New York Employment Lawyer Blog

In this period of a recession, age discrimination complaints increased by 33% according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Older workers are finding it more difficult to be hiredor keeping jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found that it takes an average of 44.5 weeks for workers between the ages of 55 and 64 to find a new job compared 35.1 weeks for the population as a whole.

Trying to overcome age bias hurdles, older workers may edit their resumes down to mask their age and experience when they apply for jobs below their level. While this tactic may get older workers an interview, interviewing with a much younger employer may put a halt to getting the jobs. Younger managers can be intimidated by older workers with more experience and may feel they have difficulty in supervising older workers.

Additional information on this issue can be found here.

Increasing unemployment has resulted in more and more seniors struggling to make ends meet. Poverty amongst the elderly is due in part to the rising number of layoffs during the recent economic downturn. Age discrimination cases have been on the rise as well.

Poverty amongst the elderly is a significant problem in the United States today. The AARP reported that nearly 10% of adults aged 65 and older live in poverty. Additionally, nearly 4 million older Americans do not have enough money to pay for their basic needs.

The elderly poverty problem has been compounded by the fact that many seniors are unaware of benefits available to them. Many programs exist which offer assistance for food, rent, and utility bills. Greater outreach will help struggling seniors take advantage of these needed services.

Age discrimination is one of the most prevalent forms of discrimination in today’s workforce. As the recession drags on, older workers are the most at-risk demographic for being laid off or fired. Companies across America are viciously and unlawfully forcing out older, more experienced workers and replacing them with younger, less experienced workers.

The AARP reported that from 2001 to 2009 the number of unemployed workers age 55 and older shockingly increased by 331%. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) stated that the number of age discrimination charges have jumped by 29% since 2007. The EEOC also reported that an astounding 60% of people age 45 - 74 have experienced or observed age discrimination in the workforce.

With these statistics, it’s undeniable that age discrimination is the most rampant form of discrimination in today’s workforce, and as the recession wreaks havoc on our economy, these statistics will likely increase.

This past week, after six years of various lawsuits regarding employment discrimination at the hand of Atlanta homebuilder John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods Inc, the remaining victims of the alleged sex and race discrimination finally received some closure.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled with John Wieland Homes for $378,500 and an agreement that the company, within six years, will hire at least ten African Americans and women and place them in management positions. Despite claiming that his company consistently maintains a commitment to equal opportunity and never engaged in any of the alleged discriminatory acts, Wieland is also now forced to implement nondiscriminatory hiring and training practices including targeted recruitment and advertising.

The biggest question now is whether or not the settlement is sufficient enough in deterring such conduct.

The over $250 million award to the victims of gender discrimination in the case against Novartis has brought national attention to the multiple types of gender bias in the workplace. The plaintiffs were subject to discrimination based on their gender, pregnancy and motherhood. Cases such as this and the class action against Walmart have shed new light on the prevalence of wage gaps in American companies, many of which have received praise for being great places for women to work.

Many law firms and other organizations have already noticed a rise in complaints from women who are ready to speak out about unequal pay and discriminatory treatment in the workplace. Additionally, lawyers are more willing to take on cases based in family responsibility and motherhood discrimination with these new precedents.

The complete article can be found here.

Wal-Mart retained a law firm to investigate its liability if a sexual discrimination suit were to be filed against them. When the firm finished, they found that there were vast differences between genders in terms of pay rates and promotions. To remedy this, the firm advised Wal-Mart to immediately create specific goals and openings for those in minority groups as well as for women.

Six years later, seven women filed one of the largest gender discrimination class action suits in history against the retailer. The claim described general discrimination in pay and promotions, just as Wal-Mart had previously been warned. Wal-Mart has denied any discrimination and believes that the suit should not be a class action, but should be tried individually for each plaintiff.

New York’s local news station WPIX has recently made its own news. Former news director Karen Scott, 60 years-old, filed an age discrimination lawsuit in Manhattan federal court against WPIX. Ms. Scott was terminated by WPIX in August 2009 and believes that the decision was based solely on her age.

The suit claims the station had an ageist attitude instilled by a former general manager at the station. The attitude is reflected in the terminations of Sal Marchiano and Kaity Tong, and the demotion of Marvin Scott. At age 66, Sal Marchiano, WPIX’s former sportscaster, was forced into retirement in 2008. Kaity Tong, at 59 years-old, was also forced to quit when WPIX bombarded her with more work. The station’s 72-year-old veteran reporter Marvin Scott’s (no relation to Karen Scott) role was greatly reduced. Ms. Scott’s replacement William Carrey is approximately 10 years younger.

More information is available here.

Many teens face sexual harassment at jobs, such as restaurants, retail outlets and ski resorts. But teens frequently fail to report these incidents, for a number of reasons. Some teens may be afraid to pursue action, or are unaware of their legal rights. Others don’t report harassment because they are only working on a temporary basis and know they will be leaving the job in a short while, anyway. Teens sometimes feel embarrassed about the incidents or don’t want to make trouble at one of their first jobs.

Some teens have filed lawsuits, some against major companies such as Burger King, Starbucks and McDonald's. As teens begin jobs over the summer, government officials and teen advocates are working to educate teens as to what constitutes sexual harassment and how to report it.

More information on this issue can be found here.

Brian Reid sued Google in 2004 for age discrimination and claims that when he was fired for being a poor “cultural fit” that these words were actually the internet giants code words for ‘older worker.’ Throughout Reid’s employment with Google, his co-workers referred to Reid as an “old fuddy duddy,” “old guy.” Moreover, Google’s high management referred to Reid as “fuzzy,” “lethargic,” and once even commented that Reid’s ideas were “too old to matter.”

Google hired Reid in 2002, when Reid was 50, as the Director of Operations and Engineering and had consistent performance reviews, but Reid was demoted after two years to a position that had no budget or staff and was quickly fired four months later. Reid claims that he was fired because of his age, however, Google argues that Reid’s position was eliminated and that there were no other positions for which Reid was qualified.

Google contested the California’s appeals court 2007 decision, which held that Reid had presented sufficient evidence of age discrimination and is entitled to a trial before a jury, stating that no one in a position of authority over Reid’s employment made any discriminatory remarks to Reid. However, Reid argues that the remarks illustrated Google’s corporate atmosphere and that a jury should determine whether Reid’s termination was a discriminatory act. California’s high court is issuing a decision in 90 days as to whether the case should go before a jury.

News articles related to this case can be found here, here, and here.

Debrahlee Lorenzana, a former Citibank employee, is suing the company because it allegedly fired Ms. Lorenzana for being "too sexy." Though this may not be a quintessential case of sex discrimination, it epitomizes one of the greater issues in today’s office culture: the tension between one’s business performance and one’s physical attributes that cannot be controlled. An individual can alter the clothes they wear, but when a woman is allegedly fired for wearing professional pencil skirts and non-revealing turtleneck sweaters it may become a question of discriminatory practice.

This case will be heard before an arbitration panel. Citibank claims that the lawsuit is completely without merit and highlights their company’s commitment to diversity. Ms. Lorenzana strongly disagrees.

The recent jury verdict in the gender discrimination suit against Novartis should remind Congress that there is more work to be done to eradicate the unfair treatment of women in employment. The gender disparities in pay at Novartis were hardly unique; nationally, women earn, on average, 78 cents for every dollar earned by men performing substantially the same work.

This case should send a timely message to the Senate of the necessity of their approval of the Paycheck Fairness Act, a measure which would help close the pay gap by, among other things, ensuring that courts require employees to show that wage disparities are job-related rather than sex-based.

The New York Times recently wrote an editorial on the matter which can be found here.