New York Employment Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a federal lawsuit in the southern District of Ohio against New York based JP-Morgan Chase Bank alleging the bank sexually discriminated against women and fired one after she complained about their practices at an office in Colombus, Ohio.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Aimee Doneyhue was terminated from her job in 2007 in retaliation for complaining about sexually discriminatory practices to management because of the “sexually hostile work environment which was created, fostered, and maintained by male supervisors.” The complaint also alleges that JP-Morgan did not take proper action to correct the harassment and made it much more difficult for women to earn commission and bonuses.

The complaint seeks back pay, punitive damages, and an end to all discriminatory practices on the basis of gender. JP-Morgan spokesperson declined to comment.

A former employee at the Verizon facility in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania alleged that her employment was terminated after she complained of discrimination. The former employee complained about sexually offensive graffiti and materials in Verizon work areas and trucks. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission explained that after complaining to management, the employee was subjected to retaliatory harassment, including the hanging of a plastic rat from the ceiling. The EEOC went on to charge that Verizon management knew of the harassment and did nothing to stop it. Instead, the employee was fired for her complaints.

Verizon maintains that an investigation took place but nothing was discovered to substantiate the allegations. Verizon further contended that the company acted appropriately and the size of the settlement recognized that the company did nothing wrong. Verizon has agreed to provide training to its employees at the Bryn Mawr facility on TitleVII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it illegal to retaliate against someone who complains about employment discrimination.

Thirteen former waiters at the “old” Yankee Stadium buffets sued the New York Yankees today for age discrimination. The waiters, ranging in age from 66 to 80 were laid off when the team moved to its new stadium earlier this year. The complaint, filed in the New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleges that the waiters were fired in favor of younger, cheaper help and told their services were no longer needed because the new ballpark did not have buffet restaurants. However, the new stadium has two buffet restaurants.

Pedro Valdes, one of the 13 claimants, says the Yankees asked him, “what could someone 73 years old” offer the team. The claimants are requesting their jobs back and $28,000 in back pay for the season they missed. The Yankees had no comment on the pending suit, but pointed out that a number of senior citizens work at the new stadium, including nine people who are in their 80s.

In handing down its ruling in Brown v. J. Kaz Inc. d/b/a Craftmatic of Pittsburgh the Third Circuit has joined First, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits in ruling that an independent contractor can bring an employment discrimination action under §1981 of the Civil Rights Act. In Brown, the plaintiff was treated unfairly because of his race, but his claims were dismissed in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania because he was an independent contractor, instead of a “normal employee.”

The plaintiff also brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, but the Circuit Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that those claims could not be advanced by an independent contractor.

In employment discrimination cases, an employer will typically seek summary judgment against the employee’s claim. By this motion, the employer asks the court to find that, based on the facts presented, no jury could find that discrimination occurred. This is considered “drastic” relief and a court, in reviewing such a motion, must take the facts in the light most favorable to the employee, who is the plaintiff.

The Second Circuit Court of appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in a race discrimination case. In Aulicino v. New York City Dept. of Homeless Services, 2009 WL 2854028 (2d Cir. Sept. 8, 2009), the plaintiff alleged a hostile environment based on race discrimination, including references to him as a “white fuck.” The plaintiff pointed to two different sets of derogatory comments by two different people during two different times, with a period of about three years in between. The lower court granted summary judgment, holding that no jury could find a hostile environment, given the five years of time between the first comment and the last comment.

The appellate court, the Second Circuit, reversed summary judgment, finding that, in order to view the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the lower court “should have discounted from its analysis, if not altogether disregarded, the intervening period between comments by one supervisor and another.” The court, therefore, addressed not the facts of the case, but the decision-making of the court, noting that even the analysis that a court uses must be favorable to the plaintiff.

Computer manufacturer Dell, Inc. will pay $9.1 million to settle a class action suit based on gender discrimination.

The suit was initiated in 2008 by Jill Hubley, a former employee of Dell’s Human Resources Department, claiming that the Round Rock, Texas computer maker refused to promote her due to her gender. The suit was filed in federal court and when a second employee, Laura Guenther, joined the suit also alleging gender discrimination it was granted class action status.

The suit alleges that Dell, since 2003, had failed to adequately promote women in the same ratio as it had men. It further alleges that women had less access to training, were not compensated similarly to men, were laid off more and given unfavorable job assignments.

Dell admitted no fault in the settlement but agreed to pay $5.6 million to all women employed in certain positions from 2007 - 2008 in order to compensate for the alleged gender discrimination. An additional $3.5 million will be used to raise the salaries of its current female employees.