New York Employment Lawyer Blog

Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, as reported in the New York Daily News, have been sued by two female employees for gender discrimination in their employment. The plaintiff's claim that men were favored and received better assignments and larger bonuses. Additionally, there is a retaliation claim as the women claim they were punished after complaining about the treatment they had suffered.

As demonstrated in this claim, the idea of a "glass ceiling" is very real. In many industries, women have been limited in their advancement and held back by a "boys club."

In a landmark case in March, 2008, The New York Supreme Court held that Geneva Corporation could successfully pierce the corporate veil of American Lending Services, LLC and decided that Mr. Williams of ALS was liable. The two corporations entered into a consulting agreement when ALS approached Geneva to secure funding for a $60-70 million Casino Project to build a new water park and casino. Geneva brought seven causes of action against ALS including breach of contact, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent inducement. The most serious allegation made by Geneva was that Mr. Williams’s failed to place $100,00 in an escrow fund. Geneva prevails in piercing the corporate veil proving that ALS exercised "complete domination" in respect to the entire transaction. Piercing the corporate veil is a unique and extreme remedy that is rarely granted by the Courts.

For the first time ever HUD has added on sexual orientation and gender identity to its ten year nationwide discrimination in-housing study. While sexual orientation is not federally recognized by HUD as a protected category, over 80 states including New York do recognize it as protected. HUD studies are conducted by having two testers apply to rent the same apartment with exactly the same qualifications other than their sexual orientation. This is an attempt by HUD to make the agency more inclusive to the LGBT community.

The EEOC decided that the NY Department of Education wrongfully terminated and discriminated against Debbie Almotaser, a principal at an Arabic-English school when she mentioned the term "intifada" and made controversial remarks to staff. Almontaser seeks reinstatement, more than $300,00 in court costs, lost wages, and damages for pain and suffering. The EEOC hopes to negotiate a settlement.

For more information, please visit the full article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gzjAmDneIMrr1xlvk0dDBuvuwF1wD9EDGFP00

In a New York Times editorial, on February 22, 2010, the discussion centered on the upcoming case to be heard by the United States Supreme Court. Increasingly, strong and meritorious employment discrimination claims are being dismissed on technicalities. For instance, not filing with the EEOC, in some jurisdictions, within 300 days. The issue in the case at hand involves firefighters challenge of the decision to divide them into groups of "qualified" and "not qualified" for the purposes of a promotion exam. However, on appeal, the firefighters lost for failure to file within the 300 day window.

Hopefully, the Court can correct this decision. Yet, the Court is not the only means. Previously, in a similar situation, Congress intervened and passed legislation, the Lily Ledbetter Act, which legislatively corrected a prior decision by The Supreme Court.

A 22 year old former employee of Babies R Us is suing the company, alleging that it failed to accommodate her severe peanut allergy. Though she was originally hired to work in the furniture department, store management subsequently ordered her to work at the cash registers, where candy containing peanuts is sold.

Management ignored her concerns, and threatened to terminate her if she did not work the cash register. When a customer who was checking out began eating a candy containing peanuts, the employee was immediately sent to the emergency room in severe anaphylactic shock. Her reaction to peanuts is so severe, she states, “I’m not able to smell it, and if I do, I could die.” Her attorney states that her allergy is so severe that it falls under the protection of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The original article containing this story can be found here