New York Employment Lawyer Blog

A recently-aired segment of ABC’s “What Would You Do” confronted the issue and reality of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. The program placed actors, posing as a manager and a pregnant employee, in a New York area diner to gauge how patrons would react to the manager treating his pregnant employee badly, belittling, harassing and humiliating her as she attempted to do her job while visibly pregnant.

Some of the things said by the manager to the pregnant employee were:

“This pregnancy is taking a toll on you and you can't get the job done!”
“This baby is causing all sorts of problems”
“You got to keep it going, we are running a business over here.”
“Step it up or I will send you home.”

In response to this reprehensible conduct, many patrons spoke out in defense of the pregnant employee, even reprimanding the manager for treating her badly. Some of the patrons even noted that the manager/actor’s conduct was not only disrespectful and wrong, but that it was also something that was against the law.

Pregnancy discrimination is something that is generally protected by human rights laws and is, therefore, an unlawful employment practice.

In our second trial in less than one month, Schwartz & Perry obtained another verdict in favor of our clients. In this matter, which was brought in Supreme Court, New York County, our office represented several former employees in an action involving their former employer. We are pleased to share this news with our readers.

Our practice focuses on all aspects of employment law, including employment discrimination and retaliation. More information is available at our website, www.schwartzandperry.com.

The law provides certain benefits to employees, including the right to be free from unlawful discrimination and the ability to collect unemployment insurance benefits. Individuals who are classified as “independent contractors” do not have such benefits. The law recognizes, however, that certain employers will classify certain workers as independent contractors in order to avoid the obligations of having an employee.

The Second Circuit, the federal appeals court for New York, has long held that the determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor focuses on the control that the company has over the “manner and means” of the worker. Even when there is a written contract that identifies the worker as an independent contractor, a court may still classify the individual as an employee. The court addressed the analysis that is to be used in the cases of Eisenberg v. Advance Relocation & Storage, Inc., 237 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) and Salamon v. Our Lady of Victory Hospital, 514 F.3d 217 (2d Cir. 2008).

Accordingly, just because a person is labeled as an independent contractor does not necessarily mean that he or she is not protected against discrimination.