Posted On: June 27, 2008

New Set of Regulations Standardizes Jury Selection in Civil Courts

The New York Law Journal reports on June 20, 2008 that the Office of Court Administration and the New York State Trial Lawyers Association have reached an agreement allowing the administrative board of the state to set forth a new set of rules regulating jury selection in trials.

The bill, proposed by Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein, would propose three main changes to the existing regulations on jury selection. First, judges would not be allowed to permit jurors who have a bias, but claim that they will serve in an unbiased manner to be accepted as jurors. The new rules also permit plaintiffs to appeal immediately, even without waiting for the outcome of a trial. Finally, the new rules allow judges to set time limits on the selection of jurors.

While these rules, at first, seem to be in the best interests of all parties concerned, there exists some dissent. New York City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo and Judge Ann Pfau are dismayed by the changes, saying that the rules are too time consuming and restrictive. Instead of improving the existing system, Judge Pfau claims, the rules would in fact slow the system down, making it even less appealing to prospective jurors.

Posted On: June 26, 2008

United States Supreme Court Construes Section 1981 as Applicable to Retaliation Cases

In an important May 27th decision, the United States Supreme Court decided in a seven to two decision that a 19th century civil rights statute known as Section 1981 provides a cause of action for retaliation. Section 1981’s previous construction allowed it to be used to protect employees against racial discrimination in making and enforcing contracts. It was commonly used in trial, due to its breadth and allows for an unlimited cap on recoverable damages.

As a result of these attributes, Section 1981 may be used more frequently and can now be applied to retaliation cases. If you believe that you were discriminated against at your job or retaliated against when you complained, please feel free to contact us for an initial free consultation at which we would be pleased to discuss your issues with you.

Posted On: June 25, 2008

Scope of Discovery Limited for Sued Legal Counsel

The New York Law Journal reports on June 20, 2008 that the former legal representation for two former partners from a failed hedge fund has had their scope of discovery narrowed. The legal counsel is defending a $4 billion suit for fraud and legal malpractice filed by the two partners. This new ruling from an appeals court makes it harder for the law firm to defend itself in the suit.

The plaintiffs are accusing their former legal counsel of authorizing their practice of “late trading.” This advice prompted an investigation from former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer which ultimately led to a $36 million penalty for the former hedge fund, a $750,000 fine for each partner, as well as a ban from the industry.

The plaintiffs also claim legal malpractice, asserting that their legal representation pushed to settle on one occasion when the correct course of action was a defense.

The defense states that they have waivers from their clients for all actions taken and, therefore, are relieved of all responsibility.

Posted On: June 24, 2008

Racial, Sexual, Gender Discrimination Present In Major Sports Corporations

Sports Illustrated reports on June 12 that a former employee of NASCAR has filed a $225 million lawsuit against NASCAR, citing sexual, racial, and gender discrimination.

The plaintiff, a former Nationwide Series inspector, alleges atrocious behavior from her co-workers, alleging that they called her a “Nappy-Headed Ho,” made repeated references to the Ku Klux Klan, and stating that two went as far as exposing themselves to her. NASCAR has suspended the two accused employees without explanation.

The plaintiff called NASCAR an “old boys club” and went to great lengths in describing the insular nature of the company. “They need to stop hiring ignorant sisters, cousins and uncles [of theirs] and start hiring qualified, educated people to work their billion-dollar business,” she said in an interview.

NASCAR has responded, saying that the plaintiff never filed a complaint, and therefore could not blame NASCAR for not being able to stop the behavior. The CEO of NASCAR said that he had not been aware of the situation and the claims would be immediately investigated.

The fact is, racial, sexual, and gender discrimination is never to be tolerated. If you feel as if you have been subject to any of these types of unfair treatment, please feel free to contact us for an initial consultation without charge at which time we would be pleased to discuss your issue.

Posted On: June 23, 2008

Age Discrimination Joins Racial Discrimination, Gender Bias as Issues in 2008 Election

The 2008 presidential election is extraordinary in many respects. It marks the first time that an African-American, overcoming racial discrimination, has secured the nomination of a major party. It also has had a woman, in spite of an unfair gender bias, advance far beyond anyone’s initial predictions. In addition to these two stereotypes, the New York Sun reported on June 18th about another issue that has permeated the race: the issue of age.

The Republican contender, John McCain, and Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, have begun to exchange barbs over the John McCain’s age. The McCain camp alludes to the fact that Obama may be too young, calling him inexperienced. In return, the Obama campaign has suggested that Mr. McCain may be “confused,” or “has lost his bearings.”

Schwartz & Perry’s Managing Partner, Murray Schwartz, commented on the issue in the June 18th edition of the New York Sun, stating “Age discrimination is an insidious, egregious disease. Age should not be a factor in any employment decision that’s made,” he continued. “Not in hiring. Not in firing.”

Mr. Schwartz, while refraining from making any political observations, continued, saying “If someone is going to be ignored as a viable candidate because of age, besides it violating the law, it would be shameful. Experience is a major component of everything.”

Schwartz & Perry specializes in age discrimination suits. If you feel that you have been treated in an unjust manner as a result of your age, please feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

The text of the article can be found at the following link: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/john-lalanne-mccain/80217/.

Posted On: June 20, 2008

Supreme Court Ruling Favors Employees in Age Discrimination Suits

The New York Times reported on June 20th that a Supreme Court ruling has made it easier for older workers to argue that they are being discriminated against based on their age.

The case, which was decided in a 7 to 1 ruling, concerned two dozen workers from a New York federal research laboratory. When the federal government required that the laboratory reduce its workforce, the contractor who ran the lab fired thirty one employees, of whom all but one were over forty.

The plaintiff contended that the language used in the Age Discrimination section of the Employment Act of 1967 put the burden of an age discrimination suit on the employer, rather than on the employee. Justice David H. Souter agreed with the argument, asserting that the employer must provide “reasonable factors other than age” to protect from liability.

This decision is a significant step in protecting older employees from being discriminated against. If you feel that you may have been unfairly treated because of your age, please feel free to contact us for an initial consultation at no cost.

Posted On: June 19, 2008

Federal Bill Tackles Genetic Information Discrimination

A May 25th Science Daily article reports that President Bush signed the Genetic. Nondiscrimination Information Act (GINA) into law. The act, the first civil rights legislation of the new millennium, protects employees from being discriminated against on the ground of genetic information.

The act is the first federal law of its kind to tackle genetic heritage as a form of discrimination. GINA specifically prohibits employers from firing, refusing to hire, or otherwise discriminate against employees on the grounds of an individual’s genetic information.

Posted On: June 18, 2008

Pro Se Suit Follows Dropped Criminal Charges

Just one day after federal prosecutors agreed to drop criminal charges against a major New York law firm, a June 18 article in the New York Law Journal states that two former partners have filed a pro se law suit against the founder and three other firm partners. The four partners were accused of participating in a scheme which paid millions of dollars in kickbacks over the course of twenty five years to class action plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs’ complaint is based upon their argument that the actions taken broke the fiduciary duty among partners.

Posted On: June 17, 2008

Unemployment Reaches Major Law Firms

A recent National Law Journal article from June 16 reports that unemployment has reached major law firms around the country. The article describes the situation at a major New York City law firm, which has seen an exodus of associates and partners as a result of alarmingly low projected profits for 2008.

There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for termination. The law provides protection for employees who are wrongfully terminated due to such factors as race, gender, age, or national origin.

If you feel you have been terminated for an illegitimate reason such as those listed above, feel free to contact us for a free consultation.

Posted On: June 17, 2008

Balancing Act Between Religious Policy and Administration Appears Before Florida Supreme Court

A recent whistleblower case involving the firing of a Catholic school’s principal is set to appear before the Florida Supreme Court, according to a June 16 Daily Business Review article. The case, previously tossed out of the third District Court of Appeals, pits a plaintiff who claims she was wrongly forced out of her job as a principal at a Catholic school in Miami after complaining that her supervisor assaulted her against the Archdiocese of Miami.

The two sides differ on their interpretation of the Church’s domain. The plaintiff believes that she was fired for a purely secular reason; the archdiocese believes the case lies within the Church’s jurisdiction and therefore not subject to the courts’ ruling.

Posted On: June 17, 2008

Second Failed Libel Case for Terminated Employee

A June 17 New York Law Journal article reports that a federal judge has thrown out a pro se libel action against a New York Judge of the second Circuit Court of Appeals. This is the second such dismissal for the plaintiff who claims she was fired unjustly, citing sexual harassment and retaliation.

In both cases, the plaintiff appealed her alleged unfair termination, claiming that the judges defamed her in their statements, making unfair decisions, thereby damaging her reputation.

The presiding federal judge threw both cases out, calling the recent libel action “frivolous.”

Posted On: June 16, 2008

Bench Trial Gamble Pays Off

Due to intense pretrial publicity, such as those related to perceived differential treatment based on race, the attorney for one of three NYPD officers prosecuted in the Sean Bell shooting case, found a bench trial more useful than the more conventional trial by jury.

In a recent National Law Journal article, the attorney discussed, what he believed was the key reason for the favorable decision. This was a decision in which a judge acquitted all three officers of all charges largely based on, what the judge believed, was the dubious credibility of the witnesses. As this criminal case demonstrates, the credibility of both parties and witnesses is an essential element for a positive result both in criminal and civil matters.

Posted On: June 12, 2008

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Abortion

The 3rd Circuit recently handed down a ruling on what may be one of the first cases of abortion discrimination. A three-judge appellate panel revived Doe v. CARS Protection Plus, which had been dismissed by the lower court, and focused on the question of whether abortion is protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). Plaintiff Doe reluctantly had an abortion after being informed that her fetus had severe disabilities which would prevent its survival after birth.

In the decision, the Judges noted that the PDA covers “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” and that abortion qualifies as one such related condition. The decision also emphasized the fact that the plain language of the PDA, the legislative history of the Act, and the EEOC guidelines which all support their conclusion that an employer may not discriminate against a female employee because she has had an abortion.

Posted On: June 9, 2008

Pregnant Employees Among the Most Vulnerable to Discrimination

As the job market shrinks, pregnant employees may be on the front line of layoffs, according to some employment lawyers. Recent statistics show that pregnancy discrimination claims filed with the EEOC and state agencies have been rising at a rapid pace – up an alarming 14% from last year and 40% from 1998. In New York, pregnancy discrimination claims have doubled in the past decade, including a 10% jump last year.

In the past, struggling employers looking to shrink their workforce could look first at pregnant women or new mothers without fear of repercussion. However, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 now prohibits an employer from firing, refusing to hire, or denying a promotion to a worker on the basis of pregnancy. This does not translate into special treatment for pregnant workers; instead, it merely removes pregnancy from the realm of factors to be considered in making employment decisions.

Based upon the recent surge of discrimination claims, it appears that pregnant women may be even more vulnerable than before in today’s job market.

Posted On: June 3, 2008

Broad Protection for Employees Against Retaliation

The two recent cases decided by the United States Supreme Court demonstrate that there is a broad consensus among a diverse group of the Justices that retaliation against workers who complain of race discrimination and/or age discrimination is wrong. In a recent case, Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justice Stephen G. Breyer in the majority opinion of a 7-2 vote holding that a provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 covers claims of retaliation that follow complaints about racial discrimination.

In another case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote a majority opinion in a 6-3 decision which held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act protects federal workers from retaliation after complaining about age discrimination. These two cases show the broad support for protection of employees against retaliation in the workplace.

Posted On: June 2, 2008

"Harry Potter" and Religious Discrimination

Employment law issues can arise from seemingly innocuous events. In a recent complaint, Smith v. Thomas and the City of Poplar Bluff, a library assistant alleged that the Poplar Bluff Public Library intentionally discriminated against her based on her religion.

The librarian had refused to participate in the library’s “Harry Potter Night,” which promoted one of J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter” novels, on the grounds that the promotion violated her sincerely-held religious beliefs against the worship of the occult. She alleges that as a result, the defendant retaliated by reducing her hours and reassigning her to physically demanding tasks beyond the scope of her regular job description.