing the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), we must remain mindful of Section 1 of NYC’s Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005 which provides that the Restoration Act holds that the Federal Law is to have the effect of “serving as the floor below which the City’s human rights law cannot fall.”

In effect, it has been held to be “a floor below which the city human rights law cannot fall, rather than a ceiling above which the local law cannot rise.” Therefore, when we are citing legal authority with respect to the NYCHRL and are faced with citations from federal and state cases, we would be well advised to consider the different interpretation which the Restoration Act provides be given to the New York City law.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination

Bookmark:

Frequently, facts which lead to a claim of discrimination do more than simply that. They become the foundation for a claim of retaliation. It is important that we remain mindful of the fact that even if a Plaintiff does not sustain his or her claim of discrimination, whatever the basis may be, if the employee had a reasonable basis to believe that a discrimination claim existed and he or she engages in a protected activity by notifying the employer, and advises the employer that he will pursue a claim of discrimination and the employer then takes adverse employment action, the retaliation claim will be valid although the discrimination claim will fail.

It is essential, therefore, that in considering retaliation claims that we are mindful of the following sentiment that was expressed in recent decision in Weiss v. Morgan Stanley, (05-cv-3310 S.D.N.Y), namely that “A plaintiff may prevail on a claim for retaliation even when the underlying conduct complained of was not in fact unlawful so long as she can establish that she possessed a good faith reasonable belief that the underlying challenged actions of the employer violated the law.”

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Retaliation

Bookmark:

On April 1, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled for the first time that an employer can be held liable for race discrimination based on an employee’s association with a person of another race. The court reversed the District Court’s decision to grant Defendant Iona College’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting the District Court’s restrictive view of Title VII race claims as applying only to an individual “because of such individual’s race.” Instead, the court found that where the Plaintiff-employee, Craig Holcomb, a white man, was allegedly terminated and discriminated against because of his marriage to an African-American woman, “the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race.”

Plaintiff, an assistant basketball coach at Iona College, alleged that he was terminated based on his supervisors’ discriminatory animus against his interracial marriage. The court found that the plaintiff had adduced enough evidence, through the comments and conduct of his supervisors, to show that his termination was based, at least in part, on improper racial motives. The Court noted that even though Iona College had proffered valid reasons for Holcomb’s termination, namely the poor performance of Iona’s basketball team, the employee need only show that “the prohibited factor was at least one of the ‘motivating’ factors” in his termination.

This ruling may also open the door to other claims of discrimination based on association, such as religious discrimination based on an employees association with a person of another religion.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Racial Discrimination

Bookmark:

The National Law Journal reported on March 17, 2008, that employment class action suits are on the rise. According to the article, because securities class actions have waned in recent years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have refocused on employment wage and hour claims, as well as employment discrimination claims.

The trend towards more “labor-intensive class actions” has prompted law firms across the country to expand their employment litigation practices. In fact, one firm has reported that its employment litigation team has expanded by thirty percent (30%) each year since 2005. This is a significant change in the landscape and may demonstrate increased awareness by employees of their rights in the workplace.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Employment Discrimination , Employment Law

Bookmark:

Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported a recent increase in pregnancy claims filed by employees with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the EEOC”). The Journal noted a 14% increase in pregnancy filings last year, with a total of 5,587. This figure was up 40% from a decade ago and was the biggest annual increase in 13 years.

These statistics confirm that despite the effort of many companies to create the appearance that they appreciate working mothers, a significant bias against pregnant women persists in the workplace. Employers, in an effort to avoid the perceived hassle of maternity leave and doctor’s visits that will continue even after birth, may find it easier to simply terminate pregnant women, in blatant disregard of the law that protects women against such discrimination. Discrimination against working mothers, referred to as “gender plus” discrimination, is also prohibited by the relevant human rights laws.

While merely being pregnant does not guarantee an employee’s position, an employer may not take adverse action against a woman if the action is motivated by the pregnancy. Since there will never be a “smoking gun” proving discrimination, employees asserting a pregnancy claim will rely on circumstantial evidence.

Proving that the reason the company provided for firing the woman is a pretext can support a claim of pregnancy discrimination. For example, an employer may allege that it eliminated a pregnant woman’s position, only to have transferred those exact duties to someone else. A woman may suddenly develop performance problems soon after announcing her pregnancy, even though she had consistently received only positive feedback on her performance.

Posted by Schwartz & Perry | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Pregnancy Discrimination

Bookmark: