According to the lead lawyer of the class, Franklin Azar, the corporation faces at least five more such wage-and-hour suits.
The bill, proposed by Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein, would propose three main changes to the existing regulations on jury selection. First, judges would not be allowed to permit jurors who have a bias, but claim that they will serve in an unbiased manner to be accepted as jurors. The new rules also permit plaintiffs to appeal immediately, even without waiting for the outcome of a trial. Finally, the new rules allow judges to set time limits on the selection of jurors.
While these rules, at first, seem to be in the best interests of all parties concerned, there exists some dissent. New York City Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo and Judge Ann Pfau are dismayed by the changes, saying that the rules are too time consuming and restrictive. Instead of improving the existing system, Judge Pfau claims, the rules would in fact slow the system down, making it even less appealing to prospective jurors.
As a result of these attributes, Section 1981 may be used more frequently and can now be applied to retaliation cases. If you believe that you were discriminated against at your job or retaliated against when you complained, please feel free to contact us for an initial free consultation at which we would be pleased to discuss your issues with you.
The plaintiffs are accusing their former legal counsel of authorizing their practice of “late trading.” This advice prompted an investigation from former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer which ultimately led to a $36 million penalty for the former hedge fund, a $750,000 fine for each partner, as well as a ban from the industry.
The plaintiffs also claim legal malpractice, asserting that their legal representation pushed to settle on one occasion when the correct course of action was a defense.
The defense states that they have waivers from their clients for all actions taken and, therefore, are relieved of all responsibility.
The plaintiff, a former Nationwide Series inspector, alleges atrocious behavior from her co-workers, alleging that they called her a “Nappy-Headed Ho,” made repeated references to the Ku Klux Klan, and stating that two went as far as exposing themselves to her. NASCAR has suspended the two accused employees without explanation.
The plaintiff called NASCAR an “old boys club” and went to great lengths in describing the insular nature of the company. “They need to stop hiring ignorant sisters, cousins and uncles [of theirs] and start hiring qualified, educated people to work their billion-dollar business,” she said in an interview.
NASCAR has responded, saying that the plaintiff never filed a complaint, and therefore could not blame NASCAR for not being able to stop the behavior. The CEO of NASCAR said that he had not been aware of the situation and the claims would be immediately investigated.
The fact is, racial, sexual, and gender discrimination is never to be tolerated. If you feel as if you have been subject to any of these types of unfair treatment, please feel free to contact us for an initial consultation without charge at which time we would be pleased to discuss your issue.
The Republican contender, John McCain, and Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, have begun to exchange barbs over the John McCain’s age. The McCain camp alludes to the fact that Obama may be too young, calling him inexperienced. In return, the Obama campaign has suggested that Mr. McCain may be “confused,” or “has lost his bearings.”
Schwartz & Perry’s Managing Partner, Murray Schwartz, commented on the issue in the June 18th edition of the New York Sun, stating “Age discrimination is an insidious, egregious disease. Age should not be a factor in any employment decision that’s made,” he continued. “Not in hiring. Not in firing.”
Mr. Schwartz, while refraining from making any political observations, continued, saying “If someone is going to be ignored as a viable candidate because of age, besides it violating the law, it would be shameful. Experience is a major component of everything.”
Schwartz & Perry specializes in age discrimination suits. If you feel that you have been treated in an unjust manner as a result of your age, please feel free to contact us for a free consultation.
The text of the article can be found at the following link: http://www.nysun.com/opinion/john-lalanne-mccain/80217/.
The case, which was decided in a 7 to 1 ruling, concerned two dozen workers from a New York federal research laboratory. When the federal government required that the laboratory reduce its workforce, the contractor who ran the lab fired thirty one employees, of whom all but one were over forty.
The plaintiff contended that the language used in the Age Discrimination section of the Employment Act of 1967 put the burden of an age discrimination suit on the employer, rather than on the employee. Justice David H. Souter agreed with the argument, asserting that the employer must provide “reasonable factors other than age” to protect from liability.
This decision is a significant step in protecting older employees from being discriminated against. If you feel that you may have been unfairly treated because of your age, please feel free to contact us for an initial consultation at no cost.
The act is the first federal law of its kind to tackle genetic heritage as a form of discrimination. GINA specifically prohibits employers from firing, refusing to hire, or otherwise discriminate against employees on the grounds of an individual’s genetic information.
The plaintiffs’ complaint is based upon their argument that the actions taken broke the fiduciary duty among partners.
There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for termination. The law provides protection for employees who are wrongfully terminated due to such factors as race, gender, age, or national origin.
If you feel you have been terminated for an illegitimate reason such as those listed above, feel free to contact us for a free consultation.
The two sides differ on their interpretation of the Church’s domain. The plaintiff believes that she was fired for a purely secular reason; the archdiocese believes the case lies within the Church’s jurisdiction and therefore not subject to the courts’ ruling.
In both cases, the plaintiff appealed her alleged unfair termination, claiming that the judges defamed her in their statements, making unfair decisions, thereby damaging her reputation.
The presiding federal judge threw both cases out, calling the recent libel action “frivolous.”
In a recent National Law Journal article, the attorney discussed, what he believed was the key reason for the favorable decision. This was a decision in which a judge acquitted all three officers of all charges largely based on, what the judge believed, was the dubious credibility of the witnesses. As this criminal case demonstrates, the credibility of both parties and witnesses is an essential element for a positive result both in criminal and civil matters.
In the decision, the Judges noted that the PDA covers “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions,” and that abortion qualifies as one such related condition. The decision also emphasized the fact that the plain language of the PDA, the legislative history of the Act, and the EEOC guidelines which all support their conclusion that an employer may not discriminate against a female employee because she has had an abortion.
]]>In the past, struggling employers looking to shrink their workforce could look first at pregnant women or new mothers without fear of repercussion. However, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 now prohibits an employer from firing, refusing to hire, or denying a promotion to a worker on the basis of pregnancy. This does not translate into special treatment for pregnant workers; instead, it merely removes pregnancy from the realm of factors to be considered in making employment decisions.
Based upon the recent surge of discrimination claims, it appears that pregnant women may be even more vulnerable than before in today’s job market.
]]>