New York Employment Lawyer Blog

When an employer decides that relocating their company is a good business decision, employees are faced with the ultimatum - move with the company or loose your job. On it’s face, relocation does not seem discriminatory, but as employers cut back on relocation assistance it makes it extremely difficult for some groups of people to move with the company. Older employees and employees who do not make a lot of money are often the most adversely effected by relocations.

An employer has no legal obligation to pay for an employee’s relocation expenses. Employers can choose to pay for relocating employees with key skill sets, but choose not to provide any assistance to other employees and this is not considered discriminatory. Employees may have to endure the entire cost of relocating, which could mean short selling their homes and increasing their debts in order to keep their jobs.

Even though entire groups or departments may be relocated to another office, the employees who are most able to make the transition tend to be younger, financially stable people. Older employees who have spent their lives raising families in a particular area are less inclined to relocate because of the strong ties they have to their community. Familial connections or a spouses’ job may make relocating very difficult for many older individuals.

Employees may be also hesitant to move to a new place, especially if there is a dramatic difference in the cost of living. If an employer is not offering relocation assistance, the shock of pricing differences can seem staggering. This makes it extremely difficult for older employees who are saving for retirement to bear the costs of relocation. Employees approaching retirement have to make sure they are financially prepared for the future and often cannot budget in such a drastic change in their living situation. Even though employment relocation may disproportionately effect older employees, as long as the relocation did not specifically target older people, relocation may be considered a legitimate business decision and the courts may be reluctant to intervene in those circumstances.

MSNBC recently had a feature on this topic, as well as additional information.

According to a recent New York Times article, the number of employment discrimination lawsuits filed by New York City employees has been increasing. In comparing the first two terms of the Bloomberg administration with the first two terms of the Giuliani administration, the article states that employment discrimination cases against New York City have increased by 12 percent.

Additionally, the article states that New York City has opted to settle many of its employment discrimination cases rather than defend them in court. The article states that from 2002 to 2009, the city paid over $69 million to settle over 400 employment discrimination cases.

According to the article, “in one six-week period from late 2008 to early 2009, the city paid $300,000 to settle a claim from a male police officer who alleged that his female supervisor had sexually harassed him; $225,000 to settle a sexual harassment claim from a secretary at the Department for the Aging; and a total of $316,500 in seven settlements for grievances stemming from demotions or alleging racial bias and age discrimination.”

The article states that according to Michael A. Cardozo, New York City’s Corporation Counsel, the recent increase in employment discrimination claims could be a result of our “ailing economy, as well as a growing willingness among workers to speak out and seek legal redress.”

The article further notes that New York City’s Equal Employment Practices Commission, which monitors and evaluates the employment practices of city agencies, has lost about half of its auditors, and may be another reason employment discrimination claims against New York City are rising.

Although employment discrimination claims in New York City have increased, the article states that many workplaces have actually eliminated discrimination by enacting special training programs aimed at promoting equal opportunities. The article points out that many workplaces implemented these programs as a result of the nation’s change to its employment discrimination laws in the early 1990’s, which made it easier for workers to bring employment discrimination actions based on race, age, gender, and other protected reasons.

This New York Times article contains additional information as well as the full report.