New York Employment Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a disability discrimination against Starbucks Corporation Sept. 8 alleging that its one of its stores refused to hire an applicant for a barista position because of his multiple sclerosis condition.

In its complaint, the EEOC alleges that Chuck Hannay applied for one of six positions at this Starbucks’ location but was treated differently from other interviewees. Disability discrimination violates the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit seeks monetary relief, Hannay being instated to a Starbucks job, and an injunction against future discrimination.

Plaintiff Kevin Heffernan alleged that disciplinary charges were filed against him by defendant Frank Straub in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment right of free speech and association. The disciplinary charges were filed by the Fire Bureau in connection with the delayed response to a fire that occurred on April 20, 2005 while the plaintiff was in charge of a number of fire fighters at the White Plains Drill School that day. Heffernan contends the charges were filed in response to his speech on behalf ot eh Union and statements he made over the radio on April 20, 2005. Straub, the Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety of White Plains, New York, and the other defendants joined in the suit moved for dismissal on grounds. The trial court granted dismissal in part, but refused to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The defendants then moved for reconsideration of the opinion, and the claim was subsequently dismissed.

A motion for reconsideration or re-argument may only be granted if the court has failed to take in to account “controlling decisions or factual matters that were put before it on the underlying motion...and which, had they been considered, might have reasonably altered the result before the court.” Greenwald v. Orb Coomc’ns & Mktg., Inc., No. 00Civ.1939 LTSHBP, 2003 WL 660844, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2003). The defendant’s further directed the court to McCullough v. Wyandanch Union Free School District, which held speech occurring just before the retaliatory act will not support an inference of causation based on proximity if the plaintiff has engaged in this speech throughout his employment.

In the case of Roby v. McKesson HBOC, an employee suffered from a panic disorder which caused a number of unmistakable side effects. After lengthy employment, she was terminated for taking too many days off. She alleged her supervisor treated her poorly and even recommended that she take more showers. A lawsuit was brought based on wrongful termination and the jury awarded $4 million in compensatory damages, including $600,000 against the supervisor and $500,000 against the employer for the harassment, and more than $15 million in punitive damages. Since there was no evidence to support it, a Court of Appeals vacated the harassment award and lowered the punitive damage award to $2 million.

Some states distinguish between discrimination and harassment and the issue of whether the same evidence can overlap to prove both charges has come up in courts across the country. The plaintiff’s attorney in the case at hand advocated that an examination of all the circumstances in a case is necessary rather than a broad categorization of evidence of either discrimination or harassment. In some instances, the same evidence clearly proves both charges and categorizing it as discrimination or harassment would be wrong. The attorney representing the business in this case is seeking to maintain the status quo; prohibiting the overlap of evidence to prove both charges. The attorney maintains that allowing the evidence will result in lowering the bar, making it easier to obtain judgements for harassment. A judgement is expected in the coming weeks.

According to a report released by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission there was a small increase in the number of employment discrimination claims filed against the federal government in 2008. The claims filed against the government involved discrimination based on, but not limited to race, sex, religion, age and disability. Claims were filed against every government agency with the vast majority of claims being settled through counseling and alternative dispute resolution. There was a 2.4% increase in discrimination claims filed against the government.

The federal government was the country’s largest employer in 2008 with approximately 2.7 million employees across the country and all around the world. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the government’s workforce has become more representative of a diverse society. However, the report also noted a continuing decline in the number of federal employees with disabilities.

In Hoffman v. Parade Publications, an age discrimination case, the Appellate Division, First Division, held that New York courts have subject matter jurisdiction over some employment discrimination cases where the employee worked outside of New York City.

Howard Hoffman was a 62 year old employee of Parade Publications, which was headquartered in New York City. Hoffman, however, worked out of an office in Atlanta, Georgia. At the beginning of 2008, Parade Publications decided to close its Atlanta office and terminated Hoffman’s employment. Claiming age discrimination, Hoffman brought claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The trial court granted the employer’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on a 2005 First Division decision, Shah v. Wilco Systems, Inc. In that case, the court relied on an “impact” rule, which requires that the impact of the discrimination must be felt inside New York. In what the Hoffman court described as dicta, the court also suggested that this impact rule is not satisfied if only the employment decision is made in New York.

The Hoffman court, however, distinguished Shah, pointing out that in the earlier case there was no evidence that any relevant events occurred in New York. Hoffman, however, alleged that the decision to terminate him was made in New York City. As such, the court ruled that the New York courts had jurisdiction over Hoffman’s claims, holding that the employment decision alone is sufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction under the impact test.

More broadly, this case will likely expand the reach of the New York Human Rights Laws. If an employee can show that an employer’s discriminatory employment decision is made within city or state, the employee may bring a claim the New York Human Rights Laws, even if the employee worked outside the city and state.

“Tavern on the Green” owner, Jennifer LeRoy, is being sued by a former assistant for pregnancy discrimination for firing the assistant days after finding out that the assistant was pregnant.

Jamie Mora, LeRoy’s former assistant, was hired in 2004 to be LeRoy’s personal assistant and to be available to LeRoy twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. In October 2007, eight days after Mora informed LeRoy of her pregnancy, Mora was laid off without warning. She is seeking an unspecified amount in damages and backpay.

“Tavern on the Green” is currently awaiting word from City Officials as to whether its license to operate will be renewed. The license expires December 31st.

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) joined with a bipartisan coalition of 38 Senators in introducing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would bring equality to the workplace and finally provide basic legal protections, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. The Act would prohibit employers, employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management committees from firing, refusing to hire, or discriminating against those employed or seeking employment, on the basis of their perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity. Such protections are already in place prohibiting discrimination based on race, religion, gender, national origin, age, and disability.

Amidst serious allegations of workplace discrimination by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the largest garment manufacturer in Saipan, L&T Group of Companies Ltd. has agreed to pay $1.7 million dollars to avoid further litigation . Saipan is the largest island and the capital of the United States Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in the Pacific Ocean.

L&T has been accused of numerous acts of discrimination against their employees, including but not limited to firing pregnant employees and replacing them with women who are not, as well as singling out company employees that are not Chinese and forcing them to socialize, work, and eat in designated segregated areas.

The claims brought by the EEOC were filed in US District Court for the Northern Mariana Island and will provide injunctive relief to those who have fallen victim to the Defendant’s acts of age, national origin, and pregnancy discrimination.

Recently, Mayor Michael Bloomberg was deposed in a class-action discrimination lawsuit. Bloomberg L.P. is the defendant in a class action suit alleging gender discrimination and bias. Previously, the suit only involved four female employees who were demoted or had their pay cut after announcing their maternity leave. Four women were the subject of a previous EEOC complaint brought in New Jersey, where a similar bias suit was dismissed. However, this action has been brought by the EEOC in the Southern District of New York. In addition, the EEOC identified another 450 women with similar complaints related to their maternity leave.

In the EEOC complaint, the women allege that they were replaced by junior-level male employees when on maternity leave. Also, once they returned from maternity leave, they would not resume previous high-level positions, instead being placed into entry-level jobs. Other managers would exclude these women from management meetings as well as stating “You don’t want to be here” and that these women were “not committed”. This pattern of discrimination was especially worse for women with multiple children, as supervisors would be openly hostile to women with multiple maternity leaves. It is expected that the case will proceed past depositions in the fall.

Governor David Patterson recently signed into law new legislation amending the New York State Human Rights Law to include protection against employment discrimination for victims of domestic violence. The law, which mirrors a similar provision that New York City created in 2001, prohibits employers from discriminating against employees in compensation or other terms of their employment, or from refusing to hire or terminating someone because they are a victim of domestic violence

For purposes of the new law, a domestic violence victim is classified as someone who has been victim to a family offense under section 812(1) of the Family Court Act. This includes harassment, stalking, menacing, criminal mischief and disorderly conduct .

The law aims to prevent employment discrimination from occurring against victims of domestic violence who often need time off of work to go to court and to meet with police, attorneys or counselors. Additionally, victims of domestic violence need their jobs as a way of reaching independence from their abuser.

The amendment to the law adds an individual’s status as a victim of domestic violence to other areas protected from discrimination including age discrimination, racial discrimination, religious discrimination, gender discrimination, national origin discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination or military status discrimination. Complaints about employment discrimination can be brought to the state Division of Human Rights or can be filed directly with the courts.